Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[polak]

Life as in a life sentence. 25 years.

Normal jail time for murder (since we're against the death penalty. I wouldn't condone the death penalty in this situation fyi)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Life as in a life sentence. 25 years.

Normal jail time for murder (since we're against the death penalty. I wouldn't condone the death penalty in this situation fyi)

Are you sure?


Cuz that is different to what you have posted.

But then again, in situations like this, where there is zero doubt of who comitted the murder and why, I'm A-OK with the death penalty, so I'm biased. I just don't see how he deserves to be free in any way.

So you have changed your opinion/position on this matter?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by polak

Life as in a life sentence. 25 years.

Normal jail time for murder (since we're against the death penalty. I wouldn't condone the death penalty in this situation fyi)

Second degree is 10 years minimum, not 25. The only way he might have gotten First degree is if it was considered a hostage situation.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by polak

Life as in a life sentence. 25 years.

Normal jail time for murder (since we're against the death penalty. I wouldn't condone the death penalty in this situation fyi)

That's only premeditated. Manslaughter is a different charge with a different punishment and I don't think even if he was in charge of his faculties, Li would have been convicted of anything but manslaughter.

[jayswin]

Haha, polak's all over the place here, it's hilarious. He came out guns a blazin' and now realizes his opinion was a little extreme so he's trying to backtrack and clarify everything.

"No no no, when I said he should be locked up for life, I meant 25 years!!!".

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Are you sure?


Cuz that is different to what you have posted.



So you have changed your opinion/position on this matter?

I do condone it overall. I condone it 100%. Just not when he's been deemed insane. I think I'd totally be okay with it if he stops taking his meds again and repeats though.

[polak]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Haha, polak's all over the place here, it's hilarious. He came out guns a blazin' and now realizes his opinion was a little extreme so he's trying to backtrack and clarify everything.

"No no no, when I said he should be locked up for life, I meant 25 years!!!".

25 to life = life sentence, or so I thought.

I will gladly admit that I have calmed down a week after learning the fact that he was being let out unsupervised.

Now my opinion is firmly in the "Why are so eager to let him go unsupervised" corner.

[jayswin]

Polak, you seem much more in line with America's archaic justice system and ideals. Maybe you'd prefer it down there?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Now my opinion is firmly in the "Why are so eager to let him go unsupervised" corner.

You do know that he has been on unsupervised day trips for some time right?


He has been out and about Selkirk (I wonder if any of family that lives there has seen him) and to Winnipeg for full days!!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vinc...ders-1.2564158

Now he's been granted the freedom to go out and about on his own — a decision by independent medical

Last week it set off a firestorm by approving new conditions that allow Li to have unescorted day-trips (starting with 30 minutes and progressing to full days), unsupervised group outings and transfer from a secure wing of the hospital to an unlocked ward.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by polak

25 to life = life sentence, or so I thought.

I will gladly admit that I have calmed down a week after learning the fact that he was being let out unsupervised.

Now my opinion is firmly in the "Why are so eager to let him go unsupervised" corner.

I don't understand the "eager" part. Everyone I've seen in this thread is rationally agreeing that what our legal system has determined for Vincent Li us the best and correct course of action given what we know.

Nobody's eager for anything, except for fairness for all citizens. In all honesty, Polak, your views aren't out of line in a lot of countries in the world, unfortunately.

Feel free to move to one of those, you can see things like a random guy being escorted to a town square and having his head chopped off because someone was pretty sure they saw him do something illegal.

You could move to the States and see families and law enforcement sit in chairs like they're at a theatre and watch a person murdered in front of them to satisfy their bloodlust and eye for an eye justice.

You can move to lots of places and get harsher, more punitive justice and you'd be able to applaud as your country takes a similar case to Li's and says "This man is sick in the head and regardless of why, he will never leave his cell for as long as he lives", but that country isn't Canada and I'm proud of that.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I don't understand the "eager" part. Everyone I've seen in this thread is rationally agreeing that what our legal system has determined for Vincent Li us the best and correct course of action given what we know.

Nobody's eager for anything, except for fairness for all citizens. In all honesty, Polak, your views aren't out of line in a lot of countries in the world, unfortunately.

Feel free to move to one of those, you can see things like a random guy being escorted to a town square and having his head chopped off because someone was pretty sure they saw him do something illegal.

You could move to the States and see families and law enforcement sit in chairs like they're at a theatre and watch a person murdered in front of them to satisfy their bloodlust and eye for an eye justice.

You can move to lots of places and get harsher, more punitive justice and you'd be able to applaud as your country takes a similar case to Li's and says "This man is sick in the head and regardless of why, he will never leave his cell for as long as he lives", but that country isn't Canada and I'm proud of that.

To be fair Polak isn't the only one to display bloodlust in this thread.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by polak

Now my opinion is firmly in the "Why are so eager to let him go unsupervised" corner.

Who is?

You went from "he deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life for justice" to "he needs to be locked up for public safety" to "he needs to serve his sentence" to " he should serve an equivalent sentence of life." You've been changing your argument and moving goalposts every post.

And I don't believe anyone is eager to have him go completely unsupervised, depending on your exact meaning. It's not even the next stage that would see him move to a group home. Right now they want to move him to a Winnipeg hospital which would allow for possibly more unescorted trips and in time the possibility of a group home. The group home would have trained professionals to monitor him still. Yes, he would be unsupervised at times (as he already has been), but no one has advocated dropping him off at a corner in Winnipeg and forgetting about him.

[polak]

Jesus you guys love to jump all over someone who doesn't share the exact same PC views as you. Every single thread. It's ridiculous.

