Bus beheader Vince Li should be allowed to go to the beach: doctor

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

bull****... you've been all about case law these last few pages. Where's the case law to support your "not so cut and dry" claim? Let's have you go 2:2. You already blew-up... reeeel good... with your claims concerning civil liability, let's have you do the same here. Where's the case law to support this, your latest unsubstantiated claim?

Already done....please try to keep up....or don't...your choice. Does it frustrate you when other members choose to ignore your tantrums ? Please try to accept that other views exist in the world, and at the very least, these views will never be changed by your tedious protestations.

Peter F · June 10, 2013

What the hell, the topic is a supervised visit to the beach. Which has been conflated into permanent release with no supervision at all.

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

Either way there is no such thing as zero-risk. The lowest risk option is to treat Li and allow escorted outings. The vision of course is to de-stigmatize mental illness so that people can get treatment before violent psychotic episodes occur.

This past week, my dear wife and I helped deliver her father to a mental health facility for his own safety and the safety of those around him, even though he did not ever kill and cannibalize anyone. Public safety risk trumps "stigma" for the mentally ill. Feel good policies that place the seriously mentally ill on the streets to "de-stigmatize" them is an interesting concept, but as some here have already admitted, can be harmful to them and/or the public.

carepov · June 10, 2013

No, we know that they will most likely re-offend in a familiar way after they serve a sentence and/or pay a fine and suffer other financial sanctions (e.g. higher car insurance premiums, wage garnishment, etc.). Li's supporters are asking society to accept an unknown risk of murder for little or no "penance".

Which poses a greater risk to society:

a) allowing Li to go to the beach supervised or

b.) the release of a convicted dunk driver?

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

Which poses a greater risk to society:

a) allowing Li to go to the beach supervised or

b.) the release of a convicted dunk driver?

Not enough information....I know the risk for repeat DUI's. What is the risk for Li, regardless of "supervision" ?

carepov · June 10, 2013

This past week, my dear wife and I helped deliver her father to a mental health facility for his own safety and the safety of those around him, even though he did not ever kill and cannibalize anyone. Public safety risk trumps "stigma" for the mentally ill. Feel good policies that place the seriously mentally ill on the streets to "de-stigmatize" them is an interesting concept, but as some here have already admitted, can be harmful to them and/or the public.

I'm sorry for your father-in-law.

Yes, AFAIK, puplic safety is top prioity in making ther decision on what to do with cases like Li. As it should be.

Again Li going on escorted outings are not a risk to public safety, so why are people opposed to them?

carepov · June 10, 2013

Not enough information....I know the risk for repeat DUI's. What is the risk for Li, regardless of "supervision" ?

Don't hold back now, "Not enough information" has never stopped you from expressing your opinion before...

June 10, 2013

Your question was "You think driving drunk and killing someone is worse than cutting someone's head off and eating them?"

How do you think Dayma Roblero's parents would respond to that question?

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/judge_to_drunk_driver_in_crash.html

For the life of me, I can't see them responding that what happened to her was worse than what happened to Timothy McLean. Do you think her parents would think it wasn't as bad if she had been killed, decapitated, and her body parts eaten? I'm really not following your line of reasoning at all.

What if a repeat drunk driver crashed into a school bus killing 50 children as the bus dropped off a cliff. Wouldn't the drunk driver be "worse" than Li?

The fact that the driver is repeating his offense would make him worse, right? The fact that he killed again?

But - I think Li's refusing the repeated offers to get help puts him somewhat in the same category. I think that makes him "worse" than if he had never refused such opportunities - which is the point I have been making; ie: I think that should be a consideration when determining whether one has any criminal responsibility for murder.

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

Yes, AFAIK, puplic safety is top prioity in making ther decision on what to do with cases like Li. As it should be.

Again Li going on escorted outings are not a risk to public safety, so why are people opposed to them?

You don't know that, and I suspect the real concern is the path to his eventual release. I can see that several recent high profile "NCR" cases have not pleased many Canadians, some who generally dislike "hug-a-thug" policies in general....even when they are "mentally ill".

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

Don't hold back now, "Not enough information" has never stopped you from expressing your opinion before...

You missed the point....please quantify the exact risk of Li's supervised release...if you can. Then I can crunch the numbers.....

June 10, 2013

So when we release drunk drivers we know that they will not re-offend?

That's a fair question, but we do know that whether or not they will re-offend is not dependent on their taking meds; that their mental well-being doesn't depend on said meds. That's the bottom line here. Li didn't just break the law, his sanity depends on the trust that he will take his meds every day; and as I keep pointing out, a large number of schizophrenics do stop taking their meds. We know what he is capable of when not on meds, and that should be a factor in considering his release. Edited June 10, 2013 by American Woman

carepov · June 10, 2013

That's a fair question, but we do know that whether or not they will re-offend is not dependent on their taking meds; that their mental well-being doesn't depend on said meds. That's the bottom line here. Li didn't just break the law, his sanity depends on the trust that he will take his meds every day; and as I keep pointing out, a large number of schizophrenics do stop taking their meds. We know what he is capable of when not on meds, and that should be a factor in considering his release.

As I said before, why not administer the meds via injection? Would that not eliminate this factor?

carepov · June 10, 2013

You missed the point....please quantify the exact risk of Li's supervised release...if you can. Then I can crunch the numbers.....

I dojn't need to quatify exactly - I know that the risk of letting him out for an supervised escored outing is FAR LESS than the risk of releasing any convicted drunk driver out. Isn't this obvious?

carepov · June 10, 2013

You don't know that, and I suspect the real concern is the path to his eventual release. I can see that several recent high profile "NCR" cases have not pleased many Canadians, some who generally dislike "hug-a-thug" policies in general....even when they are "mentally ill".

