Hydraboss

Sorry, but I made it through the "feel good" ads and then really tried to listen to that garbage. Made it to 3:00 and then all I wanted was to stab myself with a styptic pencil. That has to be some of the worst radio I've ever heard. Our tax dollars paid for that?

Except the "Equalization transfer payments (4 per cent)". That one definitely binds those Canadian provinces that can't pull their own weight. I'm pretty sure it would account for the single highest percentage response if this poll was re-run in Alberta only.

I cannot thank you enough for this! This is GOLD!!! So the teachers have lost 17% of their support, but the government has only lost 4%. Awesome! Balanced budget > government worker raises 58% No 'super raises" for teachers > "super raises" for teachers 65% Gold Jerry. Gold!! THANK YOU SOCIALIST! I couldn't have found a better poll if I had prayed for it...

I missed this somehow. The evidence is in play, but buddy gets a new trial. Great........

Maybe one of the lawyers on the board can help me out here...I agree with the decision about requiring a warrant (it takes about 30 minutes in an extreme situation to get one), but in this particular case, would the conviction not be upheld? While the search was warrantless, I don't believe it was illegal. Wrong and illegal are two different things in Canada to my understanding. I could see where the convicted may be able to file suit against Shaw for giving the information out (the same line I have to walk with private information in the job I have) without warrant but the police didn't commit the equivalent of an internet "wire tap". They asked for subscriber information and were given it. Does this pose the basis for a successful appeal of the conviction? Just curious.

I would argue that this is larger than just BC (the province). It extends to all jurisdictions in Canada because each and every one will need to deal with this group of people eventually. We did in Alberta a number of years ago (I can find the thread if you want). As for BC (Bush_Cheney), I'm actually glad he jumped in. When you consider the "quality" of Socialist's posts (cough, hack...) it seems only right to let someone in that will argue at his level, only with details (if not facts). You don't have to like what he posts, but you have to admit he backs up what he posts more often than not. edit:clarity

Socialist is NOT a teacher. He's pretending to be a teacher.

Another excellent response. I touched the nerve you have directly connected to protecting all that suffers from mental illness, and you offer this as your response.

One better... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaD8rouJn0 Oh, and it's a little inappropriate so...at your own risk. And stuff.

Yes, and we all know that your sacred cow is anyone with a mental illness. Good for you. What you are purposely overlooking is the fact that no one has advocated that the mentally ill not receive treatment, except, when they step over a line you cannot come back from - murder. Why should anyone give a good god damn if a murderer can be rehabilitated or treated or made to stop hearing the voices that told them to kill and eat people? Why? They are no longer worth any investment to "save" them. Did you see me write that someone with paranoid delusions that steals a car and crashes it should be locked away for 5 years? 10 years for taking a hostage because of the same condition so long as he or she doesn't kill the victim? Please quote my post(s) where I did that. You're references to the "dark ages" are outrageous. Back then, I'm pretty sure, these same people would have been done away with for even the most minor of crimes. Get off your high horse and either debate my opinion with your own or can it. Your "thou shalt" attitude towards anyone who would dare speak their mind about the special treatment mentally ill murderers get is looking a whole lot like you're pointing down from a high horse.

Strange that you still aren't able to produce a single poll that shows "overwhelming support" for teachers. The link you posted last shows 86% of teachers voted to strike. Note that does NOT say 86% of parents and the public. You don't teach math, do you?

And he was supposed to be on his meds when he ate another person. Gee, I sure hope he takes them this time. But there are citizens who don't murder and eat other citizens. I prefer them. Exactly. Should have been executed as his guilt was "beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt". So you're saying he may not murder and eat any more Canadians? That's reassuring. Unfortunately, that also means that killers will have that exact same lack of fear.

