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

[Ryan Coke]

The unfortunate thing is that by not putting restrictions on Li/Baker, there is the risk that if he reoffends then it could lead to the elimination or change to the NCR law as it stands. If Li were to go off meds and do another violent act, there would be strong political pressure to either get rid of the NCR law altogether, or to substantially modify it from its current form.

I don't see the upside to not maintaining conditions on his release.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Dion

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?

I didn't ask either unfortunately.

But she definitely was on the sympathetic side due to the trouble he'll face going forward. Stressed how he's literally a different person when medicated and may want so badly to be normal but will never get the chance now. Not because he can't be normal when medicated, but because he'll never be anonymous again and others will likely treat him poorly.

Actually speaking of vigilante justice, she said the persons responsible for his discharge and his future care are probably not having a good time right now either. They are under so much pressure. Probably not being treated very well in their own communities due to the stigma of being the ones responsible for releasing him.

One thing she did say is that often times schizophrenia affects the memory so it's possible that he doesn't even fully remember what he did.

She also doesn't live in the same province as Li and the rules for things like involuntary care vary for province to province so some of what I posted is speculation. But she is in Canada. And currently employed with a provincial health service or whatever. Like AHS. But not AHS.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

The unfortunate thing is that by not putting restrictions on Li/Baker, there is the risk that if he reoffends then it could lead to the elimination or change to the NCR law as it stands. If Li were to go off meds and do another violent act, there would be strong political pressure to either get rid of the NCR law altogether, or to substantially modify it from its current form.

I don't see the upside to not maintaining conditions on his release.

Regarding your last sentence, another thing I talked about is that the review board may have been limited by the legal parameters of release.

So for example let's say there are 5 main parts to being eligible for an absolute discharge. If he met all 5 they may have had to grant the discharge because this was a legal decision they may have known that any appeal to their ruling wouldn't stand up so they felt compelled to release him.

Basically it sounded like the medical experts give impartial evidence and if it meets the criteria the he has to be granted his discharge. They may not have been able to act on hunches or feelings or even agreed with the decision.

This is highly speculative. There's a legal aspect here that my relative wasn't familiar with. She was speculating purely from the perspective of one of his case workers or whatever.

[KelVarnsen]

I'm with Dion. I would have no problem with Will becoming my neighbor.

[PepsiFree]

Pretty simple question to the "what if he stops taking his meds?" crowd.

How often do you think somebody who is told "take this every day, or there's a good chance you could die" forgets to take their meds? People with serious illnesses that absolutely depend on medication? I'd bet good money it's rare.

What if a loved one got diagnosed with something life threatening, and had to take medication. Would you say to the doctor, "No, you need to keep them at the hospital forever, they might forget their medication!"... seems unlikely, doesn't it? You might just trust them to take their medication, considering their life depends on it.

How about if someone said to you: "take this every day, or you might wind up having a hallucination and killing whoever is nearest to you"?

Seems serious enough to trust that it's something someone would want to avoid.

[MBates]

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?

The fact you are equating Baker to a poorly trained dog is about as feeble as it gets.

So let me try to answer the yes or no question people (that's fake tv law by the way) as best I can.

I would prefer at all times to have the most safest low risk people living beside me as my neighbours.

Since that is imaginary, I will accept reality.

If I could choose my new neighbour, would I pick Baker? No. I would pick Bill Gates or my best friend or maybe Lanny McDonald...because they are interesting people. Not because of some false belief they are "safe". Do I have any flipping idea if any of those people are on the verge of a psychotic break? Nope. And neither do you.

So would I be okay if Baker was moving in next door tomorrow? I'd be apprehensive, not going to lie about it. But here's the thing. I've sat in rooms with paranoid schizophrenics, convicted murderers, strung out meth addicts, organized crime leaders, convicted child pornographers, fraud scammers, you name it. I can tell you two people in nearly 15 years that scared me. That's it.

Without exception I spoke to and dealt with each of those people as well people.

I would suck up my apprehensions and introduce myself to Baker. I wouldn't let my kids go play at his house but I don't let them do that with any neighbours. We would make him cookies and welcome him to the neighbourhood. I would pause and consider that over 400 Albertans die in car accidents every single year and I would stop thinking about catastrophic horrors that are never going to be remotely close to as likely to devastate my kids as a bad driver taking me out on my twice daily commute.

And Baker is not a dog and you know that was foolish.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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.

I still haven't seen where you show your experiences are at all relevant. And yes, the experts are not infallible. But they know a lot more about this situation than anybody here, so what is your skepticism based upon? Why do you doubt them? If you are questioning the conclusions of a panel of experts, surely there is more to it than "I had a crappy experience with my doctors before".

