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 have no experience in this area, so I may be missing something.

Are you saying that a risk assessment for an outing for a person with severe LD only considers risk to themselves and not to others (including members of the public or children)?

Even if that were the case, I still struggle to understand how something with this level of inherent risk would be signed off in the first place. Hopefully it leads to some reflection on how these decisions are assessed.

Reading Between the lines he is severely autistic. Is non verbal and registered as having a severe learning disability (and probably challenging behaviour given the 2-1 care ratio).

My guess would be that there was a lot of people, lots of noise, and or the child themselves was making a noise that tipped him over the edge, the carers possibly could have picked up that he was getting agitated BUT sometimes it’s not easy to miss.

I was stood in Marks & Spencer’s cafe once with a client and another member of staff… just innocently waiting in line to get lunch, he was getting a little impatient and we calmed him down telling him we were getting him some chips… well a few seconds later he punched me in the face! … never seen a queue disappear so quickly! 🤣

This man for some reason felt he needed to throw the little child away from himself.. maybe the child was touching him, or crying , or someone else was pushing against him…. That would be my guess! the question is ‘was there intent?!’…. And no I don’t think there would have been, he’s unlikely to have understanding of consequences, he just acted out to stop whatever was happening, a bit like a child throwing something in temper …

Its tragic what happened but the man isn’t responsible for his actions and needs better monitoring.

Yhe zoo needs higher barriers!!!

Can’t believe the last couple of posters. The man “moved” the child. Now who is making up absolute crap? He threw them over the barrier! Over a barrier. That is not “moving” a person. The minimising of the previous poster - given that they say they are a carer - is very concerning.

Is it possible that the child wanted to see better and he thought he was helping? And it went wrong? I understand the child was on a raised area. It just seems a very extreme thing to do even for a severely autistic person. Also must have happened very quickly so maybe looked like he was just lifting the child up higher

These leaps are bizarre. I don’t understand why people feel the need to claim he was only a danger to himself not others, based on literally nothing to confirm that, or that he didn’t lift and throw the child, merely pushed or knocked him, despite that being physically impossible due to the set up.
Why downplay the incident?

Errm, wouldn’t be the case in anyone I know with similar need.

They can be, just by nature, very selfish.

I’m not sure they generally have the understanding to be altruistic and try to help without encouragement that he wouldn’t get from a 3 year old.

They are leaps... just like the ones from people who think he specifically picked the crocodile enclosure and specifically picked a small child.

All speculation.

I was replying to someone who suggested there was definitely intent involved and it was calculated to specifically be in that particular enclosure.

So if the speculation that it could have been something else is potentially downplaying, that is because the other option is potentially overplaying.

I was stood in Marks & Spencer’s cafe once with a client and another member of staff… just innocently waiting in line to get lunch, he was getting a little impatient and we calmed him down telling him we were getting him some chips… well a few seconds later he punched me in the face! … never seen a queue disappear so quickly! 🤣

In the context of this thread I find the last line (and accompanying emoji) quite chilling. I understand that in your role you must become desensitised but to find humour in being punched in the face by your client doesn't suggest that carers are taking the risks posed seriously.

Not only do I find it interesting that the perpetrator chose a crocodile enclosure rather than a lesser harmful species, but, come to think of it, I find it very interesting that the perpetrator chose a child to victimize, rather than an adult.

Yeah, it doesn't quite strike me as 'had absolutely no idea what he was doing'.

Very informed.

People who are cognitively impaired do know what they can and can’t pick up. You know, sort of like young children do.

I don’t think they’d try and move a bus, for example.

The whole case is speculation at this point. You can only look at what we know.

What we know is a man picked up a baby and threw him into a crocodile enclosure. And that is is reportedly the man had mental disabilities of some kind.

I'm also curious how many mothers here would rush to defend him, the care system, or the current protocols had it been their baby they helplessly watch being launched into an enclosure and mauled by crocodiles.

How far have we come that'll we'll believe literally anything? Diminished responsibly? Absolutely possible and believable. Had no clue whatsoever what he was doing? Nah.

