Man Beheaded on Greyhound Bus

[Hydraboss]

Life, 25 years, 15 years before he can ask for parole and then monitored for the rest of his life not to mention must report for life. But you will get those that say...oh I dunno, ten years or 5 years or something ridiculous like that.

Insane, no doubt.

He won't do a day in prison. My money's on his lawyer (that I'll have to pay for) chasing the "not criminally responsible" BS that plays so well in Canadian courts. He'll be found nuts at the time and spend a month or two in a mental hospital and then some shrink will say he's no longer a threat to society and he'll walk.

Anyone want to take the bet?

[blueblood]

Look for bus terminals to be rigged up with security like airports now I suppose.

[blueblood]

He won't do a day in prison. My money's on his lawyer (that I'll have to pay for) chasing the "not criminally responsible" BS that plays so well in Canadian courts. He'll be found nuts at the time and spend a month or two in a mental hospital and then some shrink will say he's no longer a threat to society and he'll walk.

Anyone want to take the bet?

I'll take that bet. I'll refer to the case of Kim Walker, this guy snapped and killed a drug dealer. He doesn't apparently remember doing it, probably rendering him nuts at the time.

But then again aren't most if not all people who commit murder "nuts" when they do so? If that's the case, then all the murderers would be in institutions and off in a couple months when the PhD says they are "better"

As for Kim Walker, the jury HAD to find him guilty as instructed by the judge, from where I'm sitting, this guy has his hand more in the cookie jar than old Kim. The only question is, is how much time this murderer gets.

As for the people on the bus not helping, an 8 inch blade in close quarters would result in a bloody mess, also the people DID help, they locked him in the bus and disabled it thereby giftwrapping the murderer for the cops. I'm shocked he walked off that bus alive.

[cybercoma]

I agree that security on buses and streetcars and subways would be difficult to enforce. It would slow these forms of transportation down to a crawl, which would make them useless, really. I guess that's why I was thinking maybe some form of a weapon might be a consideration. I suppose that isn't really the answer, but I sure can understand why people do want to be armed. I think I would like to at least have something like mace or pepper spray, but don't know how effective that would really be, I have to admit.

And there likely would be an incident of a crazy driver abusing the taser, stun gun, pepper spray, or whatever it is they'd be allowed to carry (I'm not really suggesting that the drivers carry handguns). But in retrospect, I have to agree with bk59 regarding this particular incident:

Whether the populace is armed or the driver is armed doesn't matter in this particular incident. The guy sat down next to him and calmly began stabbing him. Chances are the victim was already fatally wounded before anyone even knew what was going on. Putting security on the bus, arming the drivers and/or arming the public would not have prevented this victim from being killed.

In fact, concerning the point about arming the populace, easier access to firearms could've made this incident a hell of a lot worse. Instead of him focusing on this single victim with a knife, imagine if he had shot him and calmly began shooting other passengers. By the time someone who was armed realized what was going on and was willing and able to draw their gun, more people could have been killed. Also, opening fire on the criminal in close quarters like this would've certainly created more casualties or fatalities on the bus.

This was an freak and unfortunate incident that I don't believe could have been avoided. My condolences go out to everyone who knew the victim and is grieving at this time.

[cybercoma]

He won't do a day in prison. My money's on his lawyer (that I'll have to pay for) chasing the "not criminally responsible" BS that plays so well in Canadian courts. He'll be found nuts at the time and spend a month or two in a mental hospital and then some shrink will say he's no longer a threat to society and he'll walk.

Anyone want to take the bet?

When a person is found "not criminally responsible," as you put it, they don't get a free pass after a month or two. Often times when someone is deemed insane by the courts, they spend more time locked in a mental facility than they would have spent locked behind bars.

[Wild Bill]

When a person is found "not criminally responsible," as you put it, they don't get a free pass after a month or two. Often times when someone is deemed insane by the courts, they spend more time locked in a mental facility than they would have spent locked behind bars.

Not always. I have some close experience. While anecdotal, it's hardly in the category of urban myth.

