Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[rubecube]

I meant to add more to my point, pylon, so it didn't come off as so flippant. But what I meant to add was, if you start going down the path of stigmatizing people into believing they can't change or that what they think/do is unforgivable then you risk putting them on the fringes of society (even more so than they are now), and they become less likely to seek the help and preventative measures that keep them from descending into madness in the first place.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

.

As for the rest of yours and polak's arguments regarding public safety, unforgivable acts, etc., I'd ask you to consider the logistics of what you're suggesting. This isn't meant to be a slippery-slope argument, but logistically, if your argument is one of public safety, shouldn't we be putting all schizophrenics who ever have murderous hallucinations away? I mean that way we can be sure that they won't harm the general population. Like you said, there's zero guarantee these people won't stop taking their meds and just go out and commit atrocities. Why wait until they step over those uncrossable lines where someone actually gets hurt in the first place? Hell, we should probably extend that to anyone who ever has violent thoughts in the first place, regardless of mental illness. Look at the number of people without mental illness that commit violence. Clearly we can't guarantee that they'll never act on those thoughts.

I appreciate and respect your opinions on a lot of these topics. As far as the slippery slope statement, I believe there is a big difference between having the urges, and actually acting on them. I am sure many people have murderous thoughts for whatever reason or mental disorder, and never act on them, live a full life, then die, and nobody is hurt. You cannot persecute someone for thought crimes, that I agree.

Li's manifestation of Schizophrenia however, has proven to be lethal. And IMO, that is point where I would draw the line, and argue for lifetime institutionalization.

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

As for the rest of yours and polak's arguments regarding public safety, unforgivable acts, etc., I'd ask you to consider the logistics of what you're suggesting. This isn't meant to be a slippery-slope argument, but logistically, if your argument is one of public safety, shouldn't we be putting all schizophrenics who ever have murderous hallucinations away? I mean that way we can be sure that they won't harm the general population. Like you said, there's zero guarantee these people won't stop taking their meds and just go out and commit atrocities. Why wait until they step over those uncrossable lines where someone actually gets hurt in the first place? Hell, we should probably extend that to anyone who ever has violent thoughts in the first place, regardless of mental illness. Look at the number of people without mental illness that commit violence. Clearly we can't guarantee that they'll never act on those thoughts.

No. My argument is one of, why are we so bloody eager to let this guy go unsupervised?

WE ALREADY keep mentally ill people under constant supervision. This guy killed somebody. Regardless of the insanity plea, he took a knife and killed him. Now, I understand that the insanity plea means he wasn't deemed responsible but just because he is deemed to be better now while on medications, his history, in my opinion, should lead us to be more cautious then with others. This isn't a pre-emptive arrest, this is keeping someone WHO CUT SOMEONES ####ING HEAD OFF under extra careful watch instead of giving him the opportunity to run away after only a few years of good results (he was only arrested 7 years ago. Who knows how long he has appeared to be better).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

No. My argument is one of, why are we so bloody eager to let this guy go unsupervised?

WE ALREADY keep mentally ill people under constant supervision. This guy killed somebody. Regardless of the insanity plea, he took a knife and killed him. Now, I understand that the insanity plea means he wasn't deemed responsible but just because he is deemed to be better now while on medications, his history, in my opinion, should lead us to be more cautious then with others. This isn't a pre-emptive arrest, this is keeping someone WHO CUT SOMEONES ####ING HEAD OFF under extra careful watch instead of giving him the opportunity to run away after only a few years of good results (he was only arrested 7 years ago. Who knows how long he has appeared to be better).

I thought your argument was about the system:

Originally Posted by polak

Except no one is arguing what the law does and doesn't consider "criminally responsible". We're agruing that the law is wrong and that we disagree or at least, that we disagree with the decision to give him more undeserved freedom.

System = Broken

Edit: I also wonder where you were when he was given full day passes (unsupervised) to Winnipeg.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by polak

Now, I understand that the insanity plea means he wasn't deemed responsible but just because he is deemed to be better now while on medications, his history, in my opinion, should lead us to be more cautious then with others.

