I have a cousin that is in his 50s now that is mentally about 5 years old. he lives in Canada and from what my aunt says he gets to do all sorts of things traveling with the staff from his group home. I would hate to think because he is not there mentally that he missed out on opportunities like going to the park or to see the latest Disney movie. Any interaction has to be watched. To protect him and to protect any kid he comes in contact with.
in the article we hear nothing about the kid going to hospital so I am guessing that the kid was not hurt. I am sure it was a bad experience for the kid but to think that all mentally challenged should be locked up is sick.
Do you honestly suspect a three year old would sustain no injuries when struck repeatedly by an adult?
The only reason the kid was not killed is that multiple adults present *pulled him off* of the child.
A loose dog that attacks a child gets put down for *one* bite.
A grown man that attacks a child gets “he can’t help it” defense and allowed to return to the park. Do you think the other parents feel safe sending their kids to the park?
If we don’t allow a *dog* to get away with the “he can’t help biting” defense, we shouldn’t allow people. It’s unfortunate that he has mental issues, but this is someone who should have ZERO public access because he either was never taught (or is incapable of being taught) not to assault children.
If this is what you got from what I wrote, you are wrong. I'm not saying that "mentally challenged" people should be locked up ... hell, half the people I work with would be in jail! (that's a joke, y'know). What I'm saying is that a 3-year-old must be protected from an adult with violent tendencies.
You imply that because the baby wasn't hospitalized as the result of the attack (a "bad experience" as you characterize the beating) this is not a big deal. Well, I think it is. How badly would the baby have to be beaten for you to say we need to protect an innocent child from another attack ... a bruised cheek perhaps? ... or maybe something more serious like a broken arm would spur of your interest.
It's good that your cousin in Canada is able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life, but that's not always the case (as you no doubt know). All I'm saying (and taking some mild "hits" for it) is that people who are violent need to be controlled and, in some cases, locked away. That's all.
If a mentally handicapped person has zero history of prior violence, it is one thing to take him or her on social outings.
But if a mentally handicapped person is known to be violent (say, has attacked siblings, parents, animals, caretakers or has abused animals), then that person is not mentally capable of being in society because of the danger they pose to others.