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

And the man attacked a child. We are discussing his actions and therefore, what the result should be.

Are we very tired tonight, or something?

Have you seen his risk assessment? How do you know it even mentions children?

You just sound like you want him locked up... actually you wanted him locked up before he ever did anything.

Right. Which is going to be focused on the man more than the child.

I am asking you for specifics. Children are everywhere. So where should a learning disabled person - potentially with no history of serious violence - be able to go, in your opinion? Obviously the zoo is off limits. What about a walk in the park? The supermarket?

Do you honestly believe that a person with such little inhibition due to disabilities, should be put in situations like this, in such close proximity to other people? We are talking a zoo here - very crowded, a mix of people, uncontrollable conditions?

Or is the lack of inhibition not a safety concern for both themselves and the general public?

Clearly, the care protocol put in place was not at all adequate for this mans needs, then. He was able to pick up a baby and throw it to crocodiles, where the baby was obviously, subsequently mauled. Even removing the animals from the equation, a man picked up a baby and threw him. From a height.

Are you of the belief that the care protocol was adequate because they couldn't have foreseen this, there was no failings, and people who are so severely mentally impaired that they cannot practice inhibition of throwing babies to crocodiles should be allowed to be in this setting?

Because on what planet are you from?

No. Throw me to the wolves for it - people who are this severely unable to function in public, should not be around children. I've no shame in my stance, whatsoever. A child was nearly murdered.

Right, so can learning disabled people go to the supermarket or not?

A learning disabled person is no more likely to attack a child than anyone else is.

It sounds like you believe one vulnerable groups needs for enrichment trumps another vulnerable groups need to be protected from severe attacks.

A person does not need to go to extremely crowded places, in very close proximity to other people including vulnerable groups, to be enriched. A zoo is not a necessity.

I'm curious, what's YOUR answer? Do you believe that a person with no capability of inhibition from an act such as picking up a strangers child and throwing them (much less to dangerous animals..) should continue to be placed in these particular, close-proximity sorts of activities?

After all, it was just one childs life, right? Versus going out to the zoo for a day.

Or do you think there might exist other possibilities? I'm guessing you're asking me because you don't? Therefore the answer is to continue to place children at risk...

Makes perfect sense.

Are they likely to be unable to stop themselves punching someone in the face because they felt like it? Or picking up a child and throwing them should it strike them? If not, then no, not if there's not adequate protocols in place to completely prevent them harming or attacking other people.

I can't believe there are honestly people who believe enrichment > safety. Madness.

I don't believe the man should be visiting places like zoos going forward for a very long time, if at all and obviously if so then the risk assessment needs to be very different such as he only visits if in a wheelchair, he has 3:1 carers etc and as I said, even then, if a risk assessment proves that it can't be done safely for whatever reason then that is that.

But people with 2:1 care, people with LD's etc are all different and I don't believe it should automatically apply to all people in the man's position. The vast majority of people with 2:1 care, LD's etc visit zoos and similar without any issues.

I don’t claim to have an answer. I don’t know enough about what went wrong in this case to propose one.

People with LD are not one group of people. They are individuals with their own likes, dislikes, behaviours, and levels of risk.

If a person has never shown anything to suggest they are a risk to children, then why would they not be allowed around them?

You sound like you have made your mind up about this man anyway, and there is no reasoning with you.

But that's the whole point - the care was inadequately assessed because something like this happened.

It needs to not have a possibility of happening again.

If we are talking about severe mental disabilities that means a person cannot stop themselves from acting on such impulses, then the provided care needs to be prevent people being attacked by people with such disabilities, should the impulse strike them. If that care is not possible, then visits to such crowded places aren't deemed suitable and safe enrichment activities.

That's the entire point. And I think it's pretty reasonable because what's the alternative? 'Lock them away forever' or 'sometimes babies are thrown' ? Come on now. There exists a middle ground and everyone knows there does.

Enrichment needs can be met without placing the wider public at risk, in this way.

Not everyone with severe LD's are violent and are prone to attacking people. We don't even know for a fact if that is the case with the man in question yet.

The bigots are out in force tonight and using a terrible incident to push their bigotry.

Because of the inability to not act upon impulses, in individual people with this such claimed severity of mental disabilities.

A person who cannot stop themselves from acts, such as throwing babies, IF it so strikes them, is a very potential danger to those around them, and lets remember, a risk to the LIVES of those people, as has been shown.

Does that mean that in every person with such severity, the desire to attack children exists? Absolutely not.

Does it mean that if they have such low or non-existent inhibition, that if a dangerous impulse strikes them and they cannot be stopped from acting on that impulse, they should be placed among the wider public if there exists no adequate care to prevent serious harm and death coming to themselves or others?

No.

I'm guessing you'd maybe have more outrage if lack of adequate care meant the man had thrown himself to the crocodiles? Perhaps heads would roll then.

How do you know it was inadequately assessed? Nothing has come out in the press about it.
There can be a first time for everything... and some things are truly unpredictable.

Yep, as has been said many times, he might have carers for reasons that are nothing to do him potentially getting violent.

Yes.

Wanting people to be safe, and care standards improved is bigotry. So be it.

This is far from a rare instance of failing care. The current standards are not close to good enough.

I wonder if you would feel differently if the man had thrown himself to be mauled by the crocodiles? Would you think the care was adequate then? Or would you think there had been a massive failing?

I think there would be utter outrage that a man with such severe mental disabilities had such poor care he was put in the situation where he was able to throw himself over a barrier to be mauled, if it struck him to so do.

It's just different when the act of violence is perpetrated against somebody else, is it?

Just own it. You keep beating around the bush... you want people with severe LD out of sight and out of mind.

I don’t know who you think you’re arguing with? I doubt many here would disagree that something went catastrophically wrong here.

People with a learning disability are not more likely to attack children. That is why you are a bigot.

Yep, children are more likely to be attacked by someone they live with.

Ban children from living with others.

Just own that you have absolutely nothing useful to add other than continuing as things are, and that is: care needs being woefully inadequate both for the person requiring the care, and those around them.

A zoo is quite frankly, a daft place to take someone where the possibility to throw people (or indeed themselves!) into enclosures should the thought strike them, exists.

And it IS absolutely common that a persons needs are assessed woefully inadequately. A case I personally know of, where a person was beaten badly by one of those she cared for, despite having warned her employers several times that they needed a higher amount of care than what was being provided. I'm talking - beaten black and blue.

You have a person even contributing to this thread here to claim they were punched in the face in a supermarket by one of the people they were caring for - and when I asked - what if that had happened to a member of public, or a child, instead of the carer, then what? What if it happened to a member of the public who decided 'actually, I'm not okay with that', and retaliated? Are you telling me that such a person is not a severe risk to themselves and others?

It's interesting that for somebody asking so many questions, they don't seem able to answer any themselves.