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

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What? Of course if people think we should change the law and remove the rights of an innocent person because they feel he is a threat, then bringing up people who are higher threats and free is relevant.

Come on GGG, you're better than that. There's no statistics for him. There was one person is Manitoba found NCR who went on to kill again. He was 16 and released after 4 months, he didn't even have schizophrenia. Provide statistics on people found NCR due to schizophrenia, who have been treated for 8 years and been deemed a non-threat and then we can talk about the stats of him....Given the advances in medical treatment we should also be talking about people who have been released relatively recently. Of course I'll throw you a bone and just say in general.

Yeah, no. Even if we believed that, there are no statistics of relevance that could possibly be used.

If you actually wanted to use stats with respect to Li's case, the actual conclusion, outside of "not enough data," would be very low.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933385/

Very few are asking for a law change. Most disagree with the assessment of the threat level.

There are statistics in Canada for those NCRd. 4/1800 committed murder in a 3yr period or something like that. It's in the thread here. That is the best data we have. We are relying on experts who aren't being forced to put error bars on their decisions.

The experts did not answer they key question:

What is the probability that he will kill again, what is the error range in that assessment. There answer was just not significant. That is not a sufficient risk assessment. If you built a pipeline with that kind of risk assessment it would not be approved.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

How is any of that relevant? You're not taking it further, you're bringing up irrelevant what if scenarios.

The point is that his doctors obviously believe he is a threat when not on medication otherwise they wouldn't have made it a condition of his release.

Bringing up random what ifs doesn't change he fact that he's not an unconditional threat.

Well thank you for making my point then, because there ARE no conditions for his release. He is a free man.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GGG

The experts did not answer they key question:

What is the probability that he will kill again, what is the error range in that assessment. There answer was just not significant. That is not a sufficient risk assessment. If you built a pipeline with that kind of risk assessment it would not be approved.

Li’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Kremer, told the review board Li is on medication and experiencing no symptoms or hallucinations. He has been diagnosed as having a 0.8 per cent chance of violently reoffending in the next seven years, according to risk assessments done on him.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ince-li-passes

[GGG]

What's it today? is .8% with or without monitoring and what is the potential error in that diagnosis. And a 1% chance is significant

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GGG

What's it today? is .8% with or without monitoring and what is the potential error in that diagnosis. And a 1% chance is significant

We release people who were not NCR who have a higher probability to re-offend, they aren't monitored in the method you want.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GGG

What's it today? is .8% with or without monitoring and what is the potential error in that diagnosis. And a 1% chance is significant

We don't know. Maybe we'll never know. But we do know this -- that article is from 2012. Since then, his freedoms have clearly increased. So from that, I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's either 0.8% or less.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

There are statistics in Canada for those NCRd. 4/1800 committed murder in a 3yr period or something like that. It's in the thread here. That is the best data we have. We are relying on experts who aren't being forced to put error bars on their decisions.

"Best data we have." NCR does not have to be due to schizophrenia though. of those 4 people who recommitted, apparently, do you even know if they had schizophrenia? Are you aware of their treatment details and their level of release? If you're going to use statistics to try and judge his threat level, you need at least a base it on his conditions. And maybe that would even paint a worse picture for Li, but the point is, we really haven't seen that picture at all. I edit my post, so you may not have seen, but GGG are you aware of anyone who killed due to a schizophrenic psychotic episode who went on to have another schizophrenic psychotic episode resulting in another death in Canada after no longer being deemed a signficant threat? I have not been able to find one such case.

I'd also like to point out that 0.8% is for violently reoffending. That is not specific to killing. It could just be simple assault. And the studies for violent offenders to violently re-offend is something like 20% for perspective, and they get released all the time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

We release people who were not NCR who have a higher probability to re-offend, they aren't monitored in the method you want.

The standard for releasing those people isn't not a significant threat and we don't have an effective way of mitigating that threat besides incarceration. Also if you want to go down the road of comparing LI to criminals we can it just doesn't end well for Mr Li's freedom and certainly isn't an appropriate way to treat the mentally ill.

Here simple medication compliance, which when he is in a sound state of mind, wants to continue, mitigates the risk.

[GGG]

Nm

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The point is that his doctors obviously believe he is a threat when not on medication otherwise they wouldn't have made it a condition of his release.

He was just released unconditionally....

Of course the experts believe that he will continue to take his medication and follow his treatment or they wouldn't have been advocating for his unconditional release but he has no conditions.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Never suggested he be institutionalized due to the fear of the public. I was suggesting that it's hypocritical to say from 2 provinces over "Will Baker is taking his medication now, and he understands it's morally wrong to decapitate another man, and so I'm okay with him going unsupervised".

Before Will Baker decapitated Tim McLean he was someone's neighbour. If I assume you have neighbours, and that they have not yet decapitated another person, on what basis do you continue to live beside them without the necessary 100% guarantee they will never violently attack you?

