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

I agree with @StartingFreshFor2026 , mine wouldn’t be in there unrestrained either. He’d be on reins or we’d give it a miss.

Not because of the animals, he has form for trying to jump into any body of water. He tried to climb into a log flume water stream, and threw himself into a lake.

But that’s an informed risk assessment, and we don’t know that one was done unfortunately.

It also won’t apply to all LD, there may not have been any knowledge of risk.

I’ve been on these threads since the beginning. I think you’ll find plenty. One person even suggested that subject to further assessments he should be allowed out on trips again!

The tone of many posters is a bit of faux concern for the boy (even oh, it wasn’t too bad, he’ll survive) but so much empathy for the man as his “needs”. Also exonerating the carers “They were on their phones doing care plans” - yep, both at the same time, in the crocodile enclosure. There’s even been “Where was the boy’s mother?” or “The zoo’s barriers were too low.”

Frankly the disproportionate siding with the man is distasteful. He still committed the deed, and as such most right-minded people do not want him anywhere near the public ever again.

Literally no-one is "siding" with the man. They are simply explaining why being released on bail is not necessarily a dangerous option

I wouldn't worry, some of it is just posturing nonsense.

Screaming that a child being thrown to crocodiles is a BAD thing to happen is silly because obviously it is. "He shouldn't be allowed to WALK FREE!!! I don't want that monster on my streets tonight" / "you woke lefties just want him walking around, allowed to throw MORE children into crocodile pits!!!" Failures absolutely happen, but no one thinks this man should return to his existing care arrangements (which clearly failed).

I also don't believe anyone thinks he is actually walking the streets today, I think they're just trying to whip up a fear of people with learning disabilities in a very similar fashion to the way some people do about race (did anyone else notice some of the articles had to quickly say the man was white to avoid that happening?).

Ridiculous how some people feel the need to try to prove that they care about seriously injured and traumatised toddlers - I would have thought that was a given - and then start throwing around accusations of pearl clutching. It's like they're writing in bold ALL CAPS all the time.

I have seen anyone post that they thought that the man should just continue in his current arrangements. Can you point out any of these "plenty"?

I haven't seen the post about the child's parents, but I agree that I don't think that's fair. Parents have a reasonable expectation of safety for their children in places like zoos and 3 year olds do not usually need to be holding on to their parents at all times. That said, with the other things - perhaps they were factors? These things are nuanced and we don't really know yet.

Yep.

I've had a child in critical condition. I've been a worried parent sat in PICU with doctors telling me to prepare for the worst as he may not survive the night. I have an incredible amount of empathy for the boy and his parents, an incredible amount as I know all too well how that is going to stay with them forever.

Of course what happened was awful and the man obviously needs new care arrangements.

I’m not sure which threads you are reading, but it’s not ones I’ve seen.

If you go back through the thread you will find plenty of posters making excuses or accusing the parents and the zoo. There was even one suggesting it’s not a big deal as the child will have cool scars to show off. There are some very unreasonable people on both sides of this argument.

The website clearly shows that the zoo contains dangerous animals (crocodiles and big cats).

Whoever organised the trip should have checked in advance whether the enclosures were secured or if this was still an "unknown unknown," chosen a different venue.

I fully understand that people with LD are entitled to enrichment and not just existence, but that shouldn't come at the expense of other people's safety.

I’ve read all the threads and there are plenty of minimising posts and quite a few along the way”nothing to see here” lines. A cursory look and I found “sadly just one of those things” and “he absolutely should be allowed out and to live a life as normal as possible”.

No one is wanting the man thrown in a dungeon, let alone all those with a learning disability. That’s just hysteria from certain quarters.

But people do want to be reassured that a proven dangerous man will no longer be able to harm others. Furthermore there should be a review of whether outside care plans have a duty of care to the public, as well as the individual - carers should be able to restrain their charge if necessary. Young women taking out large men was clearly an accident waiting to happen.

Was it the case that taking him to the zoo was a spontaneous decision? It sounds like it, he was asked whether he’d like to go to the zoo and he said yes.

If it was spontaneous, that was very unwise. There should have been a proper risk assessment.

We would never just take DD1 to the zoo without planning it well in advance. Not because she’s a danger to the public but because we know that she can get overwhelmed very easily.

This man’s carers have a lot of questions to answer, and so does the care facility where he was living.

I don’t buy that there weren’t any clues that he might potentially act in a way that was a danger to himself or others when overwhelmed.

@MaturingCheeseball, why have you put inverted commas around the word ‘needs’, out of interest? (I’ve done it because my sentence would be confusing with them).

@Waitingfordoggo - is that all you have to contribute? QED.

That's all supposition. The facts are not publicly available.

Of course there will be questions to answer

If a person has never shown that they need restraining, they won’t be staffed for restraint.

We can’t assume that all LD individuals need restrictive handling, it’s only used in worst case scenarios, and if there’s no previous need for it then it won’t necessarily be planned for.

Do you not think that people should wait to be reassured that he won’t be in the general public, that certain measures have been taken?

There’s this impatience to have all of the information all of the time.

I think we should let the people responsible do their jobs, and be informed what the next steps are once they’ve been decided and become the general public’s business.

Right now, this is between the victims family, the man’s family/care providers, and the law. They’re the ones with information, and rightly so.

I know it’s supposition, I worded my post as a question after all.

The thread started with premise that he should be in prison. This means that a lot of posters will be explaining how this is an unsuitable place to put him and most of the discussion will be about the adult and not the child.

Exactly.

The thread is more about the man than the child so people are generally commenting more about the man. If the thread focused on the child then the comments would be different.

No answer to a simple question. Thought as much.

Based on the wording sounds like he has some kind of severe developmental disability. Hence they said he wasn’t even fit to be interviewed. Dunno what happens in cases like this.

If someone is found unfit to plead, which I suspect that this person will, they can't have a trial.

The court can hold "a trial of the facts" instead, to determine what actually happened, and if it's found that the defendant carried out the action in question, the judge can impose a hospital order specifying that they must be detained in a secure hospital (eg Rampton, Broadmoor) and (iirc) they can be lifelong.

Many of the people who claim to be most upset about this are clearly actually excited by it. They likely could not even admit this to themselves, but they would rather it had happened than it hadn’t, as it feeds into their pre-existing narratives.

They are all riled up and high on having a pretext for going off on one of their favourite subjects.

The idea they are motivated by “empathy”, as at least one of them has claimed, is laughable.

I agree. Or they should be placing a very close eye on him.

Excellent post!

Has there been any confirmation that the carers were young women, or is that speculation?

Genuine question because I haven't seen any information regarding the carers, other than there being two of them.