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

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

How is it irrational - if you were in his immediate vicinity - to be concerned he might stop taking his medications and potentially lash out again?

I think that couldn't be a more rational fear.

We're not talking about a guy who might get in his car and drive drunk, we're talking about a guy who is capable of hearing voices instructing him to cut someone's head off and eat them and then do it.

I think the very sane and rational notion anyone of us in our right minds wouldn't want this guy (unsupervised) near us or our families underlines the fact that releasing him to ensure he self-medicates is a grossly irresponsible decision.



"They" make a lot of short sighted, dangerous and laughable decisions every year in every facet of society. That instills zero confidence.

It's irrational because it goes against science and reason, and my belief in the system.

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You should check out this documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152758/

and take a long hard look at the Canadian legal system and it's ability to determine what is and isn't an acceptable risk / threat.

After you're doing watching that, read this:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...iving-vince-li

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Lol.

You should watch this documentary on a person suffering from schizophrenia who was released and killed again in Canada:

Oh ####, nevermind one doesn't exist.

Those weren't remotely the same situation. At this point it's simple fear-mongering. Shirley Turner posts bail. Vince Li spends 8 years in treatment. Same exact ####ing thing for sure.

1) That was in response to someone suggesting it's okay because someone in a position of trust decided it is. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that case or just continuing to be a smug know-it-all, but (similar to this situation) "they" decided it posed no threat to release an infant into her care despite her evaluations and she drowned the child. So again, with regard to DionD's assertion "it's okay because 'they' say it's ok"... bull#####.

2) You still haven't answered my very simple and direct question to you:

Would you want him living next to you and or your family this week?

It's a real, tangible question someone is going to have to answer this week, so it couldn't be more relevant.

You can sit here on your keyboard removed from the actual danger all you want and spout statistics. You know you wouldn't want the risk of this man living next to your family, and your failure to answer this very simple question underlines it.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

It's irrational because it goes against science and reason, and my belief in the system.

Yet you answered (rationally) you wouldn't want him living next door to you, because deep down you fully recognize the very real concern.

And for a 2nd time, I find your blind trust in "they" and "the system" utterly and completely naive. If that's your fall back position, we're done discussing this.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

2) You still haven't answered my very simple and direct question to you:

Would you want him living next to you and or your family this week?

It's a real, tangible question someone is going to have to answer this week, so it couldn't be more relevant.

Actually I have. It's quite clear you aren't even reading.

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You can sit here on your keyboard removed from the actual danger all you want and spout statistics. You know you wouldn't want the risk of this man living next to your family, and your failure to answer this very simple question underlines it.

What statistics? There is no statistics. As far as I can tell, not a single person who killed while under a schizophrenic episode killed again after being released unconditionally in Canada. All I'm asking for is evidence that this has happened.

If it hasn't happened, why is there such a concern that it will? I'm beginning to feel sorry for you and people like you who would rather let their emotions control them and be afraid of something that so far has never happened. Instead of looking at what an absolute great situation this is. A deeply disturbed person, a person who at the time of the incident we all thought would never be healed, is no longer deemed a threat. He's been released, will almost certainly never harm anyone again (based on it never happening before), and is on track to regain some of his life. He isn't his mental illness. He didn't kill Tim McLean, his illness did. He's been treated for it. He's an innocent person who had no control and he's regaining his life. It's a win for rehabilitation and our Justice System. Until it's proved otherwise, I'm happy, not afraid of my own shadow.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Actually I have. It's quite clear you aren't even reading.

What statistics? There is no statistics. As far as I can tell, not a single person who killed while under a schizophrenic episode killed again after being released unconditionally in Canada. All I'm asking for is evidence that this has happened.

If it hasn't happened, why is there such a concern that it will? I'm beginning to feel sorry for you and people like you who would rather let their emotions control them and be afraid of something that so far has never happened. Instead of looking at what an absolute great situation this is. A deeply disturbed person, a person who at the time of the incident we all thought would never be healed, is no longer deemed a threat. He's been released, will almost certainly never harm anyone again (based on it never happening before), and is on track to regain some of his life. He isn't his mental illness. He didn't kill Tim McLean, his illness did. He's been treated for it. He's an innocent person who had no control and he's regaining his life. It's a win for rehabilitation and our Justice System. Until it's proved otherwise, I'm happy, not afraid of my own shadow.

