They obviously let you out on the streets. The man is NOT a sick bastard. He is for all intents and purposes, mentally retarded, incapable of beating anyone out of malice, you moron.
Holding an opinion that an adult, regardless of their mental condition, should not be free to beat a 3-year-old hardly makes one a "moron" as you so eloquently opined. I'm not saying the sick man should be locked up because he is not right in the head, I'm saying he should not be allowed to roam free to beat babies. What's so hard to understand? If he has violent tendancies, keep him on a leash! This may sound harsh to you, but that's what I think.
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.
If he really were mentally retarded, why *target* a three year old child? Why not a grown man walking down the street?
Someone mentally retarded to the point of being unable to distinguish that assaulting an innocent person is not okay would *not* make the distinction between “likely to defend himself and fight me back” and “incapable of defending himself against me.”
A wild beast selects a target based on weakness and lack of self defense; that’s why a cougar stalks a fawn. He may be incapable of reading Shakespeare; that doesn’t make him incapable of the low amount of intelligence that it takes to size up a victim’s threat before attacking. Even a housecat can do that.