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

There’s no charge. He hasn’t been charged.

That's a lot of assumptions though that arent proven

He may not have out witted the carers, they might have been 20 feet away or on their phones (as is currently reported).

Think of a 3 year old, in a zoo they could easily slip past you, and throw something in the lion enclosure. They might have wandered off because they could, or they might deliberately make a break for it. It might be because they chose the lion enclosure because they love the lion king, it might be that it just happens to be where you were at that time. It might be that they deliberately planned it because they wanted to see the lion roar, but it doesnt mean the three year old is able to weigh up the likely harm involved and that the item was permanently gone.

Or it could be a three year old that absolutely understood and was trying to kill a lion because they hate them

Not enough is known currently to make any assumptions about capacity and its likely not enough will ever be released to the public to do so

Who isn’t potentially dangerous?

All of us - in theory. However, someone without the capacity to understand how something might hurt another person isn’t making an informed decision. Yes, many people could, in theory, get angry and attack someone, but even if some people think it they don’t act on it, whether that’s through empathy or self-preservation or morals can vary. But someone with LDs can have limited capacity to understand what is morally wrong or how someone would be negatively affected by their actions, or how an act that seems appealing to do is actually a very bad idea.

Toddlers might not understand that either, but a tiny child is going to do far, far less harm to others than a fully grown man. They’re also limited in what they can do and easy to restrain. Even if the carers were standing right beside this man, they might have been unable to stop him grabbing the child. People near to the child were unable to stop him being grabbed and tossed into the crocodile enclosure. I suspect this man thought it was funny but that’s just speculation on my part.

So, yes, some people with LDs will have restrictions on their freedom and what they can do - and rightly so because some might have none of the internal restraints with have, none of the understanding we have, and no comprehension of how their acts will affect others.

You clearly know nothing about mental health, capacity or intent. All of which are crucial in the criminal justice system to ensuring that people are dealt with appropriately. Jailing this man would be akin to jailing a toddler. Punishment means nothing if you don’t know why you are being punished.

You’re only proving my point.

No one is suggesting he should be in prison, but a secure facility with no access to the public is surely appropriate. Would you want this man, who has proven he can be extremely dangerous and unpredictable (however unintentionally), near your family?

How do you know that ultimately he won’t end up in secure provision?

You don’t, because you can’t. That hasn’t been made even close to publicly available.

No one is suggesting he should be wandering around free either. Of course it's very likely he'll either end up in a secure facility or is already in one as per his conditional bail.

I was replying to the PP who seemed to assume that ‘locking up’ this individual could only mean prison.

Who knows whether he showed signs of being dangerous before. It wouldn’t be the first time carers ignored signs which could have prevented awful things from happening.
It’s surely unlikely that this is something that has come out of the blue

It’s not impossible, unfortunately.

My son is learning disabled, in much the same way as this man sounds.

His behaviour can be random, and sometimes he will briefly develop a new one that we then never see again.

He can be unpredictable, and his intentions are usually:

• Getting what he wants
• Getting people (usually his parents) out of the way of the thing he wants

He thinks exclusively in what works for him. If he’s thirsty, he doesn’t care whose drink is available, he just wants a drink. We obviously do prevent him from stealing drinks, but you see what I mean - hopefully.

He could develop a brand new adhoc behaviour that we’ve never seen before, and will never see again, and as the people responsible for him we do have to plan for that - where possible.

But there is every chance this man wasn’t known to be dangerous, specifically.

Yeah of course they are 🙄! As if!

I'm pretty sure that that will be looked into by any enquiry. And I'm sure that if it transpires that there had been previous incidents that could indicate that this man's risk had increased, and that it wasn't adequately addressed or recorded and staff made aware, or that staff hadn't complied with the risk management plan, that will be included in the final report.

But things do come out of the blue sometimes, either because someone encounters something new that is triggering, or because they find something triggering that didn't affect them before.

It's a puzzle isn't it?! How about a secure psychiatric unit ffs.

Calderstones the last hospital dedicated to caring for people with learning dsabillities closed down in 2024 so..

He also may not be a psychiatric patient.

No psychiatrist is taking someone’s autism away.

He may end up with secure, restrictive care, but I’d be very shocked if he ends up in a MH setting.

Unfortunatley when i was a mental health i have know patients with severe autism and learning disabillities ending up on the PICU i worked on as a last resort
It wss completely innaproriate of course and not in the best interests of the patient

That is truly awful, wildly inappropriate.

I can well believe however that some people
don't care where they go as long as they’re out of the public space.

If he has profound autism with LD and not any MH conditions then a secure psychiatric unit may still not be appropriate.

Who cares where's "appropriate" 🙄
He threw a 3 year old into a pit of crocodiles. Lock him up somewhere we he can't do that any more so kids are safe. Anywhere will do.

Genuine question: would you take your son, or be happy for carers to take him, to a venue containing dangerous animals?

I won't comment on the culpability of the man himself because we don't know enough. We don't know the extent of his disabilities, whether he understood the consequences of his actions, or even whether he intended to cause harm.

But if someone has severely impaired understanding and genuinely unpredictable behaviour, surely some thought has to be given to whether a venue containing apex predators that are not in fully secured enclosures is an appropriate environment for them. Without knowing more, that's where the biggest questions of responsibility lie for me.

Making sure he's in an appropriate care facility doesn't take away from what he did.

Thankfully, the law does care and I can also feel empathy for the boy and his family and also feel the disabled man should be in an appropriate facility at the same time. I'm not sure why some people think it is one or the other.

He has a learning disability. "Anywhere" is not appropriate for him.

...so he's the victim. not the 3 year old child?

How would prison be suitable for him?