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Dion

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

It's exactly what would have happened to Li had he did this in his native country, but here he gets freedom and free drugs.

It makes sense that immigrants rate us in the top 3 country's to move to.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by MBates

The fact you are equating Baker to a poorly trained dog is about as feeble as it gets.

So let me try to answer the yes or no question people (that's fake tv law by the way) as best I can.

I would prefer at all times to have the most safest low risk people living beside me as my neighbours.

Since that is imaginary, I will accept reality.

If I could choose my new neighbour, would I pick Baker? No. I would pick Bill Gates or my best friend or maybe Lanny McDonald...because they are interesting people. Not because of some false belief they are "safe". Do I have any flipping idea if any of those people are on the verge of a psychotic break? Nope. And neither do you.

So would I be okay if Baker was moving in next door tomorrow? I'd be apprehensive, not going to lie about it. But here's the thing. I've sat in rooms with paranoid schizophrenics, convicted murderers, strung out meth addicts, organized crime leaders, convicted child pornographers, fraud scammers, you name it. I can tell you two people in nearly 15 years that scared me. That's it.

Without exception I spoke to and dealt with each of those people as well people.

I would suck up my apprehensions and introduce myself to Baker. I wouldn't let my kids go play at his house but I don't let them do that with any neighbours. We would make him cookies and welcome him to the neighbourhood. I would pause and consider that over 400 Albertans die in car accidents every single year and I would stop thinking about catastrophic horrors that are never going to be remotely close to as likely to devastate my kids as a bad driver taking me out on my twice daily commute.

And Baker is not a dog and you know that was foolish.

Nice spin at an attempt to answer my question, I'm guessing you're a lawyer or a social worker, those bad asses you weren't scared of was because it was in a controlled atmosphere where little could go wrong, how about trying to stay calm,cool and collect in there environment? I had to in my former life as a cop! out of the drug dealers, likely murderers, bikers and the "crazy's"(schizophrenics) the crazy's were the most feared,turn your back and get stabbed with a pen or hit in the back of the head. and oh do they lie! people think they are stupid but wow schizophrenics are great with lies and deceit.

And you're right Baker(Li) is not a dog, Dogs don't cut of heads with knives and chew on them to freak people out.

I would love to know if Li killed one of your family members would you be ok with this decision but I can tell you wouldn't be honest with the answer.

I'm done with this thread, It's now a waste of time, I have my opinion and it's clearly wrong according to the Canadian courts.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It's exactly what would have happened to Li had he did this in his native country, but here he gets freedom and free drugs.

It makes sense that immigrants rate us in the top 3 country's to move to.

Are you suggesting that Canada ought to model its criminal justice system after China's? Or is there some other point that you're trying to make?

[CliffFletcher]

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?

The sample size is too small to draw any conclusions from.

[Ryan Coke]

Funny thing with analogies (like the dog), is that they are a way to get the other person to look at a situation in a different context, and see if their feelings are consistent. But it is too easy for the other person to instead just dismiss it with the 'and now you're trying to compare a schizophrenic human to a misbehaving dog?' Because that line is much easier than trying to re-evaluate you position.

So I'll keep going with it instead. Dog chews off a kids face. But instead of killing the poor dog, it's decided that as long as he is kept on a leash with its owner he is fine. So should there be a legal requirement that the dog be kept on leash? Or should we just hope that the owner feels strongly enough about it?

Hey I feel for the dog, and Li, and this has nothing to do with a joy at punishing someone for prior misdeeds, but is purely for the protection of those around them.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Nice spin at an attempt to answer my question, I'm guessing you're a lawyer or a social worker, those bad asses you weren't scared of was because it was in a controlled atmosphere where little could go wrong, how about trying to stay calm,cool and collect in there environment? I had to in my former life as a cop! out of the drug dealers, likely murderers, bikers and the "crazy's"(schizophrenics) the crazy's were the most feared,turn your back and get stabbed with a pen or hit in the back of the head. and oh do they lie! people think they are stupid but wow schizophrenics are great with lies and deceit.

And you're right Baker(Li) is not a dog, Dogs don't cut of heads with knives and chew on them to freak people out.

I would love to know if Li killed one of your family members would you be ok with this decision but I can tell you wouldn't be honest with the answer.

I'm done with this thread, It's now a waste of time, I have my opinion and it's clearly wrong according to the Canadian courts.

So if people don't answer the way you want, they are not being honest?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Funny thing with analogies (like the dog), is that they are a way to get the other person to look at a situation in a different context, and see if their feelings are consistent. But it is too easy for the other person to instead just dismiss it with the 'and now you're trying to compare a schizophrenic human to a misbehaving dog?' Because that line is much easier than trying to re-evaluate you position.