Years ago my father-in-law was a house builder. He had many tradesmen he used on a regular basis, like roofers, electricians and plumbers. His regular plumber was a man I'll call "Carl", who lived in my town.

Carl grew a bit kinky after a while and began to push his wife into the wife-swapping scene. At first apparently she wasn't too keen but once she got into it she got an enthusiastic change of heart, to the point where she told Carl she wanted a divorce, to be free to marry someone else.

Carl didn't like this idea at all. One day when the kids got home they found that Daddy Carl had hacked up their mommy to death with an axe.

Many of us in my community followed this ghastly crime from our own neighbourhood with great interest. Carl was charged with criminal insanity of some kind and was put in a mental institution. At that point most folks figured things were over and done with and after a few years the incident was all but forgotten.

As you can imagine, my family had more of an interest than most and continued to pay attention. One day we were shocked to hear that Carl was back on the street! Apparently, when you are considered criminally insane you are only locked up until the doctors agree that you are no longer raising snakes under your hat. If they decide that you are no longer nuts then you are free to go.

Carl had served less than 4 years!

We can argue if this all makes sense to treat such cases in this way. I myself don't claim to have all the answers.

I DO know that my father-in-law refused to ever use "Carl's Plumbing" ever again!

[cybercoma]

Obviously, without knowing the specifics of the case to which you're referring, all I can say is that the sentence for second degree murder is 10-25 years without parole; however, a judge may decide parole eligibility at sentencing. There's a possibility that he would've only spent 10 years behind bars if he were convicted of second degree murder. Given the gruesomeness of the act, I doubt the sentence would be that low, but there are people who have committed murder that get out after 10 years.

[Wild Bill]

Obviously, without knowing the specifics of the case to which you're referring, all I can say is that the sentence for second degree murder is 10-25 years without parole; however, a judge may decide parole eligibility at sentencing. There's a possibility that he would've only spent 10 years behind bars if he were convicted of second degree murder. Given the gruesomeness of the act, I doubt the sentence would be that low, but there are people who have committed murder that get out after 10 years.

Hey, all I know is he was out in less than 4. I was responding to the point made that insanity is not a free pass and that such a person would spend more time in an institution than if he was convicted as a regular felon. Carl was declared nuts and Carl walked after less than 4 years.

BTW, has ANYBODY been convicted of FIRST degree murder here in Canada in recent memory? I've read where this simply no longer happens. If so, why bother having it on the books?

[AngusThermopyle]

BTW, has ANYBODY been convicted of FIRST degree murder here in Canada in recent memory? I've read where this simply no longer happens. If so, why bother having it on the books?

Couldn't tell you WB, now you mention it I have to admit that I can't remember the last time I heard of someone being charged with first degree.

They said on the news that this guy was being charged with second degree murder, go figure.

We really do need to stiffen penalties and make them actually mean what they should. Instead we concern ourselves with the rights and rehabilitation (thats a joke all on its own) of the criminal. There was an interesting article in the paper yesterday about how our system is more concerned with rehabilitation than public safety. I'll try to remember which paper it was and see if I can find the article online.

Okay, I found it.

That attitude was best summed up in a 1971 speech to Parliament by then Liberal solicitor-general Jean-Pierre Goyer. Complaining about the high costs of keeping criminals incarcerated, he said: "The present situation results from the fact that (the) protection of society has received more emphasis than the rehabilitation of inmates. Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of offenders, rather than the protection of society."

Good Article

Edited August 2, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[bk59]

Couldn't tell you WB, now you mention it I have to admit that I can't remember the last time I heard of someone being charged with first degree.

If you want a quick, high-profile example then Robert Pickton was charged with first degree murder. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder last December. The defence is appealing, but so is the Crown so that the appeal is heard on the basis of the original first degree murder charges.

If the question is when was someone last convicted of first degree murder, that I don't know.

They said on the news that this guy was being charged with second degree murder, go figure.

Which makes sense. All reports so far have indicated that this was a random attack. Not pre-planned at all. This makes it second degree murder, not first degree murder.

