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

Can I just add to my earlier post that it was Thatchers Care in the community and Camerons austerity that ripped apart the NHS and mental health support.

Oh, don’t talk bollocks.

You don’t know what happened! You can’t blame the carers with no facts

Agree. I'm not sure some of the commenters realise you can be bailed to somewhere that doesn't allow you to come and go as you please. That it's not a binary choice between hospital prison wing or out and about.

It's a bloody difficult situation though. I'm nervous about any possible sanctions against the carers too, because this is already a job people simply don't want to do. If they think they're going to be sent to prison because their charge bolts, that makes it even less attractive.

Apologies. I was too pissed off to RTFT before I posted, and I see now that the man has a learning disability. It is great to read here all of the many posts humanely pointing that out.

It is a real contrast with threads that discuss people with schizophrenia who have killed. In those threads, posters who humanely express the realities of the illness and the need to treat the killer as someone ill rather than wicked, tend to be in the minority. Which is very strange, since schizophrenia is just as powerful a limitation on a person's responsibility for their actions as a similarly serious learning disability - and, ultimately, just as much determined by brain differences.

Bollocks.

his poor parents/carers must be devastated
as must the zoo owners

If you are 2 :1 a man with.profound learning disabillties you shouldnt be doing anythiing on your phone
I hsve a 16 year old son with severe autism and learning disabillities he can be very unpredictable .

Evidently so. Never heard/seen anyone use the phrase before. Although I do live under a rock with a lack of social media!

Locking him up isnt the answer. Look at muckamore, which was the biggest criminal adult safeguarding case of its kind in the UK.

be warned. The report is a hard read.

https://www.mahinquiry.org.uk/news/muckamore-abbey-hospital-inquiry-report-published-18-june-2026

So where do we lock up someone with severe learning disabilities? Should a 30 year old with a severe learning disability be in a),an adult Cat 1 prison? Or b), a secure unit? The answer is "b" but until he is properly assessed and the report gets handed over to the judge there is a wait. Under normal circumstances the offender would be held on remand while all that is going on, but given the complex needs of this man that is not possible, so my guess is he's on bail with conditions imposed that will see him not being allowed out of wherever he is until all the reports are done. I doubt there will be a trial as he will not be able to understand what is happening.
The fact that you have likened him to a "misunderstood ND manbaby who should be allowed to do whatever he wants", tells me you know absolutely nothing about complex learning disabilities at all.
Oh and before you jump on me, what he did was horrific and my heart goes out to that poor child and his family, but this is not a simple case of a 30 year old having a hissy fit and trying to kill a child...it's much more complicated than that.

Well it certainly wasn’t the 3 year old’s fault.

So either the man or his carers need to be held accountable.

1. Nobody is saying that there should not be consequences. Consequences are appropriate not a punishment if he is unable to understand what he did or what a punishment is. But the consequence would a secure medical ward so in essence similar.
2. Posters who are saying that he should not have been allowed out but should have been locked up somewhere due to having the physical ability to hurt someone are advocating locking up all people with severe disabilities as they might all have that that physical ability. That would be wrong.
3. And they would not advocate locking up all members of any other group due to them having the potential to hurt others, and there are non-disabled groups (such as men) who are statistically more likely to hurt others people. So really this is just about prejudice to disabled people.

He's obviously a danger to society so he should at the very least be admitted to a secure hospital.

Given the time you posted this OP you must have seen by now that he was deemed
not fit to be interviewed by police due to his learning difficulties, and was visiting accompanied by two carers. Yes there neees to be an enquiry but your OP is daft.

Learning Difficulties is such a broad term ranging from eg dyslexia to profound cognitive impairment. None of know the full picture here but this person may have the mental age and capacity of a small child - if this boy had been pushed in by another 4 year old would people be braying for them to be locked up and given the death penalty too?! It's a bit like when people are not tried for crimes because of psychiatric illness and people get upset because no-one should 'get off' due to mental health - but not understanding that it doesn't mean someone was a bit sad or anxious but psychotically unwell and not in control of their actions. Of course society needs to be safeguarded against all these people and getting that right is incredibly difficult but punitive action is not necessarily the right way to do that. The police, the courts, social workers and doctors will of course sometimes get things wrong but they have a far greater understanding of these issues that all those braying for blood on this thread.

why are you conflating being ND with attempting to murder people?

Nobody is saying oh well🙄
When somone lackd capacity to understand what they have done they cant stand trial because they wont understand it
Thst doesnt mean we allow them to roam freely.

This is what happens when so many completely normal people decide to codify their mild neurodivergencies as diagnosable illnesses. It causes a lot of people to lose sight of the genuine severity of the illnesses whose labels they are piggybacking on. It erodes the already scarce and grudging understanding of the needs of very vulnerable people

Even if this man's condition was one of the ones that is called 'neurodivergence' , rather than a less fashionable intellectual disability, it will have been leagues and leagues more serious than the kind of ND that is usually discussed on MN. And it is probably more likely that his disabilty was something different from the ones that attract this label

BeardofHagrid's take is like calling it woke nonsense to give a paraplegic person a wheelchair instead of telling him to stand up and stop making a fuss.

Wish I had youre confidence in the police and system curre,but after all the recent examples, I really don't.

We’ll see. They will probably charge the carers with negligence just so a box can be ticked.

I really wish people would not rush to judge without knowing all the facts. Police are still trying to establish exactly what happened and why. I have read that someone who was actually there said the man lifted the child up to see better then child slipped. That would certainly fit with an adult who was capable of lifting the child but not of understanding the risks of doing so.

Obviously it wasn’t the 3 years fault but this poster is saying the carers should be jail and as I former carer I can tell you it’s not as cut and dry as that without facts.

seen people on another thread blaming the grandparents cos why weren’t they watching the child more closely!

we literally rightly so haven’t been told the full facts of what happened. So no one can judge as yet.

Agree with all of this. You also cannot put these individuals in prison