You didn't answer the question, you avoided it.

And it's a concern, because he's going to be living, unchecked and left to his own accord to ensure he takes pills that - that if he fails to - could lead to him acting out in a heinously violent fashion again.

Your assertion you find it unlikely to happen again is irrelevant to me when it's clear you're avoiding answering whether or not you'd be comfortable with him living unsupervised next to your family.

That is precisely the point. Many people find this decision questionable, and for good reason.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Yet you answered (rationally) you wouldn't want him living next door to you, because deep down you fully recognize the very real concern.

And for a 2nd time, I find your blind trust in "they" and "the system" utterly and completely naive. If that's your fall back position, we're done discussing this.

It's not my "fall back position", it is my first line position, and the position of the legal system in Canada, the medical system in Canada, the latter of which includes doctors who have worked directly with him for years and years, who know his case best, and who are in the best position to gauge whether he is capable of functioning as a member of society. I find YOUR blind fear in him utterly and completely unjustifiable and ignorant, and so yeah, if you want to continue to revel in your ignorance, then sure, we're done discussing this.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Delgar, 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 significant threat? If you aren't, where does this fear manifests itself from?

We're acting like it's a foregone conclusion that he's going to go off his med and kill again. Except no one has been able to point out this happening in Canada before. I mean, to me that's pretty irrational.

There is no actual cure for schizophrenia. Medication and therapy are treatments. It can and does recur.

Nobody has said he will kill again, and in fact, he's not likely to kill again because he is receiving treatment, which is why he was released.

But that's not enough for my own comfort zone. He moves next door or near me, I start taking precautions. I don't care if nobody has ever cut someone's head off and then did it again a few years later after treatment. Once is enough. I'm not going to wait to find out who becomes the first.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

It's not my "fall back position", it is the position of the legal system in Canada, the medical system in Canada, the latter of which includes doctors who have worked directly with him for years and years, who know his case best, and who are in the best position to gauge whether he is capable of functioning as a member of society.

As I said (and you just ignored), there are many example of people in positions of trust making egregious, regrettable decisions. So when you say (and I quote):

If they deem him safe to be released, he's safe to be released. If they deem him a minuscule risk to offend, then he's a minuscule risk to offend. And Rational Me is ok with that, and accepts that.

that couldn't be more naive.

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I find YOUR blind fear in him utterly and completely unjustifiable and ignorant, and so yeah, if you want to continue to revel in your ignorance, then sure, we're done discussing this.

lol, I say I think he should be monitored for life and that I wouldn't want him to live (unsupervised) near me or my family.

I ask you if you'd want him living next to yours and you say "no". And I'm "revealing in ignorance" for those two very simple opinions?

You two need to get over yourselves and come to terms to the fact there's a good reason people are uncomfortable with this decision that couldn't be more rational.

[GGG]

When asked Oling was uncomfortable with the idea of him being able to choose to go off his meds if he wanted to and dionthedman would have preferred continued monitoring over an absolute discharge.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You didn't answer the question, you avoided it.

And it's a concern, because he's going to be living, unchecked and left to his own accord to ensure he takes pills that - that if he fails to - could lead to him acting out in a heinously violent fashion again.

Your assertion you find it unlikely to happen again is irrelevant to me when it's clear you're avoiding answering whether or not you'd be comfortable with him living unsupervised next to your family.

That is precisely the point. Many people find this decision questionable, and for good reason.

I said I would gladly take him over one of my current neighbours. And, unfortunately, it's not a rare occurrence to have someone involved with drugs pretty much anywhere you are in this city today. Hell, if I knew whether he cleared his sidewalk of snow I might take him over half of the people in my community. Probably better chance of me falling and breaking my neck running on those icy sidewalks than him killing me. I would be more concerned about my property value (due to people like you and Delgar who wouldn't consider my house) than I would be of my safety. If I was so concerned about my safety, there's pretty much no chance of me living in a city. I would have to hermit myself in the deep woods pretty much. I didn't avoid the question at all. Unlike you.

So I'll ask again. 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 significant threat?

