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

In a secure psyche ward under section 28.

I absolutely agree. Sadly there aren't enough facilities available so people like him will always be out in society. Now that he has done this he sould be in a secure facility.

Indeed. But I suspect that poster, like OP, didn't realise that a person can be bailed to a secure unit or somewhere else that restricts their freedom. And if he's not fit to be interviewed there's not a lot else they could've done with him.

People can have two carers because they are a risk to themselves. They can pose no risk to other people.

To some extent most of us are capable of acts of violence, should we all be locked up? Appreciate that’s not your point, I suspect this was not reasonably foreseeable. It’s a tragedy for all those concerned. It’s often difficult to draw wide conclusions from one anomalous event.

That man wasn't out with any carers, he was allowed to go unsupervised from his care home as he was gradually given more freedom and had the capacity to plan to attack which appears to be rather different than what happened at the zoo.

Not all people who require two carers require them because they are prone to violence.

It's why he did it is the issue and whether he's displayed such behaviours before. Presumably the carers didn't take a homicidal maniac on a day trip knowingly.

Holding someone who has severe cognitive abilities in custody doesn't help anyone, what would be the point.

?Before any crime was committed

It's often taken a couple of incidents for true 2 to 1 care to be funded. Has any report said if he had two designated carers, just for him? I know I'm going to get accused of victim blaming, but I can't imagine being in a dangerous animal enclosure and not keeping my toddler close to me. There could be a few factors at play and the disabled person shouldn't be excessively punished because they've been incorrectly managed.

My daughter has to have 2 carers for a few hours respite. Not to prevent her hurting someone but for her health needs.

Which doesn’t change the point i made. We do not know anything about this man’s level of understanding about what he was did and the consequences of his actions. Whether he pushed, lifted, drop kicked….. does not help us to make any conclusions about motive or capacity for decision making.

Apologies. But he did live in a facility with carers. And he was allowed out in the general public with increased exposure and caused harm. He also spoke about wanting to cause harm and I’m sure he had a history of causing harm to carers? That worked out well. Just show them videos in a safe space of what they want to see, Tate modern, zoo etc. that way we are all safe.

I agree. I used to work with adult with learning difficulties and it was rare they’d have more than one carer. That would require double funding and only given if needed e.g they could be a danger to the public.

The state can't lock someone up because they might do something. For those of you advocating it, really think about what that means.

The only acceptable times to remove someone's liberty are:

1. When they've been convicted of a crime
2. It is determined that they present a risk to the public and that risk cannot otherwise be managed
3. Where it is medically determined that it is in the individuals best interest

He did have a history of wanting to cause harm and was gradually given more and more freedom without any issues until obviously that day at the Tate modern.

There is nothing to suggest the toddler wasn’t close to his parents, it takes a split second for a grown man to pick up and throw a small child.
I don’t think most of us go around risk assessing for the most depraved and unlikely circumstances. Whether the risk was known to those who should have been in charge of the man we don’t know yet.
But as far as the child goes, it’s normal for a child to not hold a parents hand every second at being outside. At 3 it’s socially accepted that it’s an age appropriate part of development for them to walk and explore along side their parents. What other risk was there to the child other than this man? The fence around the enclosure far surpassed the height of the child, there were no accidental risks posed in the vicinity.

I think it’s beyond believe to suggest parents should grab hold of their child at all times or be in any way responsible for a grown man picks them up and throws them from a height!

I don't imagine he is free to roam as pp charmingly put it. He will probably be under some kind of supervision. They won't be telling people where he is because someone will want to harm him. Which is pretty ironic.
I have seen death threats towards him and obviously it is a truly terrible thing to have happened but as my mother would have said two wrongs don't make a right.

His carers were responsible for him yet he still did a dangerous thing, does this mean they will be sacked and charged with negligence? I do believe his carers are partially to blame as they knew him and failed to intervene.

There is no section 28

He threw a small child in to a crocodile enclosure. The toddler was air lifted to hospital and was severely injured. He is still in hospital as far as I can tell, critical but stable. He is three years old, out on a fun zoo trip with his parent(s). Someone not known to him, picked him up and threw him into an enclosure containing dangerous animals. He may well have died if that brave employee hadn’t gone in and gotten him out.

Do I think the man in question should be kept away from the public? Absolutely 100% yes. It’s a no brainer for me. That poor child. His poor parents and for anyone who had to witness that. It’s beyond horrifying.

How closely were the parents supervising their child?

I doubt they had to risk assess for a fully grown man picking him up and throwing him into to an enclosure. You wouldn’t expect it to happen would you. Are you trying to blame the toddler’s parents? Really?

In my professional capacity I regularly come into contact with people known to be aggressive, who often have severe learning difficulties and definitely wouldn’t be able to be interviwed. They are constantly supervised by 2 carers, all live in the community in their own accommodation. Once in their homes they cannot leave until the carers are ready to take them they do not have the freedom to come and go as they please. So this man will not need “locking up”. To remove him to a “secure unit” would most likely make this man more agitated/aggressive and distressed and put his carers and anyone who comes into contact with him at risk and also put him at risk of harming himself.
This is very tragic but isolated case sadly most adults with severe learning difficulties are more likely to be harmed than harm there have been multiple incidences of carer abuse both physically sexually and emotionally especially those living in “secure institutions.

So when somebody murders someone your defence is that they hadn't done it before, it was incredibly rare and they shouldn't be locked up??

Probably much better than you‘re supervising yourself given you‘ve made this ridiculous comment.