I wonder what the recidivism rate is with NCR versus non-NCR cases?

waldo · June 10, 2013

Already done....please try to keep up....or don't...your choice. Does it frustrate you when other members choose to ignore your tantrums ? Please try to accept that other views exist in the world, and at the very least, these views will never be changed by your tedious protestations.

:lol: so no case law to support your latest claim, hey? Excellent, that does make you 2:2! You could not support your claim concerning civil liability and now you cannot support your 'not so cut and dry' claim concerning the Criminal Code of Canada legal criteria definition of mental disorder, what it includes and what it doesn't include. Well done... your 2:2 failure certainly cuts through your BS!

carepov · June 10, 2013

For the life of me, I can't see them responding that what happened to her was worse than what happened to Timothy McLean. Do you think her parents would think it wasn't as bad if she had been killed, decapitated, and her body parts eaten? I'm really not following your line of reasoning at all.

The fact that the driver is repeating his offense would make him worse, right? The fact that he killed again?

But - I think Li's refusing the repeated offers to get help puts him somewhat in the same category. I think that makes him "worse" than if he had never refused such opportunities - which is the point I have been making; ie: I think that should be a consideration when determining whether one has any criminal responsibility for murder.

I didn't say it was worse, I wondered what the victim's mon would think?

Well, I'm not sure that I understand you. You think Li is worse than a repeat-offender-drunk-driver that kills 50 school children?

Edited June 10, 2013 by carepov

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

That's a fair question, but we do know that whether or not they will re-offend is not dependent on their taking meds; that their mental well-being doesn't depend on said meds. That's the bottom line here. Li didn't just break the law, his sanity depends on the trust that he will take his meds every day; and as I keep pointing out, a large number of schizophrenics do stop taking their meds. We know what he is capable of when not on meds, and that should be a factor in considering his release.

Yes...there was another NCR case in Canada wherein the mentally ill patient stopped taking his meds because one of the side effects was erectile dysfunction. He then pushed some people onto a subway track.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/09/22/subway-accused-quit-medication-because-of-erectile-problems-court-told/

waldo · June 10, 2013

I'm really not following your line of reasoning at all.

oh my, talk about a line of reasoning!!! Again: "in the context of this thread and its emphasis on the mentally ill and 'not criminally responsible (NCR)', what is your purpose/intent in introducing and continuing to speak of drunk driving/alcoholism... and now, drug addiction?"

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

I dojn't need to quatify exactly - I know that the risk of letting him out for an supervised escored outing is FAR LESS than the risk of releasing any convicted drunk driver out. Isn't this obvious?

No.....that is not how we analyze such a scenario. Mr. Li is not the only mentally ill killer in Canada.

bush_cheney2004 · June 10, 2013

so no case law to support your latest claim, hey? Excellent, that does make you 2:2! You could not support your claim concerning civil liability and now you cannot support your 'not so cut and dry' claim concerning the Criminal Code of Canada legal criteria definition of mental disorder, what it includes and what it doesn't include. Well done... your 2:2 failure certainly cuts through your BS!

Thank you....Ontario's civil proceeding against NCR wife killer Ved Dhingra to recover life insurance monies proves you wrong. I like to wait until you huff, and puff like the Big Bad Wolf before punching the wind out of your sails:

The Civil Remedies Act, enacted in 2002, aims to compensate victims of crime and prevent criminals and others from profiting from wrongdoing. It specifically does not exempt a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

In June 2006, after being released from hospital for treatment of a severe, self-inflicted wound, he stayed with his wife. Days later, he killed her by first smashing her head numerous times with a white religious statue and then stabbing her 24 times in the neck and torso.

Dhingra then overdosed on several medications himself but was later revived.

After being found not criminally responsible for his wife's death, Dhingra entered a mental health centre and was released into the community in 2011 before claiming the insurance policy money.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/court-tosses-ontarios-claim-to-life-insurance-payout-for-insane-wife-killer--200246391.html

Edited June 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

waldo · June 10, 2013

Thank you....Ontario's civil proceeding against NCR wife killer Ved Dhingra to recover life insurance monies proves you wrong. I like to wait until you huff, and puff like the Big Bad Wolf before punching the wind out of your sails:

:lol: oh my! Your claim was an avenue of civil liability against persons found not criminally responsible. Perhaps you should actually read your cites and quotes!!! As an aside, I made no right or wrong claims... simply asking you to substantiate your claim. Your quote/claim:

It's fairly obvious....removed from the "NCR" legal framework, Li is still responsible and liable for his actions as a matter of civil law. If he had any wealth, the victim's lawyers would show no mercy.

cybercoma · June 11, 2013

Then please, for the love of God and Country, just stop reading and responding to my posts. Is it really that hard to (not) do?

it's a bit hard to ignore the mess left behind by the monkey wiping his shit all over the walls. It makes this place stink.

bush_cheney2004 · June 11, 2013

it's a bit hard to ignore the mess left behind by the monkey wiping his shit all over the walls. It makes this place stink.

Apparently it's "hard" for you, as most other members get along just fine. I'm sure there are forums with members that only agree with your brand of "stink", and your point of view will never be challenged.

cybercoma · June 11, 2013

Again, you didn't challenge anything. You made a ridiculous remark without giving any argument.

bush_cheney2004 · June 11, 2013

Again, you didn't challenge anything. You made a ridiculous remark without giving any argument.

That's just how I do it....remember...I am not Canadian ! If you no likee....please ignore my posts. I don't know what else we can do to help you. The topic is Mr. Li's Holiday, please try and post comments about that, instead of attacking me or other members. Chill.....