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I said I would gladly take him over one of my current neighbours. And, unfortunately, it's not a rare occurrence to have someone involved with drugs pretty much anywhere you are in this city today. I would be more concerned about my property value (due to people like you and Delgar who wouldn't consider my house) than I would be of my safety. If I was so concerned about my safety, there's pretty much no chance of me living in a city. I would have to hermit myself in the deep woods pretty much. I didn't avoid the question at all. Unlike you.

So I'll ask again. 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 significant threat?

I wouldn't even know where to begin researching that... but as I've already said, if he were living near me I wouldn't care about that. The bottom line is he's now left to his own devices to take pills every day - that if he fails to do so - could lead to him not just harming someone, but heinously killing them.

For me, that's enough to feel comfortable thinking it's a bad decision.

As for the first part, I think you're lying to continue beating this SJW drum. I don't buy a word of it, and think that if he did move in next door to you, your tune wouldn't be the same.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You didn't answer the question, you avoided it.

And it's a concern, because he's going to be living, unchecked and left to his own accord to ensure he takes pills that - that if he fails to - could lead to him acting out in a heinously violent fashion again.

Your assertion you find it unlikely to happen again is irrelevant to me when it's clear you're avoiding answering whether or not you'd be comfortable with him living unsupervised next to your family.

That is precisely the point. Many people find this decision questionable, and for good reason.

He has to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis to get refills on his meds. Should he decide to go off his meds, his shrink would notice and have him detained.

Li and his lawyer have also said they would continue the monitoring of his meds.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis to get refills on his meds. Should he decide to go off his meds, his shrink would notice and have him detained.

Li and his lawyer have also said they would continue the monitoring of his meds.

How regularly? How often? How long can go off the pills before an episode is possible?

Not good enough in my opinion.

You've been an advocate for him from day one Dion, and if I recall correctly even a couple years ago when the possibility of release was brought up you conceded it could be a concern were he moving in close to you or your family.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis to get refills on his meds. Should he decide to go off his meds, his shrink would notice and have him detained.

Li and his lawyer have also said they would continue the monitoring of his meds.

What? That can't be true can it? He has been granted an absolute discharge, which to my understanding is absolute freedom. Isn't the whole reason this is controversial because he could go off his meds now and as a society we now owe him the freedom to make that decision?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You can sit here on your keyboard removed from the actual danger all you want and spout statistics. You know you wouldn't want the risk of this man living next to your family, and your failure to answer this very simple question underlines it.

I had a friend growing up who was diagnosed as a schizophrenic who also tried to kill his mother. After the incident and for years afterwards he remained my neighbour and friend.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis to get refills on his meds. Should he decide to go off his meds, his shrink would notice and have him detained.

Li and his lawyer have also said they would continue the monitoring of his meds.

Which has zero to do with him being forced (which i beleive is the issue here) to take them.

The guy quit taking them once before and the results were a catastrophe.

People are concerned he may repeat this behaviour once again and then getting labelled as being irrational in their fears, which is not only unfair, it doesn't address the perceived problem.

This decision is IMO a really poor one without the absolute assurance the guy wont stop medicating...something he has shown to do already.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

I had a friend growing up who was diagnosed as a schizophrenic who also tried to kill his mother. After the incident and for years afterwards he remained my neighbour and friend.

Yes you mention that every time any issue pertaining to mental health is brought up.

Li isn't your childhood friend, so I ask you directly: Would you be okay with Li moving in next to you and or your family this week?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What? That can't be true can it? He has been granted an absolute discharge, which to my understanding is absolute freedom. Isn't the whole reason this is controversial because he could go off his meds now and as a society we now owe him the freedom to make that decision?

How else do you think he would get refills on his medication? Or the proper dosage if his meds go out of whack?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Yes you mention that every time any issue pertaining to mental health is brought up.

Li isn't your childhood friend, so I ask you directly: Would you be okay with Li moving in next to you and or your family this week?

He can be my neighbour and friend if he wants.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

How else do you think he would get refills on his medication? Or the proper dosage if his meds go out of whack?

So because his pharmacist(s) might notice he hasn't picked up his meds in a timely fashion it alleviates any concerned that he may go off the pills long enough to have an episode left unchecked?

His lawyer "checking in on him" alleviates the same concern?

Come on Dion.