Man who beheaded fellow bus passenger wants to live on his own

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Obviously I would want the freedom to have an independent life. I just don't see the burden this places on Li to be subject to testing. If he says he plans on continuing with his treatment, then let him do so.

You don't see how constant monitoring would be a burden on someone's rights?

[ken0042]

A better way of saying it would be that I don't see how this burden is excessive.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ken0042

A better way of saying it would be that I don't see how this burden is excessive.

I would argue any burden is excessive to an innocent person who is not a threat to society. And I have the Supreme Court backing me up on that.

I obviously take personal freedoms very seriously, but I can safely say I would rather live in a society that occasionally gets it wrong and gives people who shouldn't have them complete personal freedoms, than a society that will remove personal freedoms to an innocent person.

[Mightyfire89]

My opinion is that this guy purposely cut a man's head off and should therefore lose his normal privileges as a Canadian citizen. I don't care that doctors have determined that he was mentally ill at the time but is now "rehabilitated"or whatever the term would be. There should be absolutely no unconditional release ever for someone in a case like this.

The whole not criminally responsible thing is a crock of ****. If you kill someone and it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did it (not accidentally, but purposely), you should never be out of prison for the rest of your life. Period.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ken0042

A better way of saying it would be that I don't see how this burden is excessive.

Excessive or not is irrelevant if the restrictions shouldn't legally be there. If someone beat up a bar patron at age 23 would it be helpful to attend one meeting once a year for life just to assess that the person is in a good state of mind and doesn't seem like they'll do it again?

Probably not excessive or overly burdsome but also not warranted because now their life has a restriction on it. The analogy is purposely way less egrigious btw, as to highlight how important liberty is and how sometimes we get blinded to that when the crime/incident is more serious.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

My opinion is that this guy purposely cut a man's head off and should therefore lose his normal privileges as a Canadian citizen. I don't care that doctors have determined that he was mentally ill at the time but is now "rehabilitated"or whatever the term would be. There should be absolutely no unconditional release ever for someone in a case like this.

The whole not criminally responsible thing is a crock of ****. If you kill someone and it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did it (not accidentally, but purposely), you should never be out of prison for the rest of your life. Period.

Hey didn't do it purposely, though. That's what the whole ncr process was determining all these years.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would argue any burden is excessive to an innocent person who is not a threat to society. And I have the Supreme Court backing me up on that.

I obviously take personal freedoms very seriously, but I can safely say I would rather live in a society that occasionally gets it wrong and gives people who shouldn't have them complete personal freedoms, than a society that will remove personal freedoms to an innocent person.

I agree medicated Li, isn't a threat to society.

I would appear that non-medicated Li, is a threat (or potential threat) to society.

I can accept medicated Li walking around living his life. I struggle with non-medicated Li doing the same.

If he is remorseful (which I believe he is) is would seem to follow that he would be willing to have a procedure/process in place to ensure the non-medicated Li doesn't get out again.

In short, if I was in his place (I hope I never am) I would think that I would agree to a process to ensure I was always medicated so I could enjoy my life, free of concerns that I might have another episode resulting in a similar event.

[Mightyfire89]

Re: Jayswin

I would argue that in that moment, for whatever reason, he decided he wanted to cut the person's head off so he did. To me, that's purposely. Nothing else matters.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by ken0042

On the bolded part, I'll flip it back to you. What are the reasons to give him a full unconditional release? That is what he is asking for. If he is being successfully treated with medication, I don't see the harm in having him submit to medical testing on a regular basis to ensure the treatment continues to work.

We take away liberties all the time for medical reasons. After a heart attack people aren't allowed to drive for several months. People prone to seizures also have driving restrictions. Sure- less restrictive than full liberty, but restrictions none the less. All due to the fact that a medical condition increases the risk of injury to others.

He has a medical condition that left untreated caused the death of another person. Let's make sure he continues to get the treatment he needs.

I think you're confusing liberty with privileges. Anything to do with driving is a privilege not a right. That's why they can take away your car at a check stop without a conviction. Living without intervention from the state (visits/medical etc) isn't a prvlidge it's your liberty and it has to be taken away and given back by the courts with legal backing.

They can't say "Well look what you did, compared to what could have happened to you these minor restrictions on your life aren't much and are in fact helpful for you so therefore we will leave them on you".

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

Re: Jayswin

I would argue that in that moment, for whatever reason, he decided he wanted to cut the person's head off so he did. To me, that's purposely. Nothing else matters.