And your credentials to form this opinion are?

I see Flames_Gimp's argument as more this man is "garbage" and therefore he deserves worse. I'm conflicted and definitely not necessarily in agreement, but I understand where he is coming from.

But you're basing your argument more on that he is a threat to the public, correct? But if educated and trained professionals disagree with your opinion, why do you disagree?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

And your credentials to form this opinion are?

I see Flames_Gimp's argument as more this man is "garbage" and therefore he deserves worse. I'm conflicted and definitely not necessarily in agreement, but I understand where he is coming from.

But you're basing your argument more on that he is a threat to the public, correct? But if educated and trained professionals disagree with your opinion, why do you disagree?

He mentioned them earlier, Business Degree.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am torn on this. On one hand, I understand why people are afraid of this man. What he did was downright terrifying, and if it happened once, surely it can happen again. If I lived in the half-way house, or close to it, I would definitely be on edge.

On the other hand, I do feel sorry for Li. I believe he is probably a good person and that he obviously suffers from a serious disease. It's not like he killed someone and used insanity as a way to get off. I recall that he originally asked to be put to death after his psychotic episode.

I'm not sure there is a "fair" solution for everyone involved. I guess all you can do is trust that the doctors are correct and take precautions to keep yourself safe in case they are wrong.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by polak

This isn't a pre-emptive arrest, this is keeping someone WHO CUT SOMEONES ####ING HEAD OFF ...

Originally Posted by polak

THIS GUY CUT SOMEONES HEAD OFF ...

Originally Posted by polak

this guy, who cut someones ####ing head off, ...

Originally Posted by polak

He still ####ing cut someones head off on a bus in front of dozens of witnesses.

We get the point. Using CAPS and repeating it over & over isn't adding anything to your argument, IMO, just making it annoying to read.

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A) He goes back to jail/institution and probably never sees the light of day again, and the medical officials who presided over him originally probably lose their careers.

B) He didn't kill 23 people, so the argument is moot. We can turn this right back around and ask what if we hadn't killed anyone but had just attempted to. They're of equal relevance.

B) Yes you can and I will answer that.

If he only attempted to kill somoene he should have been placed on exactly the same regiment as someone who killed 23 people or one person in a mental episode. Attempted murder is still murder, just one you didn't get away with. I don't think anyone who had such a bad episode that they almost ended a life (intentionally - in the sense that this wasn't just manslaughter) should ever be allowed to be unsupervised in public again. He is unable to control his mind and it has shown to be a danger to others. Just like a murderer who shows no remorse for his crime, someone with mental disability that leads them on mudering rampages is incapable of guaranteeing that they won't go one again without medication. When you leave them unsupervised their is a very real risk of them fleeing and going unmedicated.

The system is broken.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Says the guy that listed a "business degree" as his ability to comment on the mental state of an individual he has never met.........

The fact that you can't tell that I was obviously kidding is you're own fault..

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

B) Attempted murder is still murder, just one you didn't get away with.

ermmm I am no lawyer, but I reckon The Law doesn't agree.

The fact that you can't tell that I was obviously kidding is you're own fault..

I have taken everything you wrote in this thread as a joke.....

[polak]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But you're basing your argument more on that he is a threat to the public, correct? But if educated and trained professionals disagree with your opinion, why do you disagree?

I don't disagree that he is better and isn't a risk when he's on medication.

However do you notice that caveat there? Medication. Leaving him unsupervised leads to the very real risk of him no longer being on his medication and being able to harm others again.

You know, if they put some sort of device that forced him to take his medication for the rest of his life (and tracks him until that is deemed no longer necessary) that he could not remove in anyway, then I'd be all for it. If he is cured and the doctors are vouching for him that he is not a threat then great cause we know he is no longer a flight risk.