BTW, has ANYBODY been convicted of FIRST degree murder here in Canada in recent memory? I've read where this simply no longer happens. If so, why bother having it on the books?

First degree murder exists so that those who plan to murder someone receive harsher sentences than those who murder someone without planning. It makes sense to me. Punish both, but punish the one who planned everything out more.

Even if there aren't a lot of convictions then it is still worthwhile to have that on the books for when it is necessary. I mean, we don't exactly charge people with war crimes on a regular basis, but I still think we should include that offence in our Criminal Code.

Perhaps someone with some time could dig up some recent stats on convictions for first and second degree murder.

[Smallc]

If the question is when was someone last convicted of first degree murder, that I don't know.

Were there any recent cop killers that lived to conviction? Thats an automatic 1st degree.

[bk59]

Okay, I found it.

Good Article

That article is overselling things a bit. The basic stats aren't wrong, but the characterization seems a bit off. I remember reading articles about the falling crime rate. What I read used phrases like "lowest in the past fifteen years", etc. This article makes it seem like everyone was saying the crime rate is the lowest that its ever been. I certainly didn't see that anywhere.

The author also takes a few liberties. Like when the author dismisses the property crime stats by saying that "many victims don't even bother to report [these crimes] anymore". If you are going to engage in that type of dismissive behaviour then you have to be willing to talk about how the same argument can be applied against your position (e.g. how domestic violence crimes were not always reported as frequently in the past).

Anyway, the debate regarding punishment vs. rehabilitation is a valid debate. I'm just not sure this article really added much to that debate.

[Fortunata]

First hit after googling:

Bitternose appeals 1st-degree murder conviction

Last Updated: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 | 1:50 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/stor...peal060531.html

third hit:

Appeals court upholds Calgary man's first degree murder conviction in stalking case

Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald

Published: Wednesday, June 18, 2008

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...f5-57774bb55a74

[AngusThermopyle]

Anyway, the debate regarding punishment vs. rehabilitation is a valid debate.

Actually I thought it was rather good. It is after all just an op-ed piece so we can't expect it to be conclusive given its limited scope. the part I found to be very telling was the part I quoted as it sums up our Canadian attitude towards criminals in a nutshell. Personally I believe that if you're dealing with a murderer then the whole issue of rehabilitation is irrelevant. removing the murderer from society should be the priority, not returning them as quickly as possible.

[FTA Lawyer]

Having this year successfully argued in the Supreme Court of Canada about the difference between first and second degree murder, I am again baffled by the media's inability to properly explain the issue, and the public's unwillingness to learn.

In Canada, any murder conviction is an automatic life sentence. That's it...could not be any more simple. As a convicted murderer, you will never finish serving your sentence until you yourself are dead.

The difference in penalty is only regarding parole elligibility (please note...not parole, but parole elligibility).

First degree murder automatically means you cannot even apply for parole until you serve 25 years.

Second degree murder is not automatically anything. The sentencing judge will set the parole elligibility which has to be a minimum of 10 years.

Again, elligibility...not parole.

Once you are elligible, you apply to the National Parole Board for parole and they will either grant or deny based on a multitude of criteria (the propriety of which I do not comment on in this post). If you get parole, you are always subject to conditions, breaches of which result in parole revocation without any trial and almost without any form of due process. After all, you are still serving your sentence, so being out is truly a privilege and not a right at this point.

The exception to the above is the "faint hope clause". If you get parole elligibility set at more than 15 years (automatic in 1st deg., by the judge in 2nd deg.) then after you serve at least 15 years, you can apply to a judge for approval to apply to a jury to seek a reduction in your elligibility.

If the judge finds your application could succeed, then you get to try to convince the jury. If they unanimously agree, then you get the ability to apply early to the National Parole Board for parole. The NPB will always have the final say on whether you actually get parole.