Oh okay, well that's incorrect but I do appreciate the emotion attached to a case like this that leads to this reasoning. (I mean that sincerely, it's a tough topic)

[Mightyfire89]

How is it incorrect?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Excessive or not is irrelevant if the restrictions shouldn't legally be there. If someone beat up a bar patron at age 23 would it be helpful to attend one meeting once a year for life just to assess that the person is in a good state of mind and doesn't seem like they'll do it again?

Probably not excessive or overly burdsome but also not warranted because now their life has a restriction on it. The analogy is purposely way less egrigious btw, as to highlight how important liberty is and how sometimes we get blinded to that when the crime/incident is more serious.

I'm assuming that person hasn't been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder? The day he lost his mind, beheaded, and ate parts of a man this really stopped being about what's best for him and became about what's best for the public. You have to ask yourself if you have a family are you okay with this man being your long term neighbor while unmonitored? Is a 2% chance he may stop taking his medication and lose his mind again good enough for your son, daughter, wife? One percent is too much for me and I don't believe there's an expert on the planet that can claim this man will be able to go back to the daily grind of life where people have bad days, weeks, months, etc and not go back down the road that led him to taking a man's life. How will he feel when he's depressed? Will he stop taking his medication? Start drinking? Sorry but there's simply too many variables and IMO being monitored periodically is a small price to pay considering the lives he affected even if it was indirectly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

My opinion is that this guy purposely cut a man's head off and should therefore lose his normal privileges as a Canadian citizen. I don't care that doctors have determined that he was mentally ill at the time but is now "rehabilitated"or whatever the term would be. There should be absolutely no unconditional release ever for someone in a case like this.

The whole not criminally responsible thing is a crock of ****. If you kill someone and it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did it (not accidentally, but purposely), you should never be out of prison for the rest of your life. Period.

Let me ask you a question, have you ever had a thought in your mind that you can't get rid of. A flash of paranoia that everyone is out to get you, that the government has planted chips in your head to control your thoughts and your neighbor is actually a spy and is going to kill you?

Or that your daughter is a demon intent on killing your and sending you to hell.

Or you have 100 voices in your head telling you that its ok to kill the person sitting next to you because he's evil and his death will save lives.

Vincent Li is not criminally responsible because what's happening in his brain is uncontrollable and unbalanced.

This wasn't a man who would normally kill someone or even hurt anyone, but because of a imbalance, or simply how his brain developed simply lives in what would almost be a different reality then everyone else. Literally his brain is at war with his brain. And it might result in loss of impulse control, or not knowing or being able to understand the difference between right and wrong. or having the feeling that everyone is your enemy.

the old running joke is "Holy shyte I think my brain is trying to kill me". For people with severe mental illnesses its not a joke.

They aren't responsible because the one thing that in normal people makes us responsible doesn't function properly. Or maybe it does and all of us sane people are crazy.

For the most part, and I'm usually careful when I say it its something that can either be cured or managed, with the cured part never being a complete certainty.

The scariest point in my life was when I dated a girl for about 6 months and then one day she let me in on a secret that she felt she was being constantly watched. Ok, I thought, she maybe has a stalker ex boyfriend. So being naive about it I started to get more vigilant, she'd call me in the middle of the night convinced that someone was watching her. Ok, I thought she's jittery. then she told me that I needed to take the dash out of the car because she was convinced that someone was bugging her car. At first you humor them, because maybe its just something due to her stress, or she's a little too obsessed with spy movies, or whatever. Then she started pointing out specific people, neighbors or co workers or whatever, they were the ones responsible and she was going to prove it. But even if she did, it didn't matter because they were all part of a massive conspiracy. So now, you know that something is seriously wrong. You start to wonder how safe you are with her. That maybe your first instinct should be self preservation, and you should get out now.

Or maybe you should try to convince her to get help. and you talk to her about it, that she's scaring you a bit with these fantasies. and that you think she really needs to talk to someone. And she agrees and your relieved, and you start researching where you should go. Then she tells you that she needs to go to home for a while. So that makes sense. Then you get an email from her accusing you of being one of them and to leave her alone. Now to be honest, my reaction was pretty much a fist pump and a singing of the Who's "I'm free".

I don't know what happened to her, or where she is. But I do think about it quit a bit. Mental illness isn't always apparent, its not always some homeless raving lunatic raving about Xenu and aliens. It can be incredibly subtle and just happen, and a person can seem normal for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, and then it happens. Or in a lessor case like depression, its just hard to see it from the outside, and the person because of the stigma of depression hides it until one day it overwhelms them.

Does that sound like someone that's responsible for her actions? Or someone that's driven by something else?

Li isn't a monster, for god sakes, I doubt on any other day that he's a killer. On that day, that mental illness manifested itself in a violent and horrifying way that at the time to Li seemed right and logical because of his illness.