Relying on a mentally unstable man to not flee when unsupervised is what I can't get past and the eagerness of the doctors to let him go unsupervised is why I think the system is broken.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Relying on a mentally unstable man to not flee when unsupervised is what I can't get past and the eagerness of the doctors to let him go unsupervised is why I think the system is broken.

Is he mentally unstable if medicated?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by pylon

I appreciate and respect your opinions on a lot of these topics. As far as the slippery slope statement, I believe there is a big difference between having the urges, and actually acting on them. I am sure many people have murderous thoughts for whatever reason or mental disorder, and never act on them, live a full life, then die, and nobody is hurt. You cannot persecute someone for thought crimes, that I agree.

Li's manifestation of Schizophrenia however, has proven to be lethal. And IMO, that is point where I would draw the line, and argue for lifetime institutionalization.

But much of why those people don't commit crimes is because they get the help and support they need. Li didn't. He didn't know he had schizophrenia and wasn't prescribed medication for it (unless I'm missing something). I might be inclined to agree with you if he had been medicated, chosen to stop taking the meds and then committed his crime.

As it is, I'm inclined to take the guarantees of medical professionals that he's going to be able to keep taking his meds and not be a threat to society. He's been under examination for long enough now that I would certainly expect them to be able accurately assess his level of risk to the public, his risk of not taking his meds, etc., far better than any of us can.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

ermmm I am no lawyer, but I reckon The Law doesn't agree.

Actually I just looked it up.

Sidebar:

Attempted murder only gets you four years in this country!??

That is ####ed. Screw this case, I can't believe that Attempted Murder is basically the same as possesion.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But much of why those people don't commit crimes is because they get the help and support they need. Li didn't. He didn't know he had schizophrenia and wasn't prescribed medication for it (unless I'm missing something). I might be inclined to agree with you if he had been medicated, chosen to stop taking the meds and then committed his crime.

As it is, I'm inclined to take the guarantees of medical professionals that he's going to be able to keep taking his meds and not be a threat to society. He's been under examination for long enough now that I would certainly expect them to be able accurately assess his level of risk to the public, his risk of not taking his meds, etc., far better than any of us can.

Before this tragic event Li has no history of mental illness nor did he have a history with the police.


He was "normal", as "normal" as any of us......

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is he mentally unstable if medicated?

Wasn't it you who said that these patients are prone to thinking they're cured and not taking their medication?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Actually I just looked it up.

Sidebar:

Attempted murder only gets you four years in this country!??

That is ####ed. Screw this case, I can't believe that Attempted Murder is basically the same as possesion.

So wait are you saying that your previous posts where made from an uniformed position?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Wasn't it you who said that these patients are prone to thinking they're cured and not taking their medication?

I can't speak for undercoverbrother, but I'm pretty sure his experience in the fields of psychology and psychiatry is not extensive.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't disagree that he is better and isn't a risk when he's on medication.

However do you notice that caveat there? Medication. Leaving him unsupervised leads to the very real risk of him no longer being on his medication and being able to harm others again.

You know, if they put some sort of device that forced him to take his medication for the rest of his life (and tracks him until that is deemed no longer necessary) that he could not remove in anyway, then I'd be all for it. If he is cured and the doctors are vouching for him that he is not a threat then great cause we know he is no longer a flight risk.

Relying on a mentally unstable man to not flee when unsupervised is what I can't get past and the eagerness of the doctors to let him go unsupervised is why I think the system is broken.

The experts aren't suggesting dropping him off in Calgary and saying sayonara. They want a gradual reintroduction to society with one of the next steps being a group home where he would be monitored by trained staff.

It's asinine to believe the experts didn't consider the possibilities that you're bringing up. They still are recommending he be sent to a group home because of the low risk. So I think if your argument is that he is a threat to the public, you should be able to provide some expert evidence to support that position.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by polak

Wasn't it you who said that these patients are prone to thinking they're cured and not taking their medication?

From what I've read, Li is horrified at what he's done. Based on that, I highly doubt he'd be a candidate to just stop taking medication. The risk for himself & others would be too high. He's probably been told that by countless doctors and psychiatrists.