As for the substantive difference, people often mistakenly believe that 1st degree murder is for brutal killing whereas 2nd degree is for some less horrific form of murder. Actually, the brutality (or lack of) has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

For a murder to attract the automatic more serious punishment of a 1st degree murder, it has to have been planned and the plan must have been deliberated upon. That is, the offender has to actually have a plan and take some time to reflect on the pros and cons of such plan. Even after such consideration, if a person goes ahead and commits the murder, then they do so with the highest moral blameworthiness.

So, if I make a very simple plan to put poison in a child-molester's drink and I consider the consequences of the plan...and decide to go ahead with it, I am guilty of first degree murder. It doesn't matter that the murder was not gruesome and the victim was evil.

On the contrary, if I have no plan, don't particularly weigh what I am about to do and on an apparent whim commit a horrendous murder such as what happened on that bus, it will be second degree murder. Again, it doesn't matter that the murder is horrific and violent and that the victim is a blameless good kid.

Hope this helps.

FTA

[Guest American Woman]

Whether the populace is armed or the driver is armed doesn't matter in this particular incident. The guy sat down next to him and calmly began stabbing him. Chances are the victim was already fatally wounded before anyone even knew what was going on. Putting security on the bus, arming the drivers and/or arming the public would not have prevented this victim from being killed.

I already conceded that in this instance the victim was likely already fatally wounded before anyone knew what was going on/could have reacted, so I agree with you about that, but if he hadn't fixated on just the one passenger, it could have been very different. He stabbed one victim "50 or 60 times" rather than multiple passengers.

In fact, concerning the point about arming the populace, easier access to firearms could've made this incident a hell of a lot worse. Instead of him focusing on this single victim with a knife, imagine if he had shot him and calmly began shooting other passengers.

Or as I stated above, imagine instead of him focusing on a single victim he had lashed out at the others sitting by him. That would have made the incident a lot worse, too. He could have fatally stabbed all the passengers sitting around him with a swift jab to the throat before people would have reacted/known what was going on if that had been his intent.

By the time someone who was armed realized what was going on and was willing and able to draw their gun, more people could have been killed. Also, opening fire on the criminal in close quarters like this would've certainly created more casualties or fatalities on the bus.

People keep referring to "opening fire" when I've said I'm not necessarily talking about firearms, but rather stun guns, tasers, and pepper spray. I don't recall any responses to being armed with this type of weapon.

This was an freak and unfortunate incident that I don't believe could have been avoided. My condolences go out to everyone who knew the victim and is grieving at this time.

It is a freak incident, for sure. But too often innocent people are victims of meaningless crimes. The internet headlines referring to this incident also included a story about three Michigan teens who were shot to death while swimming in the river in a sparsely populated community. Who here heard of that? Which leads me to wonder how often these random deaths occur without our even knowing about it.

Furthermore, I think, had the guy on the greyhound bus wanted to own a gun, he would have. I don't think people who commit random acts of violence like this vs those who commit them 'in the heat of the moment' are stopped by what's illegal. I mean, if they can kill like this, certainly they wouldn't be above breaking the law when it comes to things like gun ownership.

As for his sentence, I sure hope he isn't found insane and simply put away in a mental institution until he's been 'cured.' I find the release of people who commit crimes like this very scary.

Edited August 3, 2008 by American Woman

[eyeball]

The world's a scary place alright. I'm just terrified one of these random attacks happen on the eve of an election. Judging by what I've heard from posters on this forum, letters to the editor and comments in the street, people who want the state to crack down, get tough, and hang em' high, would probably get what they're wishing for in spades.

If that happened, I'd likely move even farther back into the bush.

[Leafless]

The world's a scary place alright. I'm just terrified one of these random attacks happen on the eve of an election. Judging by what I've heard from posters on this forum, letters to the editor and comments in the street, people who want the state to crack down, get tough, and hang em' high, would probably get what they're wishing for in spades.

What are you going to do about killer diseases?

If that happened, I'd likely move even farther back into the bush.

Now your really looking for trouble.

[Oleg Bach]

The world's a scary place alright. I'm just terrified one of these random attacks happen on the eve of an election. Judging by what I've heard from posters on this forum, letters to the editor and comments in the street, people who want the state to crack down, get tough, and hang em' high, would probably get what they're wishing for in spades.

