AIBU to think a man accused of throwing a child into a crocodile enclosure should not get bail?

[YourKeenOliveNewt]

Aibu to think the man who threw an unknown 3 year old into a crocodile enclosure shouldn't be out on bail?

If anyone could provide any insight into the reasoning behind why was granted bail I would be very interested to hear it.

AIBU: He's a danger to society
AINBU: Innocent until proven guilty

When I take my toddler somewhere busy, I do a quick risk assessment in my head. What if he runs off? Is there a road nearby? Do I need a harness? He's never run away from me, but I still think about what could happen and how to reduce the risk.

The same principle applies here. If someone has the mental capacity of a toddler but the strength of an adult man, surely part of the risk assessment should be: what if they become distressed? Could they unintentionally hurt someone? Is it sensible for them to be in close proximity to vulnerable children or dangerous animals?

That's not treating them as lesser members of society. It's just recognising that risk assessments exist to consider what might happen, not just what has happened before.

The injured child should also have the same privacy.

I don’t think anybody has said that all people with learning disabilities shouldn’t be allowed out in the community. Simply that some people are a danger to others. If this chap could move, pick up a child, and throw the child into a crocodile pit, whilst his two carers were present then someone did not assess the risk that he posed properly. It will all come out eventually and “lessons will be learnt”, although they won’t be, because they never really are learnt, because every incident is unique and services, although spending thousands, remain inadequate.

But only the child has been violently assaulted and is suffering. Yet people are bending over backwards to make excuses for the man.

Oh I think we do have a right to know. If it is incompetence, crap risk assessments whatever we have every right to know how and why this happened.

Well yes. But I assume his parents are fine with the information about his injuries being made public. It is not like anyone was named anyway. Just sex and age.

Not whilst there is still an investigation.

Please point out where people are making excuses?
They are not they are explaiing how a person who might have significant cognitive impairment would lack the capacity to understand how their actions impact others.

It's just not a good enough term.

I understand that it's the accepted term - but it's not fit for purpose.

It's a bit like saying that 'you're innocent until proved guilty' - well, no, if you were really deemed innocent you wouldn't be on trial - you're under suspicion at the very least. What is meant is 'the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, not on the defendant to prove they didn't do it'.

Words matter, especially where the law is concerned.

Someone who can (or is likely to) attack and kill another person shouldn't be described as 'vulnerable'. Disturbed, not responsible for their actions, mentally impaired - sure, but not vulnerable.

Yes - but that's the point I'm making. We have some control, we think, over who we know and who we associate with. So when we read about a tragedy in which say, a parent has killed a child, we are horrified but don't feel that our children are in more danger as a result.

But a random attack by a stranger could, by definition, happen to any of us.

Someone with LD is vulnerable. It does not matter what they have or have not done, they are a vulnerable person. It has nothing to do with law or crime etc.
They are disabled, and therefor vulnerable. People that are not vulnerable don't tend to need carers when they go out, or live in supported housing or in specialist homes. ... and they don't stop being vulnerable because they have done something awful.

That’s not true, the little boy was attacked by at least one of the crocodiles. It’s a miracle he isn’t dead

Its not the accepred term as there us a big difference between learning difficulties and learning disabillities
A learning difficulty is somrtjing thst affects your ability yo learn but not normslly your IQ whereas a learnig disabillity affects everything and can range from mild to
Profound.

I@m going to be completely honest, and I'm sorry if this is offensive to pps.

There is a man (probably in his 30s) who is often in my local park with his carer. I would guess that he may be autistic and non-verbal from what I've seen, but I'm not a psychiatrist. He watches the lake, rocking vigorously from one foot to another and growls loudly.

This poor man may be completely benign but he is big and burly (over 6 ft) and now I think of it in response to this case - his carer is usually some distance away and disengaged (on phone).

I honestly would give him a swerve as a result of what's just happened. It didn't really occur to me before. I'm sorry - I know I may be being unfair but it's the combination of a big, powerful man and what seems to be pent-up emotion being expressed. It may be enjoyment he's expressing - I hope so - but it's unnerving nevertheless.

Yes,I see your point, thank you - but I still think there could be a better term!

Yes I know. See my previous post.

Ignore this i misunderstood what you were saying.

Thats understsndable though
A large man making loud noises is going to appear intimidating
To others even ehen in reality he is far more vulnerable to most.

once again it does not matter why he needed the
carers. They were there to help and support him and, admittedly probably not explicitly called out in their job description, prevent him from hurling a random three year old over a fence into a crocodile enclosure on a whim.

I’m not sure that’s right, it’s now being reported he has a broken arm and pelvis, so it may have been misinformation. It could be he was just hurt in the fall and that’s why the owners wife was able to go and get him out.

Again, wtf?

He was thrown into a crocodile pit. He could have been mutilated or devoured. The fact that he was rescued in the nick of time is thanks to the bravery of the owner.

Demonising all LD people or suggesting they’re all locked up/carers prosecuted is all unhelpful, BUT minimising this incident is very insensitive at best and at worst displays a very worrying and aggressive bent towards prioritising the rights of the dangerous over public safety, nay the safety of small, easily hefted children.

Surely someone has to be held responsible? If not the perpetrator, than the carers in charge of him?

Someone with such special needs that they are capable of throwing a child into a crocodile pit probably needs to be in secure accommodation. But perhaps he is and this was a rare treat, taking him to the zoo. The problem is with his carers who should have been hyper-vigilant. But I do not know the details so can really not speculate beyond this.
However, sentencing by outraged public vote is never a good idea.

If someone has been negligent then yes of course. If the carers were not actively supervising, if the man was capable of knowing his actions were harmful, if a risk assessment should have identified from past behaviours that the man was a danger to others. I honestly don’t think that any reasonable risk assessment would have factored in the possibility of the care recipient throwing a child into an animal enclosure, I just don’t think that would have crossed anyone’s mind as a reasonably foreseeable event.

IF he had no prior history of erratic behaviour towards members of the public and IF he does not have capacity to have known what he was doing and IF the carers were suitably attentive then it is POSSIBLE that this was an unforeseeable and incredible unfortunate event that no-one carries blame for.

I can see the point about vulnerability. The trouble is that Mr. Calocane could be described as vulnerable but he murdered 3 people one evening and injured 3 others. He needs supervised accommodation from which he cannot escape. Not sure about the crocodile man, however.