Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I don't think you quite understand how police shootings work. They're based on a threat to civilians and the responsing officers lives, not on how bad of a crime has been commited. Police don't get to say "Oh my god, what a terrible crime he's commited, let's shoot him". Because like Valo43 said, that would be manslaughter, if not murder.

No, I do perfectly understand the rules, when the cops first approached the bus Lin, by press accounts, stood by the door of the bus waving the head of his victim and his hunting knife, he refused to drop the knife, the cop was about 3 feet away from him seperated by a door controlled from inside the bus (ie concevably controlled by Lin).
Under similer circumstance cops have decided that by refusing to drop the knife, and acting in a threatening manner, they were at risk, and shot people quite legally. It is a mistake to think the police have to be actually attacked to use lethal force.

From the Vancouver Sun

No charge against Vancouver officer who fatally shot man
The Canadian Press

A Vancouver police officer who repeatedly fired at a man and killed him with a shot to the head nearly five years ago will not be charged.
Police Complaint Commissioner Stan Lowe said Monday that extensive investigations have not produced any evidence to suggest Const. Lee Chipperfield used unnecessary or excessive force in handling the incident.
Chipperfield was among several officers who responded to a 911 call about a man's erratic behaviour on the night of August 13, 2007.
He fired multiple shots at Paul Boyd, who was mentally ill and swinging a bicycle chain.
A coroner's inquest in 2010 heard Chipperfield shot Boyd eight times and fired the final shot, which hit the illustrator's head -- even after his partner told him to hold fire and disarmed the man.

Now I agree you could argue that in the above case the cops could have and should have disarmed the guy with a bit of bike chain, after all they were never in any danger of being killed and barely at risk of being hurt to be frank, but it was still a legal shooting, so some guy waving a hunting knife and someones bloody decapitated head on a bus would clearly pass muster under canadian law.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Blaming a non-medicated schizophrenic for acting crazy is like blaming a person with heart disease for having a heart attack or an epileptic for having a seizure. Granted the latter two don't kill people when their diseases manifest themselves but the point remains.

The big point about this is someone having a heart attack does not harm someone else, unless they are driving or operating equipment. So pilots, drivers and other operators cannot operate assorted machinery due to assorted health conditions, including epilepsy and other disorders. Someone who has committed such a violent crime due to schizophrenia or any other disease should be placed somewhere to prevent them from hurting other people. In this guy's case, that is jail.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No, I do perfectly understand the rules, when the cops first approached the bus Lin, by press accounts, stood by the door of the bus waving the head of his victim and his hunting knife, he refused to drop the knife, the cop was about 3 feet away from him seperated by a door controlled from inside the bus (ie concevably controlled by Lin).
Under similer circumstance cops have decided that by refusing to drop the knife, and acting in a threatening manner, they were at risk, and shot people quite legally. It is a mistake to think the police have to be actually attacked to use lethal force.

From the Vancouver Sun

No charge against Vancouver officer who fatally shot man
The Canadian Press

A Vancouver police officer who repeatedly fired at a man and killed him with a shot to the head nearly five years ago will not be charged.
Police Complaint Commissioner Stan Lowe said Monday that extensive investigations have not produced any evidence to suggest Const. Lee Chipperfield used unnecessary or excessive force in handling the incident.
Chipperfield was among several officers who responded to a 911 call about a man's erratic behaviour on the night of August 13, 2007.
He fired multiple shots at Paul Boyd, who was mentally ill and swinging a bicycle chain.
A coroner's inquest in 2010 heard Chipperfield shot Boyd eight times and fired the final shot, which hit the illustrator's head -- even after his partner told him to hold fire and disarmed the man.

Now I agree you could argue that in the above case the cops could have and should have disarmed the guy with a bit of bike chain, after all they were never in any danger of being killed and barely at risk of being hurt to be frank, but it was still a legal shooting, so some guy waving a hunting knife and someones bloody decapitated head on a bus would clearly pass muster under canadian law.

Umm no, the difference being that someone swinging a bike chain at you is presenting threat.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The big point about this is someone having a heart attack does not harm someone else, unless they are driving or operating equipment. So pilots, drivers and other operators cannot operate assorted machinery due to assorted health conditions, including epilepsy and other disorders. Someone who has committed such a violent crime due to schizophrenia or any other disease should be placed somewhere to prevent them from hurting other people. In this guy's case, that is jail.