If that happened, I'd likely move even farther back into the bush.

The world is not a scary place - judges that function on policy and not judgement are scarey - this crazed evil son of a bitch - I am sure was released by some goof called honourable and now look what has happened - who needs terrorism from abroad when us fools generate our own - shame!

[bk59]

The world is not a scary place - judges that function on policy and not judgement are scarey - this crazed evil son of a bitch - I am sure was released by some goof called honourable and now look what has happened - who needs terrorism from abroad when us fools generate our own - shame!

The only goof I see is the one jumping to a totally unfounded conclusion. From what I have read the police have confirmed that the suspect has no previous criminal record. Even if he did have a record, that does not mean that anyone could have predicted the suspect would ever commit this type of crime.

Maybe it's time to take off the tinfoil hat and admit that crime is not caused by judges.

[Argus]

I already conceded that in this instance the victim was likely already fatally wounded before anyone knew what was going on/could have reacted, so I agree with you about that, but if he hadn't fixated on just the one passenger, it could have been very different. He stabbed one victim "50 or 60 times" rather than multiple passengers.

Or as I stated above, imagine instead of him focusing on a single victim he had lashed out at the others sitting by him. That would have made the incident a lot worse, too. He could have fatally stabbed all the passengers sitting around him with a swift jab to the throat before people would have reacted/known what was going on if that had been his intent.

People keep referring to "opening fire" when I've said I'm not necessarily talking about firearms, but rather stun guns, tasers, and pepper spray. I don't recall any responses to being armed with this type of weapon.

It is a freak incident, for sure. But too often innocent people are victims of meaningless crimes. The internet headlines referring to this incident also included a story about three Michigan teens who were shot to death while swimming in the river in a sparsely populated community. Who here heard of that? Which leads me to wonder how often these random deaths occur without our even knowing about it.

Furthermore, I think, had the guy on the greyhound bus wanted to own a gun, he would have. I don't think people who commit random acts of violence like this vs those who commit them 'in the heat of the moment' are stopped by what's illegal. I mean, if they can kill like this, certainly they wouldn't be above breaking the law when it comes to things like gun ownership.

As for his sentence, I sure hope he isn't found insane and simply put away in a mental institution until he's been 'cured.' I find the release of people who commit crimes like this very scary.

A very good and complete summation. And I have no real problem with the way the courts handle this sort of thing - except - of course, for the tendency to reduce the charge to manslaughter. To my mind, very obvious and blatant murders are reduced to manslaughter all too often. This unfortunately allows our bleeding heart judges to reduce the sentences as low as they possibly can, often to 2 years or less, for quite heinous acts of murder.

[Argus]

What are the odds we can ship this looney tune back to China after his sentence (presuming he gets one and isn't treated for a few years in a nut house instead) is done?

[xul]

People keep referring to "opening fire" when I've said I'm not necessarily talking about firearms, but rather stun guns, tasers, and pepper spray. I don't recall any responses to being armed with this type of weapon.

I think the essential problem of the thread is not which kind of weapon the drivers would arm, but that to arm a driver means he has obligation to use these weapons protecting his passengers just as people arm policemen means policemen have obligation to protect the people who arm them and could not flee even if they were facing weiguang li-liked criminals or maniac. So all bus drivers will need a renewed job contract and, of course, a renewed salary and insurance policy. And some guys who are not brave enough will need to try for a new job instead of being bus drivers.

[Riverwind]

What are the odds we can ship this looney tune back to China after his sentence (presuming he gets one and isn't treated for a few years in a nut house instead) is done?

Do you actually know he is an immigrant or are you simply assuming that?

[capricorn]

Do you actually know he is an immigrant or are you simply assuming that?

It's been reported he immigrated to Canada from China with his wife in 2002.

"There were media reports that Li, who immigrated to Canada in 2002, worked as a newspaper carrier for the Edmonton Sun and Edmonton Journal."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/471824