What evidence do you have of their psychiatric history and risk of developing a schizophrenic psychotic break? I bet you have none whatsoever and are willing to just assume they will not hurt you because so far they haven't.

Blind faith based on nothing.

So why are you certain Will Baker would be a more risky neighbour?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Unless you know (a) something his doctors don't about his condition/situation, (b) have some sort of specialized training that his doctors don't (c) can see the future or (d) just plainly don't believe in the system, I don't see how anybody could rationally believe otherwise.

The fear that The Fonz has is a fair one. I had a friend and neighbour growing up who suffered from Schizophrenia. He was always going to the hospital to have his medication dosage adjusted. Without Li being monitired on a regular basis he might not notice his meds going out of wack.

Li has said he would allow for constant monitoring and I seriously hope that was in the final judgement passed down by the review board.

[Huntingwhale]

nm

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by MBates

Before Will Baker decapitated Tim McLean he was someone's neighbour. If I assume you have neighbours, and that they have not yet decapitated another person, on what basis do you continue to live beside them without the necessary 100% guarantee they will never violently attack you?

What evidence do you have of their psychiatric history and risk of developing a schizophrenic psychotic break? I bet you have none whatsoever and are willing to just assume they will not hurt you because so far they haven't.

Blind faith based on nothing.

So why are you certain Will Baker would be a more risky neighbour?

If a neighbors dog bit your child in the face would you let any of your kids near that dog?

Jesus, the guy cut off a strangers head and chewed on it!... forever traumatizing 40 other passengers and police. he isn't wired right and no amount of anti psychotic drugs would allow me to trust him. Seriously man, the chances that your neighbor is capable of this type of behavior is almost none.

This is a slap in the face to the victim, his family and everyone else effected.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

If a neighbors dog bit your child in the face would you let any of your kids near that dog?

Jesus, the guy cut off a strangers head and chewed on it!... forever traumatizing 40 other passengers and police. he isn't wired right and no amount of anti psychotic drugs would allow me to trust him. Seriously man, the chances that your neighbor is capable of this type of behavior is almost none.

This is a slap in the face to the victim, his family and everyone else effected.

Is this some sort of ####ty pun?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Is this some sort of ####ty pun?

He could care less...he's dead

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

He could care less...he's dead

How could he care less then?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Well thank you for making my point then, because there ARE no conditions for his release. He is a free man.

You said he was unconditionally not a threat, not that there were no conditions to his release. Those aren't the same thing.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

He was just released unconditionally....

Of course the experts believe that he will continue to take his medication and follow his treatment or they wouldn't have been advocating for his unconditional release but he has no conditions.

Right. I should have said belief or assumption, not condition.

But I originally responded to a post that said it's wrong to think that he's not an unconditional threat.

As you said though, his release is based on the belief that he's not a threat on the belief that he takes his meds. I meant their decision is based upon that assumption. He obviously has no conditions to his release like check ups or whatever.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

If a neighbors dog bit your child in the face would you let any of your kids near that dog?

Jesus, the guy cut off a strangers head and chewed on it!... forever traumatizing 40 other passengers and police. he isn't wired right and no amount of anti psychotic drugs would allow me to trust him. Seriously man, the chances that your neighbor is capable of this type of behavior is almost none.

This is a slap in the face to the victim, his family and everyone else effected.

Settle down and you might see my point. On what do you base this statement:

"the chances that your neighbour is capable of this type of behaviour is almost none".

How do you know? Do you know what "amount of anti-psychotic drugs" each of them are or are not taking? Well, if you don't have stat sheets on all of them, then how on earth can you allow yourself to trust them?

How does your statement hold up to scrutiny if you had said it to Will Baker's neighbour before the bus incident?

I will say again, too many people are relying on a false premise that the general population, including your neighbours, present risk levels of "almost none".

As such, you easily conclude since Baker is obviously higher risk than that, he can never be allowed to be your neighbour...and anyone who thinks otherwise is outrageous.

It's based on no actual facts. Just your wilful ignorance of the reality that a psychiatric shift from 'normal' to incomprehensible savage can literally happen to anyone. Even you, or your mom, your kids...etc.

[Ryan Coke]

No, I think most people realize anyone can be violent or have potential mental illness that might make them violent. However when someone proves that they are violent or have mental illness that makes them hurt people then it is a different situation.

I have no problem with the finding of NCR, and it's great that his illness has been treated. I think it is awesome in our progressive society that we can work to correct the underlying illness and give him back many freedoms. That doesn't change the fact that he has proven, beyond any doubt, that without medication he can be terribly violent. The limitation to his freedom that monitoring his medication consumption incurs is reasonable in the context of protecting the safety of the rest of society in the event he were to stop taking his meds.

Society is full of limits to all our freedoms in order to not infringe on others rights. Ensuring he stays on the medication is not an undue infringement of his rights based on his history, IMO of course.