Jails/prisons are not set to treat the mentally ill.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

Jails/prisons are not set to treat the mentally ill.

I care more about public safety than so called treatment.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I care more about public safety than so called treatment.

Don't give us your so called I care more about public safety bullcrap. Just admit that revenge is all you want. If you really cared about public safety you would have read the links posted where he was shown not to be a threat where he is now.

A non treated schizophrenic is a huge threat to all other inmates inside a prison. Your ignorance towards mental illness is showing.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I care more about public safety than so called treatment.

You can preserve public safety and not toss a mentally ill person in jail.

[Captain_Obvious]

Maybe it's just me, but I think that if you kill someone, cut their head off and eat them... you lose your "going out and around town for a bit" privileges.

Permanently.

"Well... when he murdered and ate that poor boy on the bus he was all messed up. He wasn't right in the head and people can't help it when they're mentally ill. But we've been watching him and we think he's good now. Really. He understands that he needs to be on meds and we're 99% sure if we take him out and about for little day trips it will be all good."

Ahh no.

Denied.

Unless it's to move the guy from point A to point B in Hannibal Lector restraints, this stinks.

I don't care if he did it because he was a psychotic sociopath, mentally ill, or possessed by demons.

The most he should get is an hour of "outside time" in a heavily guarded confined area being patrolled by men with guns.

Once you do something that crazy (and we're talking bat #### crazy) once... you're done. A 99.9% chance you might not do it again just isn't good enough.

[Mightyfire89]

nm

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

Don't give us your so called I care more about public safety bullcrap. Just admit that revenge is all you want. If you really cared about public safety you would have read the links posted where he was shown not to be a threat where he is now.
A non treated schizophrenic is a huge threat to all other inmates inside a prison. Your ignorance towards mental illness is showing.

Revenge? Where did you get that from my post? And if so, so what? I don't care about the links, the guy cut someone's head off and started eating them. That to me is the perfect definition for someone that no longer deserves freedom.

And for those reasons I am ignorant? Cool.

Edit: Maybe we could add a poll to understand just how many people feel he deserves to be in a jail or hospital or free.

Perhaps you need to chill on the name calling when someone disagrees with you. You just posted that he is more of a threat to other inmates, so we should release him! So silly, I won't even go there.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Revenge? Where did you get that from my post? And if so, so what? I don't care about the links, the guy cut someone's head off and started eating them. That to me is the perfect definition for someone that no longer deserves freedom.

And for those reasons I am ignorant? Cool.

Edit: Maybe we could add a poll to understand just how many people feel he deserves to be in a jail or hospital or free.

Perhaps you need to chill on the name calling when someone disagrees with you. You just posted that he is more of a threat to other inmates, so we should release him! So silly, I won't even go there.

Well, it is revenge.
You're looking at repressive law, instead of restitutive law. It may not be overtly obvious, but revenge is at the heart of repressive law.
This was a very sick man, who did not have the rational control his mind to be accountable for his actions. And that's not Dion and myself's opinion, that is the opinion of the Judge, the Crown, the Defence, and countless clinical psychiatrists.
Why is his life invalidated by an action where he had no cognitive control? At the end of the day, you damn a very sick man to death, or worse, by sending him to a prison, instead of treating him and allowing for the equality of all man: as stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Smartcar]

What he did was horrific but if he can be treated and become a productive contributing member of society I don't see the benefit of keeping him incarcerated forever as punishment. This article sums up the different viewpoints very well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2436127/

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Revenge? Where did you get that from my post? And if so, so what? I don't care about the links, the guy cut someone's head off and started eating them. That to me is the perfect definition for someone that no longer deserves freedom.

And for those reasons I am ignorant? Cool.

You're ignorant for suggesting he be put in prison without any treatment. An understanding of schizophrenia would tell you that his illness caused him to do those horrible things and if left untreated he'd do the same again.

Those links you chose not to read show that the medical treatment he was given is working. He has posed no threat to staff members in the hospital.

I had a friend in HS who was shizophrenic. He had been acting strangely since returning home from his first year of college. One day out of the blue he tried to choke his mother to death. It was later discovered he had schizophrenia. He was given treatment and for about a year he seemed to be living a normal life. He ended up comitting suicide.

