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

[Dion]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He doesn't HAVE to get refills though...why are you not grasping this?

Grasp what?

He has to take his meds for the rest of his life. I don't have a lifetime supply of meds and neither does Li.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dion

Grasp what?

He has to take his meds for the rest of his life. I don't have a lifetime supply of meds and neither does Li.

Wow...just....wow.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

He is not obligated to take any medication.

You're missing the point. He was given a discharge because the board believes he will continue to take his medication.

This time around there won't be anyone required to make sure he takes them. Too much trust given IMO.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wow...just....wow.

You think he won't return to his former self is he stops his meds???

Wow indeed

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Dion

You think he won't return to his former self is he stops his meds???

Wow indeed

I have no effin idea if he will or not.

I DO KNOW however, is that he doesn't HAVE TO take them if he chooses not to.

I have no idea what you are even arguing any longer...so carry on.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no effin idea if he will or not.

I DO KNOW however, is that he doesn't HAVE TO take them if he chooses not to.

I have no idea what you are even arguing any longer...so carry on.

Here's the basis for why his lawyers think he should be discharged

“We’ve heard over and over again about Mr. Baker’s commitment to taking his medication, his commitment to physical and mental health, and his commitment to making sure he’s never in a position where his reality is different than the rest of us,” Libman told the board.

“He never wants to be in a situation where he could cause harm to himself or others.”

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Wow...just....wow.

He doesn't understand what's happening. That was obvious a page ago.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're missing the point. He was given a discharge because the board believes he will continue to take his medication.

This time around there won't be anyone required to make sure he takes them. Too much trust given IMO.

No, I get the point. He is unconditionally released. I may not agree with the ruling, but my support is not required.
Baker can choose to continue to be monitored. He can choose to take his meds. Can choose to keep appointments with his therapist.
Or can choose to do none of those things - without repercussion.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by transplant99

He doesn't HAVE to get refills though...why are you not grasping this?

he definitely should have to, if there isn't any conditions, that should be one

[Dion]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no effin idea if he will or not.

I DO KNOW however, is that he doesn't HAVE TO take them if he chooses not to.

I have no idea what you are even arguing any longer...so carry on.

There is an unconditional trust made by the review board that Li will take his meds. That's why there are no condtions.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No, I get the point. He is unconditionally released. I may not agree with the ruling, but my support is not required.
Baker can choose to continue to be monitored. He can choose to take his meds. Can choose to keep appointments with his therapist.
Or can choose to do none of those things - without repercussion.

The ruling is based on too much trust for my liking.

Yes he can do whatever he wants but that doesn't negate the consequences of his actions. It's true that everyone involved with the treatment of Li believes he will a normal person in society and I hope he is. However if he goes off the rails you can be sure they won't wait until he kills again.

He becomes a risk when he comes off his meds and I highly doubt his medical professionals will ignore that.

[GoJetsGo]

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by Dion

The ruling is based on too much trust for my liking.

Yes he can do whatever he wants but that doesn't negate the consequences of his actions. It's true that everyone involved with the treatment of Li believes he will a normal person in society and I hope he is. However if he goes off the rails you can be sure they won't wait until he kills again.

He becomes a risk when he comes off his meds and I highly doubt his medical professionals will ignore that.

And what can they do about it?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

And what can they do about it?

Guidelines for involuntary admisssion

Typically, individuals are admitted to a psychiatric or mental health facility when they pose a threat to the personal safety of themselves or others.

Involuntary admission

The Mental Health Act sets out several reasons that a person may be held as an involuntary patient. The two most common reasons are:

1. The person is a danger to themselves, another person, or may unintentionally injure themselves, or
2. The person’s condition is deteriorating and they require hospitalization.

To become an involuntary patient, a doctor must decide that the person meets one of the requirements of the Act and then sign a Certificate of Involuntary Admission. If the person was an involuntary patient already, and the term of the Certificate was expiring, the doctor can keep the person in the facility involuntarily by signing a Certificate of Renewal.

A person may also be admitted as a patient involuntarily upon recommendation of a physician. In Ontario, any doctor may make an application for a psychiatric assessment of an individual and the public authorities (police, hospital officials, etc.) are obliged to detain the person. The physician must give that person written notice of the application and cite reasons.

The detention may be for no more than 72 hours. In that time, a different physician must assess the condition of the patient. Any patient detained involuntarily is entitled to a hearing before the province's Consent and Capacity Board. The patient has a right to retain counsel.

Two opinions are needed to maintain the detention. A first psychiatric assessment must be performed within 24 hours of admittance and a second assessment must be performed within 96 hours.

http://www.legalline.ca/legal-answer...ength-of-stay/

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by MBates

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?

Settle down? I'm not mad I'm just the usual disappointed with our court system and the bleeding heart libs that run it.

