Autistic recieves probation for mutilating toddler

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-g ... t-12525019

A man who cut a child's genitals with a broken supermarket loyalty card in a bungled attempt to reduce swelling has been sentenced to 18 months probation.

Ross McBride, 23, from Clydebank, took the action after accidentally kicking the boy while playing with a football at a house in Glasgow in February 2008.

The toddler needed 11 stitches to repair the damage he caused but has since made a satisfactory recovery.

McBride, who is autistic, admitted using culpable and reckless conduct.

Glasgow Sheriff Court heard how McBride was in a bad mood when the incident happened because his girlfriend had not bought him a Valentine's card.

He was kicking the ball hard out of frustration when he missed and caught the toddler instead.

When he noticed that the child's penis was red and swollen, McBride decided to snap a shop loyalty card and compress it around the injured area.
Police examiner

He then tried to saw at the youngster in a failed attempt to reduce the swelling.

The court heard that when the boy's mother arrived back the accused told her what had happened and she took her son to hospital.

The youngster was examined by doctors and a police child examiner and was found to have bruising, swelling and cuts to his genitals and thighs.

He was operated on and received 10 stitches to one wound and one to another but has since made a satisfactory recovery.

McBride was later charged with injuring the boy.

Defence advocate Laura Reilly told the court that her client suffers from autism which was not diagnosed until he was an adult.

Miss Reilly added that McBride has limited intelligence and suffers from emotional difficulties.

I would say the guy has something other than autism.

Seems like he was trying to do the "cut me" thing from Rocky. From a certain point of view, it might seem logical. Stupid, but logical.

I can't determine whose child it is he cut though. A relative? A random kid?

who chose the word 'mutilating' ?

I didn't get the impression that any damage was permanent, which is what "mutilating" brings to mind. I didn't even get the impression that "causing damage" was the intention in the first place. More an utterly misguided attempt to alleviate damage.

Uh...yeah. Excuse me while I go empty my guts over this horrid act...and the fact that he had to nerve to use autism to excuse himself from it.

Maybe his lawyer was the one trying to use autism as an excuse to get her client off. Don't lawyers use any argument they think may help their client?

I believe the autism would be introduced as mitigating circumstances, not as a defence in its own right.

I am shocked by this as i don't believe anyone with an ASD would be capable of a bad or stupid act ever. How will this reflect on me and my own innate genius? I know! Let's pretend that he doesn't have an ASD after all!

This is a bit harsh. Even so, maybe he is autistic. Maybe he had some semantic knowledge about medicine and did not make a leap of common sense. Maybe he was autistic and it had nothing to do with what he did. Maybe he was an eccentric neurotypical who used it as an excuse. Perhaps it was the lawyer. We have neither met him nor read any papers he may have, so none of us can tell.

I think it's fair to say that anytime someone autistic does something other autistic's find disagreeable that that kind of reaction normally ensues. On the other hand according to this forum every talented person ever in the field of standup comedy has aspergers. There is a self-adoring rush to label many different talented people from all walks of life as having AS where in reality the average Aspie is probably a unemployed, depressed, lonely individual so it's really no suprise that insane acts occur.

I see nothing that would suggest that we can reach any conclusion about his diagnosis. If he has been diagnosed as being on the spectrum, and the evidence of that diagnosis has been accepted by the Court, then we must accept that this is, indeed the case.

I note that his limited intelligence was also referred to, separate and apart from his ASD.

At the end of the day, neither autism nor his appreciation for the nature of his action excused him from conviction--and I doubt that any competent advocate would have tried that on for size. Rather, they are circumstances that go to the question of sentencing.

The person who causes harm by way of an action that he knows full well is wrong and harmful is in a different position that the person who does harm by way of an action that he genuinely believes is correct in the circumstances.

Ok it just says hes autistic. How do we know he was AS? And does he have some other mental illness? This is wacked out and anyone with common sense wouldn't resort to this type of s**t.

Actually it only takes a minor leap to become common sense.

You have injured a small child by accident. The injury takes the form of a swelling. In your frame of reference, you know that a swelling can be treated by cutting (not true, but depicted in fiction as such.) Either through sympathy at the childs suffering you inflicted, or fear of punishment, you decide to use this knowledge to "help" the child. Because you do not carry a knife, you decide that the sharpest item you carry is a broken credit-type card. (Also depicted in fiction, and as it happens, accurately as a bloody sharp piece of kit.)

An classically autistic person is quite capable of making this sort of "common sense" deduction, and all it requires is a difficulty differentiating between reality and fiction. From the information presented, it seems that this person was merely attempting to rectify a wrong-doing, and making the situation worse. At the apparent level of mentality, we could take it as if the event was in fact between two children.

Its worth noting that people of all neurological states and ages "make things worse" by trying to help, often through applying "common sense" or folk logic to a problem. Invariably they are trying to help.

Logically?
Logically this guy was trying to cover up his act. I'm sure there was a knife somewhere in the house if he seriously thought he needed to release some sort of pressure. Although seriously, when have you ever heard to cut to release pressure? A blister maybe, but a grown man's foot to a toddler's genitals? Who thinks that? And who thinks "oh, let me use this nasty plastic card."?
So yes, this guy MUTILATED this boy. He needed 11 stitches to REPAIR the damage. Not 11 stiches post surgery, 11 to repair the damage. This guy needs some serious help from a mental institution, and not for the diagnosis of ASD.

In real life its not a common or sensible procedure, but as mentioned there is at least one very famous scene where it occurs. Also anyone familiar with boxing may have heard of a cutsman, who never actually does any cutting but nobody said that this guy was clever enough to realise that fact. The end result was mutilation, but does that mean that he set out with malice aforethought to cause mutilation. It is probably true though that he was trying to cover up the fact he had hurt the kid in the first place, which would lend the urgency and need for subterfuge that led to a shot at such a stupid activity.

I'm not saying that he was basing his actions on any of that, I'm simply pointing out a feasible scenario where a low functioning autistic (or even a non-autistic idiot) might reach the conclusion that amateur surgery was the way to go. Bit like people who watch Casualty deciding they know how to perform an emergency tracheotomy with a biro and a pen-knife.