I'm not opposed to releasing him, I'm certainly not possessed to him being given every single opportunity to lead a normal life. In fact I hope he does.

I feel for the victims family, and I understand their anger and concern. But I also have the concerns of a release that can't be bound by conditions for the rest of his life.

But to say that you hate the idea of NCR and its BS, that's just wrong man. A person with severe mental illnesses, simply can't be responsible, because their condition isn't controllable without intervention

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

In short, if I was in his place (I hope I never am) I would think that I would agree to a process to ensure I was always medicated so I could enjoy my life, free of concerns that I might have another episode resulting in a similar event.

I totally agree that if I was remorseful I would want to personally ensure that this would never happen again and would welcome the process of ensuring that I'm always on the right track and reduce or eliminate any possibilities of me falling back to that state of mind. It's possible this is simply his lawyer trying to hit a home run for his client but if it's him that is totally against having to be monitored would have to question if he is really remorseful and understanding of just how dangerous a threat to society he poses if he loses control. The brightest and sanest people #### up in their lives so he has to understand even if he's feeling great today or this past year that can change.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If he is remorseful (which I believe he is) is would seem to follow that he would be willing to have a procedure/process in place to ensure the non-medicated Li doesn't get out again.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I totally agree that if I was remorseful I would want to personally ensure that this would never happen again and would welcome the process of ensuring that I'm always on the right track and reduce or eliminate any possibilities of me falling back to that state of mind... if it's him that is totally against having to be monitored would have to question if he is really remorseful and understanding of just how dangerous a threat to society he poses if he loses control.

To me, that's getting akin to the argument made everytime we lose our freedoms. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind being searched. If you don't want to be searched, clearly you have something to hide" The onus should be the opposite "if you want to search me, you should be able to reasonably prove you have cause to do so."

If Li requires constant monitoring forever, there should be an onus on the Manitoba Criminal Review Board to provide reason that he does indeed require it. If he wants his independence back that should in no way reflect on whether he is remorseful.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

To me, that's getting akin to the argument made everytime we lose our freedoms. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind being searched. If you don't want to be searched, clearly you have something to hide" The onus should be the opposite "if you want to search me, you should be able to reasonably prove you have cause to do so."

If Li requires constant monitoring forever, there should be an onus on the Manitoba Criminal Review Board to provide reason that he does indeed require it. If he wants his independence back that should in no way reflect on whether he is remorseful.

But we can't dealing with everyone here. We are dealing with an individual that has had a prior episode(s), one of which has had terrible results.

My concern is also, whether or not the medical system will work properly if Li shows up complaining of a new bout of problems. I am concerned that the staff at the hospital/walk-in clinic won't have any knowledge of his prior issues.

I recently had a friend and co-worker murdered. There is talk that the person accused of the murder had sought medical/mental help less than 12 hrs prior. That person was turned away, and my co-worker is now dead. Is my friend still alive if this person isn't turned away from the facility they went to, I don't know. I don't even know if this person even went to a facility as facts/information is cloudy and scant.

I do know I don't want Mr Li to have to make the decision of whether or not he needs medication is this brain isn't functioning properly enough to make that decision.

This #### isn't easy and these aren't simple decisions. I believe that they need to be made while looking at the history of the person.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

To me, that's getting akin to the argument made everytime we lose our freedoms. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind being searched. If you don't want to be searched, clearly you have something to hide" The onus should be the opposite "if you want to search me, you should be able to reasonably prove you have cause to do so."

So you're against check stops, and the security procedures we're all subjected to every time we get on a plane?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So you're against check stops, and the security procedures we're all subjected to every time we get on a plane?

Yeah I think he's kind of fallen off track here.

[ken0042]

The difference being is that unmedicated, he did commit a very violent act. He is now medicated, and his freedom should be based upon him remaining medicated. The only way to do that is to check in on him.

It would be different if he had a permanent procedure done that repaired the damage/illness.

The search analogy works if we were talking about making every diagnosed schizophrenic patient submit to testing. I am just saying that ones with a past history of violence be subject to that. The reason his release is even a subject is that he was not criminally responsible. If he had been, he would have been left in jail and likely never been given parole. In my mind, part of not being criminally responsible due to mental disease is that you disease must be monitored.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So you're against check stops, and the security procedures we're all subjected to every time we get on a plane?

Flying and driving are privileges, not rights. By doing either, you are passively agreeing to both of those. Neither of those have any bearing when we are talking about rights.

Are you for stop-and-frisk, random searches, unlawful detainment and unwarranted searches?