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

The investigating officer may not consider that he has have capacity to be remanded in custody, and may be later remanded in hospital following medical assessment.

He required two carers this is rare

they would meed to lock up his two carers as well

are you volunteering for months in jail with a highly distressed dis regulated attempted murderer ?

no ?

use your common sense he is ALREADY living in a secure place similar to jail - except now there will be no trip out for a while

That man had the capacity to stand trial. We don't know about this case yet.

Genuinely I’m not sure this was intended as violence, again if I look at my friends son, he’d have thought it was funny and he was helping the kid see the crocodiles.

I think people have to understand how potentially severe this man’s needs are, which is severe enough to need two full time carers.

i understand why onlookers would see violence, but genuinely I’m not sure that was his intent at all.

Yes, exactly. He won’t be going out at any time soon. It just won’t be in a prison setting.

This guy? He's just bad news. Continuing the mayhem in his secure hospital unit. Not sure how you blame minimum wage carers for stopping other people from attempting murder
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4q9pxyv7go

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sure,_Jan

You must be a lot younger than I am.

It's pretty much always been the case that someone has to be fit to interview and to actually understand what the crime is. Someone with the mental age of a toddler isn't going to understand what he did wrong no matter how horrific it is and it would be the same as charging a toddler with attempted murder and throwing them in an adult jail.

I'm wondering how much training the carers had. Were they his regular carers who knew him well (clearly not), did management do a thorough risk assessment before allowing the day trip, did the carers have concerns but were told to "get on with it"? Could the carer have been on the phone to their manager to say they were brining him back because it wasn't going well? All these thoughts are going through my mind but on here and other sites it seems the narrative is...it's all the carers fault because the lazy bastards were too busy with their phones
Too many times on here and other sites when discussions around benefit claimants arise there are always cries of "well there's plenty of work in the care sector, they should do that"....so maybe this is a sad consequence of the assumption that "anyone can be a carer".

Having worked for the NHS for years i would bet my bottom dollar it went like this…two carers, neither of whom are British and are probably only doing the job because it gets them a visa not because they want to work in this field. Both probably mostly ignoring the person they are “ caring” for while looking bored shitless and scrolling through their phones! I have literally seen this scenario hundreds of times. Go into most care homes for the elderly or vulnerable and you will also see this scenario there!

The only ones who should be sat in his cell are his useless carers......he had 2/1 for a reason!

No it isn’t.

This is presumably the fallout from 1990's Care in the community and austerity.

The police deal with so many mental health issues these days. My teen is thinking about going into the police and he's heard that their workload is often MH crises.

It really depends on what his mental age is. Do you think we should be charging four-year-olds and then throwing them into prison if they do bad things? If a three-year-old managed to run up to somebody and push them off a bridge and they died, would we charge them with murder? If not, why not? If people don’t have the capacity to know what they’re doing, we don’t tend to lock them up in prisons. This will be about applying the law accurately.

I was sexually assaulted by a man with learning disabilities at a funfair when I was 12. He did have a carer with him due to past inappropriate behaviour but they decided they didn’t want to go in the funhouse so allowed this man to go in alone. He repeatedly assaulted me until one of the fairground workers heard me yelling and dragged him away.

My parents called the police who also said there was no point taking it any further as the man didn’t have capacity.

I’m sorry that happened to your DS.

I KNEW a thread like this would be on MN today. Thanks for not disappointing me, @YourKeenOliveNewt .

Surely it is obvious that he is getting bail because of some severe mental illness [EDIT ...or intellectual disability] - and equally obvious that his bail arrangements will reflect that. For example that he might be in a secure hospital ward.

These are such obvious guesses to make that it is hard not to see the alleged surprise at his bail as being anything other than a desire to display rage and disapproval at what he has done. Clearly some people think that the facts shouldn't get in the way of this desire.

Again, why? Saying he's got the mind of a toddler doesn't change anything for the victim who should be centred in any crime. His adult body committed the crime and is fully capable of committing more adult crimes. If the argument is that he doesn't understand why it was wrong then surely you have to follow on with so he might do the same thing or something equally heinous again so we need to lock him up indefinitely rather than oh well.

Okay, let’s say it’s not intentional violence, but there will a clear history of deeply inappropriate acts and severe lack of understanding of socially appropriate behaviour should be enough to keep him away from small children.

Actual four year olds with four year old bodies are limited in the amount of damage they can do. This is not that.

We know absolutely nothing about the suspect other than that he is male and has a learning disability that requires carers. He could have cognitive capacity and this may have been a deliberate attempt to harm in which case he should be held culpable. I think it’s more likely that he does not, that could be naive on my part because I just can’t fathom how anyone with capacity could have done something so heinous and random. If he does not have capacity then the culpability falls on the care facility that conducted a risk assessment and determined that a)this was a suitable trip, (b) the carers were capable of enforcing health & safety (c) enough carers were provisioned.

It’s not that, it’s just we have to take something like severe learning difficulties into account within the justice system. He needs to be incarcerated of course but in a secure unit, not prison.

Or he is a person with a severe cognitive disability that prevented him from having any understanding that what he did was wrong. That is also a possibility, we have no idea.

He'll be kept well under surveillance, He was on a day outing with a carer, has severe learning difficulties. That won't be happening again.

I hope the little boy recovers, he must have been so terrified.

Bail doesn't mean that he is walking around freely. He absolutely won't be.

and absolutely no one at all is saying ''oh well''.