How did you come to that conclusion? Because if that were the case, he would have been fit for interview.

Oh, in some cases absolutely.

Where the mental impairment is that severe? No, not at all.

Which is absolutely why some, who commit these acts, sometimes do it on adults - they aren't fully capable of comprehending what the outcome may be.

Are you telling me that just because someone may be, for example, non verbal, they don't have any possible comprehension of potential outcomes?

I think there is indeed some misinformation here.

It also never stated whether they'd ever be unfit for interview. Just as it stands, currently, they are. I can absolutely believe someone who's been arrested, taking to a police station for questioning, could be unfit for interview, but not without comprehension.

Again, speculation.

As for being able to foresee what they are able to pick up - yes, foresight and awareness of physical limitations would suggest some awareness, wouldn't it?

I don’t understand why you are stuck on this point of intent. Are you implying he’s slyly pretending to be more disabled than he is - but secretly understands actions and consequences in the same way as anyone else?

At a certain level of need people are having such a different experience to people without disabilities that it’s completely pointless trying to assign motives to them.

We don’t know anything about this man’s level of need except that he was unfit for interview, which suggests it’s high.

It sounds like you have already decided what happened anyway.

I bet she is one of the people commenting on the various news articles on FB about him "playing the mental health card"

I'm saying that we shouldn't rush to argue against a very serious inquiry and re-standardization of current risk assessments and care standards, almost as if the opinion is 'well they can't help it, they have disabilities, we didn't know so until something happens...'.

No. I would prefer helpless babies weren't picked up and thrown to be mauled by crocodiles - no excuses.

I would prefer that the public weren't subjected to a preventable risk (ie - these people are already under a care system!!) because the needs of one vulnerable group, ie to go to a zoo, trump another's need to be safe.

Just excuses for a ridiculous situation that should never have happened. It is entirely preventable.

Nobody needs to - seems plenty of people are doing it for them.

You do you.

I would rather not see such cruel, preventable acts happen again to helpless babies, or anyone.

Somebody seriously failed here. A bit like the situation posted upthread about the carer punched in the face by a client - and what if he had chosen to do it to a member of the public, or a child? It's absolutely not funny.

We also know that he was deemed unfit for interview which I believe isn't taken lightly.

I've had a child in critical condition with an investigation involved. I know what that feels like. Did I want the person responsible's head on a stick? Of course I did but obviously, family of loved ones don't get to make those decisions for good reason.

It quite rightly makes me angry to read people harp on about the rights (for quality of life reasons) of people to go to places where they are a risk to others (ie - the zoo, around children etc) and not focus on the fact that a baby was in serious, critical condition whom has a right to a quality of life.

Even if baby pulls through, recovery from these types of injuries is likely to painful, they are likely to suffer a lot, and need ongoing medical care. Not to mention the impact on the parents, and the witnesses of this event.

One persons right to be among vulnerable people, has had a severe and lasting consequence on most importantly, a little child, but also a much wider group in addition.

You can think I'm an arsehole all you want - I don't care. One persons needs for enrichment doesn't trump the needs of a larger group of people to be safe. And I'll absolutely stand firmly by that.

'Maybe he had no prior' - absolutely, and in that case, the current standards of care and assessment are completely inadequate.

Your first paragraph is word salad, obviously written by someone trying to sound like they understand a system they are completely clueless about.

Can you state clearly what you actually want to happen? It sounds like you don’t want people with learning disabilities to leave their accommodation ever, is that correct? Just trying to understand what argument you are actually making here.

This thread was started about the man, not the child so of course in the context of the thread, the majority of responses are going to be aimed towards the man and what should happen as it is simply answering the thread.

If a thread was started focusing on the child then obviously the focus on the thread would be on him.

That's a really great argument that completely bypassed my very clear point that a persons needs for enrichment should not override a wider groups needs for safety.

Is there not a line after 'never leaving accommodation' but before 'placed in situations they can attack children', or has that not occurred to you? With your claim of being unable to comprehend my post, I'm guessing it's probably the latter.