As to your question on my statement, it's simple math. very few people in history exhibited behavior like Vince Li let alone in Canada. chances are my next door neighbor is just fine.

And to be clear I'm not worried he'll harm his new neighbor's, I'm worried for the total public, you, your family, my family hell even my enemy's.

Free after 8 years is complete BS.

PS, I answered your question but you didn't answer mine.

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

[Red Potato Standing By]

Depends did the dog spend 8 years with professionals and is it smart enough to take its medication on its own?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Settle down? I'm not mad I'm just the usual disappointed with our court system and the bleeding heart libs that run it.

As to your question on my statement, it's simple math. very few people in history exhibited behavior like Vince Li let alone in Canada. chances are my next door neighbor is just fine.

And to be clear I'm not worried he'll harm his new neighbor's, I'm worried for the total public, you, your family, my family hell even my enemy's.

Free after 8 years is complete BS.

PS, I answered your question but you didn't answer mine.

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

A dog that bites a childs face is initialy quarantined and then put down.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I had a massively long post to type based on a long discussion I just had with a family member who treats schizophrenics just like Vincent Li but safari crashed and it's gone.

Basic gist is that they wouldn't have released him if he didn't show extreme dedication to maintaining his medication and his ongoing care with a regular visits to his doctors. And that if he disappeared they could potentially either file a missing persons or would have sufficient reason to check in on him due to his medical history. It is unlikely they wouldn't be able to justify putting him in involuntary care, even if just for a short period of time for an evaluation, based on the fact that his schizophrenia has been proven to be a danger to both himself and others in the past. Obviously this is based on limited knowledge of his exact diagnosis but given the severity of his previous issues it would seem weird not to.

The big thing I got out of the conversation though was how pessimistic we all are about our justice system. As if this guy isn't getting top level care from a team of professionals. And presumably he wants to live a normal life too and along with his dedication with maintaining his care for the last eight years, knows the only way that that will continue is if he maintains his care.

It's almost as if people saying he's a danger because he doesn't have to take his medication think he wants to hear demons and murder people, which is asinine because the medication works very well and there aren't a lot of logical reasons as to why he'd stop. The medication is very effective and it would seem odd for him to want to stop if he likes being normal, which he probably does.

Large portions of the general public appear to think that they just let him go free and having set up absolutely no support system for him to maintain ongoing care. In fact they almost certainly wouldn't have released him if they didn't think that the chances of him maintaining his care and his medication were almost an absolute certainty.

Also I wanted to mention, he's probably not taking pills he's probably getting a monthly injection. It's much easier to monitor and much harder to miss taking. And if he did stop taking his medication for any reason, it would be unlikely that he'd become violent very quickly, but he would not be able to hide his schizophrenic symptoms. They'd know pretty quickly. He would likely not be very good, or even able, to hide his symptoms.

There was so much more interesting information I had typed out but it all got erased and I can't remember all of it. Basically this guys gonna be a social pariah and going to be scrutinized by his community, the police, doctors etc. for the rest of his life. And his standard of living going forward isn't going to be the best.

My relative said she's treated multiple people very similar sounding symptoms to Vincent, and by that I mean people who heard voices from demons etc and telling them to do violent things. First she said it's more common for the voices to tell them to do self harm not to harm others. Second is that she's had patients that did very violent things, got treatment, took the medication for the rest of their lives because they wanted normal lives and ended up living relatively normal life afterwards. But it's hard because the effects of schizophrenia on the brain are permanent and even though meds would prevent relapses he may never be as sharp as he once was. He may struggle to live alone or get a job, not that anyone would hire him, and will probably need a lot of support going forward.


Ok that turned out pretty long anyway.

TLDR probably shouldn't worry too much, he's getting good care and isn't likely to stop.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Mathgod, 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 keep asking this to people who are acting like it's statistically likely that he will kill again, but as far as I can tell the next time this happens will be the first such instance in Canada. If anything, your arguments are alleviating any fear I did have because they simply aren't backed by any real world information.

That's because the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. The first case has yet to happen but that doesn't mean we have any indication of when it will happen or how long it will be before it happens.

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Also, your personal experiences with the mental health system are irrelevant.

No they aren't.

Just because the experts say that this man poses no significant risk to the public, doesn't necessarily mean that he actually poses no significant risk to the public. I'm skeptical that the mental health experts actually hold the level of expertise on the subject that they purportedly hold.

The only other thing I'm going to say on this topic is that I sincerely hope you are right and this man does not (as the result of his schizophrenia or otherwise) attack anyone for the rest of his life. If another attack happens there are going to be a lot of very ticked off people, myself included.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

snip

Excellent post that clears up a lot of misconceptions.

A few questions......

Did she say anything about the rates of suicide with schizophrenics?

Anything about possible vigilante justice seekers?