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

It's not 'slagging off' - it's acknowledging the complexities and difficulties of caring for adults with LDs and the situations which carers find themselves in. My point was that it's a very challenging task which their carers are confronted with every day.

Are we not allowed to do that? The question might (and I think will) be very relevant to the situation which led to this very sad event in the crocodile house: the challenges of caring for such adults when they are adults, and strong and wilful ones too, in all kinds of situations.

In the case of this man, I think nearly everyone is saying he cannot possibly go back to his existing arrangements. It should mean being placed securely, possibly indefinitely (unless it can very reliably be shown in the future that there is a way he can access some parts of the community safely). It's tricky to comment because we really don't know what, if any, care failings were made. Some posters kept banging on about this man supposedly being free RIGHT NOW, even though it was repeatedly pointed out that that was nearly an impossible scenario.

Some of the problems occurred on this thread because some posters started suggesting all people with an LD and "history of violence" should be "locked up" indefinitely. They didn't define "history of violence" (is that one meltdown ever as an adult? Does it apply to milder violence like light pushing? Does it apply to people who were violent in their early teens but not anymore?). They seem to apply a much harsher standard than even to people who have capacity and have actually knowingly committed crimes (e.g. someone who planned and committed GBH would go to prison but not be locked up forever). It betrayed a real hatred and intolerance of people with learning disabilities.

It's outsiders making assumptions.

I cited the difficult experience of a close friend. Sorry if that's 'outsiders making assumptions'.

Fair enough, you are allowed to think that. Do you apply that to all people who have committed GBH against a child? Again, fair enough if you do.

It is different in my opinion if he had no capacity, and if it was care failings yhat predominantly led to this, and if it can be strongly shown that without care failings this would not have happened and he could, in the future, be supported in the community safely. If that is the case I would want to see the people who made the failings prosecuted.

The people in my life have absolutely no right to use my family circumstances to refer to my son as a bully, as part of a debate about LD people.

I would assume that the parents and caregivers of the people being referred to on this thread feel the same.

I certainly do.

My take is to be out with 2 carers he needs to have very severe learning issues or and neurodivergence.
My oldest is a adult with what I consider severe autism but not violent in any way although non verbal and can’t be on his own and he would never get 2 carers not even one to be honest as it’s so hard to get so I’m assuming this person has no mental capacity .

I'd feel the same too.

& @StartingFreshFor2026

Honestly if one of my friends was taking to MN to describe him in such awful terms, they wouldn’t be my friend for very long.

Yep.

and friends/family are very capable of making incorrect assumptions. They don't necessarily know the full picture.

Just look at all of the incorrect assumptions about people that require 2:1. My son was just at the zoo a few weeks ago with school and his 2:1 support. Though admittedly, I'm not sure if that means he'll get 2:1 support as an adult just because he has it now as a child.

Precisely, they don’t always know or understand things anywhere near as clearly.

He was an absolute turd yesterday, all day. We didn’t take him swimming because I couldn’t trust he’d behave around others, so we had a day just the 3 of us.

He was far too hot, tired, and can’t tell us either of those things. So he responded like a toddler would, tantrum and boundary pushing all day.

A “friend” would look at that and just see the behaviour. We however know, he just needed a nap and an icecream that he wouldn’t have.

It gets my back up absolutely no end when people make assumptions about children they don’t know and situations they don’t understand.

I’m not even responding to the most recent “2:1 must mean volatile” comment I’ve just seen, because I think we’ve all explained at length, that isn’t necessarily the case.

I'd say some of my family and friends don't really know the ins and outs of our situation either. We wouldn't always discuss everything about our children (e.g. toileting / changing) because we care about their dignity.

Agreed
Even close family and friends dont really get it slthough they try hard too

Same here. Especially when it comes to toileting/changing.

It would also have been very easy for whoever was organising the trip to contact the venue in advance and ask about the set up of the enclosures before taking someone with severe LD. If you're doing any kind of basic risk assessment for a day out at a place whose website prominently features crocodiles and big cats, that seems like an obvious step.

But surely it’s too difficult to know how he would behave without the care failings, and it’s too risky to take a chance?

But the risk would have been TO the client, eg could he climb/fall into the enclosure. No-one would have predicted that he might throw a child over a wall. In fact, anyone suggesting that would have been disciplined for ableism.

You're just making stuff up. Why?

That escalated a bit.

I’m not saying adults with LD shouldn’t be in public at all. I’m questioning whether someone with severe LD and very limited understanding of consequences should be taken into an unsecured enclosure containing dangerous animals.

I don’t agree with the idea that access to viewing dangerous animals is an absolute right regardless of context.

As someone who has parented small children, I’ve definitely made decisions about whether places are suitable for their stage of development and sometimes decided not to go. In the same way, if an adult has a similar level of understanding and impulse control to a very young child, then that needs to be factored into the risk assessment by those organising the visit for their own safety as well as others.

On the wider zoo ethics point, I agree there’s a separate discussion to be had about the morality of keeping certain animals in captivity, but that’s a different thread.

You didn't answer my question.

I have absolutely no idea because I don't know him.

Crocodiles in an open enclosure - why would anyone think this was a good place to take this man?

The answer is yes!

Or best he’s put in a secure psychiatric hospital. There is a place between prison and the street for people who are not in the right mind.

What about lesser violence? Like, I don't know, hitting people a few times - should everyone who's done this be detained indefinitely? Because I swear some posters were calling for people with LDs who had any "history of violence" (not specified re frequency or severity or how long ago since last incident) should be locked up indefinitely or at least very significantly restricted forever.