Perhaps you need to chill on the name calling when someone disagrees with you. You just posted that he is more of a threat to other inmates, so we should release him! So silly, I won't even go there.

There is no name calling in my post and I never said we should release him. I simply said putting an untreated schizophrenic in prison would pose a high risk to other inmates. A prison hospital for the mentally ill was the right place to put him.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're ignorant for suggesting he be put in prison without any treatment.

I never suggested no treatment.

Originally Posted by Dion

Those links you chose not to read show that the medical treatment he was given is working. He has posed no threat to staff members in the hospital.

And why should I care? There is a chance he can commit another crime, and has lost his shot at freedom, in my opinion. For that reason, he can stay locked up.

Originally Posted by Dion

I had a friend in HS who was shizophrenic. He had been acting strangely since returning home from his first year of college. One day out of the blue he tried to choke his mother to death. It was later discovered he had schizophrenia. He was given treatment and for about a year he seemed to be living a normal life. He ended up comitting suicide.

Cool story, I think you could not have stated my case any better. Sorry about your friend, as you may know mental illness is something that most of us have had to deal with either with ourselves, friends or family. The fact I have experience with this type of thing with those around me does not make me ignorant. This man should be locked away.

Originally Posted by Dion

There is no name calling in my post and I never said we should release him. I simply said putting an untreated schizophrenic in prison would pose a high risk to other inmates. A prison hospital for the mentally ill was the right place to put him.

Put him in a prison for the mentally ill, I really don't care, as long as he is not free. And you did call someone ignorant, in more than one post, so yah you are calling people names.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

What he did was horrific but if he can be treated and become a productive contributing member of society I don't see the benefit of keeping him incarcerated forever as punishment. This article sums up the different viewpoints very well:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2436127/

There is no cure for schizophrenia, just treatment. Even if he can contribute to society, what is the risk factor? What about Anders Breivik is schizophrenic as well, should they treat and release? I don't think so.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by krynski

I generally find you comedic and a pleasure to view your posts. not backing up claims with data is something we all do. Frankly, you can't un butcher the guy. He didn't take his meds or his doctor screwed up. It's a curse, not something one would do consciously.

I understand what your saying. But I guess I am looking at it from the family's point of view. If someone killed a member of my family in the manner he did, then I found out that he was able to leave his detention centre on visits, I would be livid. Most of the comments in this thread seem to tailor towards how the guy wasn't in the right frame of mind, how he is cursed with a disease that causes him to perform actions that wouldn't be done my ''normal'' people. If I'm the victim's family, that doesn't mean anything to me. This guy killed a family member and now how is able to walk out on the streets because he wasn't at fault for his actions.

Maybe I am heartless in thinking that he should be locked away for the rest of his life. Or maybe it's revenge I want. If I was a family member I know I certainly would. Either way I am of the opinion that he should not ever be let out ever again, regardless of if he is at fault mentally for what he did. If he had killed 20 people and the same verdict was reached, does that make it right that he should be allowed to leave? It's honestly a tough debate to be a part of. I understand how it's not his fault, he did something no rational person would do. But I'm looking at it from the victim's perspective and I am of the opinion that he should never be released.

[HPLovecraft]

That is why those directly involved in a crime are not and should not be involved in deciding the sentence of the criminal. Emotions cloud reason.

[IliketoPuck]

They should put him in a room with this guy.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

And you did call someone ignorant, in more than one post, so yah you are calling people names.

Calling someone ignorant is not the same as calling someone names. He was calling you ignorant in terms of your comments relating to this discussion and explained why he thinks you're ignorant. That's not even close to name calling.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Maybe I am heartless in thinking that he should be locked away for the rest of his life. Or maybe it's revenge I want. If I was a family member I know I certainly would. Either way I am of the opinion that he should not ever be let out ever again, regardless of if he is at fault mentally for what he did. If he had killed 20 people and the same verdict was reached, does that make it right that he should be allowed to leave? It's honestly a tough debate to be a part of. I understand how it's not his fault, he did something no rational person would do. But I'm looking at it from the victim's perspective and I am of the opinion that he should never be released.

If I'm driving by a park and suffer a stroke that causes me to slump forward, push on the gas, and plow through a group of kids, should I be locked up forever (assuming I survive) to appease the victims' parents? Plowing a car through a park and running over kids is a pretty reprehensible act, so lets ignore the fact that a medical even left me helpless to prevent it?