Someone actually cares about how he's acted since he killed and ate a young man? Seriously??? Model citizens do not eat other citizens. At least not in Canada. And there is zero chance that Li did not murder Mclean. Zero. That is why he should have been executed upon his conviction. Immediately.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/doctor-found-not-criminally-responsible-of-killing-his-kids-returns-to-court/article14589228/ http://www.timslaw.ca/page/5/ <--- This one is 23 pages of NCRs. Vince Li was a perfect example of what I am talking about. The "man" should not be breathing any longer.

If they committed pre-meditated murder? Absolutely. Although lethal injection will work fine. If not first degree, then the exact same punishment meted out to any other member of the public.

But that is what is used in court to relieve these people of responsibility. The drunk was "incapable", the guy with the baby was "temporarily disassociated" from reality, and the woman suffers from "manic depression". Arguably, the drunk may not fall under the heading of "mental illness", but the other two would by definition. It makes no difference that you find it "distasteful" that I don't pray at the altar of 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 19th chances for rehabilitation or believe that making excuses for people who commit heinous crimes is of any value to society. I submit that the larger problem is that there is no accountability left in our legal system (yes, I purposely did not use the word "justice").

...and your opinion of someone with a BAC of 0.24 driving over a pedestrian? Surely THAT person can't be held responsible?!? And the guy who, in a fit of blind rage, shakes his newborn to death? Surely THAT person can't be held responsible?!? And the woman, in a fit of depression, drowns her three children in the bathtub? Surely THAT person can't be held responsible?!? Sick, my ass.

In addition, the person who apparently put the drug into another person's drink should be charged with Accessory to Murder at a minimum.

Incorrect. SOME current rules of law disagree with me. Yes. Murder. Maybe not pre-meditated murder, but murder. Then, in the case of murder, they should be in a permanent state in incarceration. Unless it was pre-meditated, in which case, capital punishment should be applied. Correct, but only due to current legal state. They are legally considered not responsible, but in my opinion, they absolutely are.

No, but if they came home sick and had killed someone - very likely. And it's not sick. I believe that ill people, regardless of the nature of the illness, should get help. Until they cross the line that is criminal. Then they need to be given the exact same punishment as every other citizen of a country, which I strongly believe should include the reinstatement of capital punishment. I don't believe any mental illness excuses someone from the responsibility when they commit a serious crime.

If an insane person murders someone, it's evil. If a sane person murders someone, it's evil. Some crazy people deserve capital punishment too. No different than sane people.

To Shady's comment: It is not always possible to control pain with medication depending on the ailment and the progression. My wife, as an RN, treated patients with bone cancer that simply could not get relief from the morphine PCA and even when switched to dilaudid drip, the dose required to ease pain sufficiently would have absolutely killed them. Not an unusual situation unfortunately. The worst was when she was on pediatric intensive care and this type of situation would occur. I know of one case where the decision to "withdraw care" had to be made to prevent the person from slipping into a permanent coma, from which there would be no escape - medical science can keep almost anyone alive in any condition if they have to. Once that bridge is crossed, there is no way back and it's too late to make the call then. So people are forced to make the decision for another before they're ready. There is a point in some people's lives when it is much kinder to simply let them go. Canada should recognize that.

Count me as standing with both he and Squid on this one. There are monsters that absolutely should be "eliminated" at first opportunity. Or murdered by cops. Or shot in the head twice. Etc, etc. Whatever you want to call it buddy, the world would be a better place without this guy in it. No trial. No bs "rehab" attempts. Just dead. So to answer your first question: Yes. It is better to kill a human being than to capture him and prevent him from killing again. Period.

Innocent my ass. This guy got overly lucky - what he deserved was one in the center of mass and a confirmation shot from up close by Tactical. Now we'll be paying for this piece of shit for the next 5-10 years until they release him under NCR status. (any bets on this one? I seem to remember calling it in the Vince Li case...) Then he'll go back to his merry little life, Until he "goes off" again that is.

That's a pump action 12 guage on his back. Looks to me like a Remington 870 Tactical (police issue).