Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious
1. That sentence doesn't make sense...
2. Ignorance is defined as Lack of knowledge or information.
I stated outright that I understand he was suffering from mental illness and didn't understand what he did was wrong.
Regardless of that, after what he did I still feel he should be permanently confined to his mental health facility and unable to leave it.
What they're talking about is releasing him for 30 minute -to- day long trips into Selkirk with an aide and a peace officer (with cell phone).
I think after what he did, he shouldn't have the opportunity to do even that. Both because of the (what they feel to be remote) chance he may re-offend, and the severity of the first crime being so egregious.
I get that you feel differently, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just disagree.
Hey Dion,
A schizophrenic cannibalistic murder is going to be walking around downtown tomorrow when your wife and kids are out and about but don't worry there's only a 0.8% chance he might do something like that again and there's a doctor and a guy with a cell phone watching over him so it's all good.
You feel me now? Again, I understand the ruling and read the same articles you did. I just disagree with it... and the above is one of the biggest reasons why.
You can disagree, but how can you call anyone who might have a problem with that "ignorant"?
|
You might want to add a couple dozen zeroes in front of that if you want to be anywhere close to reality. He's medicated and supervised, there is next to no chance that he jaywalks while out of the facility, let alone does something remotely similar.