So I'll keep going with it instead. Dog chews off a kids face. But instead of killing the poor dog, it's decided that as long as he is kept on a leash with its owner he is fine. So should there be a legal requirement that the dog be kept on leash? Or should we just hope that the owner feels strongly enough about it?

Hey I feel for the dog, and Li, and this has nothing to do with a joy at punishing someone for prior misdeeds, but is purely for the protection of those around them.

Has this dog been subject to the review board process? Been evaluated by psychiatrists? Has the Board had input from the Crown Attorney's office? Has the Board issues a written decision, with reasons, that is reviewable by the courts? And, having gone through this process, has the Board recommended that the dog not be subject to an order requiring it to be leashed at all times? If so, and in the absence of any further, then I, personally, am satisfied that the dog should be able to roam leash-free to his heart's content.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretty simple question to the "what if he stops taking his meds?" crowd.

How often do you think somebody who is told "take this every day, or there's a good chance you could die" forgets to take their meds? People with serious illnesses that absolutely depend on medication? I'd bet good money it's rare.

What if a loved one got diagnosed with something life threatening, and had to take medication. Would you say to the doctor, "No, you need to keep them at the hospital forever, they might forget their medication!"... seems unlikely, doesn't it? You might just trust them to take their medication, considering their life depends on it.

How about if someone said to you: "take this every day, or you might wind up having a hallucination and killing whoever is nearest to you"?

Seems serious enough to trust that it's something someone would want to avoid.

People forget birth control pills all the time. Medication compliance from finishing antibiotics to affording the treatment is a real issue. Stats on general medication compliance were posted earlier and they aren't pretty.

And if a family member had to take life saving medication that they would die without I would probably be checking in with them once a week to ensure they are taking it and not having any other issues whether they liked it or not.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Funny thing with analogies (like the dog), is that they are a way to get the other person to look at a situation in a different context, and see if their feelings are consistent. But it is too easy for the other person to instead just dismiss it with the 'and now you're trying to compare a schizophrenic human to a misbehaving dog?' Because that line is much easier than trying to re-evaluate you position.

So I'll keep going with it instead. Dog chews off a kids face. But instead of killing the poor dog, it's decided that as long as he is kept on a leash with its owner he is fine. So should there be a legal requirement that the dog be kept on leash? Or should we just hope that the owner feels strongly enough about it?

Hey I feel for the dog, and Li, and this has nothing to do with a joy at punishing someone for prior misdeeds, but is purely for the protection of those around them.

The answer to the dog question is absolutely no problem what so ever if its been trained, rehabilitated and proves itself worthy of trust. Mike Vick's dogs lived with people as do other fighting dogs all the time. Same goes for Li. He's proved himself worthy of trust.

My thoughts were the same as the other poster who suggested treating a rehabilitated Li the same as any other neighbor. Talk to him Become part of the community that can help prevent something from happening again.

[Coys1882]

It's disappointing really - this is a story where we should try and find some happiness but all I see are people voicing outrage. Isn't this the point of justice and rehabilitation - to get people back on track, healthy, happy and contributing in some capacity to society?

Lucid, free thinking gang members who shoot up restaurants get out of jail just as quickly as Baker and I'm a 1000% positive they'll re-offend before he will.

[EldrickOnIce]

Peculiar statement from Greyhound, made Friday:

The tragic incident almost nine years ago near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba has never been forgotten. Greyhound remains committed to ensuring the safety of our customers and employees. While airport-style security is impractical given the rural nature of our network, we are taking steps to ensure the perpetrator of this horrific event never steps foot on a Greyhound bus again.

http://bloggreyhound.com/news/feb-10-2017-statement/

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Has this dog been subject to the review board process? Been evaluated by psychiatrists? Has the Board had input from the Crown Attorney's office? Has the Board issues a written decision, with reasons, that is reviewable by the courts? And, having gone through this process, has the Board recommended that the dog not be subject to an order requiring it to be leashed at all times? If so, and in the absence of any further, then I, personally, am satisfied that the dog should be able to roam leash-free to his heart's content.

Yes, to all of the above. Except the caveat that the dog is safe as long as he stays on the leash. If he isn't on the leash, all bets are off.

As for the board that recommended it not be subject to leashing, that is the whole debate as to whether they should have, or had the ability to legally.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Peculiar statement from Greyhound, made Friday:

http://bloggreyhound.com/news/feb-10-2017-statement/

[Greyhound posts Vince Li/Will Baker photo at all ticket windows.]