Sorry for not being as stoked as you guys are to introduce someone who decapitated someone onto the streets after only 7 years. I guess that makes me a hate-mongering lunatic who wants blood and should move to another country.

Only on this website does "I don't think he should be released so soon" turn into "you should move to countries where they cut peoples head off in the town square".

And as for my opinion changing, yeah thats what happens in a normal discussion. New ideas are introduced and opinions change. That and the initial shock of the news wears off.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Jesus you guys love to jump all over someone who doesn't share the exact same PC views as you. Every single thread. It's ridiculous.

When did rational and reliant on expert opinions become PC?

Sorry for not being as stoked as you guys are to introduce someone who decapitated someone onto the streets after only 7 years. I guess that makes me a hate-mongering lunatic who wants blood and should move to another country.

So you're going with the five year-old temper tantrum approach then?

And as for my opinion changing, yeah thats what happens in a normal discussion. New ideas are introduced and opinions change. That and the initial shock of the news wears off.

This I do agree with. I don't think you should be mocked for changing your opinion in light of new information.

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

When did rational and reliant on expert opinions become PC?

I never disagreed with the opinion of the experts. I never argued that he's not better. I argued that despite that, I think keeping him supervised for longer is in everyones best interest as society isn't gaining much from him being released. That said, someone posted that link earlier to the guy who was in a similiar situation and managed to turn out as a succesful, contributing member of society which sort of changed my opinion on that.

Originally Posted by rubecube

So you're going with the five year-old temper tantrum approach then?

Just pointing out what was said a few posts ago.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by polak

And as for my opinion changing, yeah thats what happens in a normal discussion. New ideas are introduced and opinions change. That and the initial shock of the news wears off.

That's an admirably trait, it really is. But it's hard to keep a discussion cohesive when every post you seem to have formed a different opinion, in some form, while not acknowledging that it was any different than before.

So where are you at now? What's your current verdict? Keep him supervised longer under what capacity (i.e. what type of institute, security and day pass privileges) and for how much longer? Why (i.e. public safety, justice, appearance)?

Originally Posted by polak

I argued that despite that, I think keeping him supervised for longer is in everyones best interest as society isn't gaining much from him being released. .

I would argue that a society who keeps an 'innocent' man institutionalized for longer than necessary harms the society far far more than 1 murder ever could. Now, I am not saying that's at all the case here but there's a slippery slope.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by polak

I never disagreed with the opinion of the experts. I never argued that he's not better. I argued that despite that, I think keeping him supervised for longer is in everyones best interest as society isn't gaining much from him being released. That said, someone posted that link earlier to the guy who was in a similiar situation and managed to turn out as a succesful, contributing member of society which sort of changed my opinion on that.



Just pointing out what was said a few posts ago.

This is why people have a hard time with your posts. In this post you've contradicted yourself. You said you don't disagree with the opinion of the experts, but then you say it's in everyone's best interest to keep him supervised longer? So if you're not contradicting yourself then that means you just want him to suffer more for what he did.

I don't think you're trying be muddy like this, I believe what's happening is you, like flamesgimp, have a desire for more punishment for the sake of punishment. Which as an opinion is fine, but you're not going to see it in Canada and if you want Canada to regress in punishment/rehabilitation then maybe another country would suit your desires more.

[polak]

Like I said, my stance is that I still think we should keep him under supervision for longer. It's not that I don't agree with the experts. I geniunely do believe they are right when they say he is better while under medication. What worries me is the risks that are introduced when he is unsupervised. If he doesn't take his medicine for whatever reason (accidently skips a dose lets say and then starts experiencing symptoms on one of these unsupervised trips) then we expose the public to a potentially very dangerous person.

It's not punishment for the sake of punishment. Put him in 5 star hotel for all I care. I just worry about the risks involved by letting him go unsupervised.

That and the optics of letting him go unsupervised so early also is admittedly hard for me to get over. 7 years is not a very long time especially when you consider it probably took some time for him to start responding to treatment.

I geniunely wonder if they expierment with taking him off the medication for an extended period of time and seeing how he reacts. If we stable for an extended period of time without meds I'd feel better as it would give us some time to track him down should he flee before another episode could occur.

[Oling_Roachinen]

What is "longer"? Next year's evaluation or 2045's?

Also do you believe the psychiatrists and trained professionals didn't consider the likelihood of him going off medication? At this point, if you believe he would be a risk to have any unsupervised time you are disagreeing with the psychiatrists and trained professionals who have already given him unsupervised time. You doubt their qualifications in making these decisions?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by polak

It's not punishment for the sake of punishment. Put him in 5 star hotel for all I care. I just worry about the risks involved by letting him go unsupervised.

That and the optics of letting him go unsupervised so early also is admittedly hard for me to get over. 7 years is not a very long time especially when you consider it probably took some time for him to start responding to treatment.

I geniunely wonder if they expierment with taking him off the medication for an extended period of time and seeing how he reacts. If we stable for an extended period of time without meds I'd feel better as it would give us some time to track him down should he flee before another episode could occur.

I think part of the problem is you say everything you're thinking at the moment (not really a problem, but it leads to confusion) and don't realize you're actually proving what others are taking issue with in your posts.

This is an example where you've said you agree with the experts and are not in favor of punishment for the sake of punishment then you follow that up by saying the opposite.

The bolded are the opposite of what you're claiming. You clearly don't trust the experts and have different ideas on how this should be handled from a professional standpoint.

And you admit that "optics" are hard for you to get over and that's part of why this should go on longer, which is punishment for the sake of punishment.

Again, it's fine to have that opinion, but just own it and admit you don't trust the legal system or experts and that you want more punishment for Vincent Li. It's just confusing and awkward how you keep denying the things posters are accusing you of and then typing out essays that prove everyone right.