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

[Moonbox]

Did you have an actual comment to make, or do you just really like using elipses for no reason?

[Guest American Woman]

I'm curious - when did "the force of evil" that Li was killing become an "alien?" I'm reading old accounts of the trial, and this is what I find:

Li believed God commanded him to stab and dismember McLean aboard the bus, a forensic psychiatrist told court yesterday. Dr. Stanley Yaren has diagnosed Li as schizophrenic.

"I believe he was tormented by auditory hallucinations and these took the form of God's voice giving him instructions ... and that he needed to protect himself from evil forces," Yaren said.

Yaren said Li believed he had received a message telling him McLean "was a force of evil that was about to use a knife to execute him."

Yaren said after killing McLean, Li feared he could come back to life.

Li dismembered McLean's body and spread the body parts about the bus "to ensure (McLean) did not come back to life to carry out the execution," Yaren said.

"Having killed him, he was still terrified that through supernatural powers he was capable of coming back to life."

I don't find any references to aliens at that time. I would appreciate it if anyone can show me differently.

[BubberMiley]

Li gave an interview to the media last spring where he said:

"I bought a knife at Canadian Tire. I bought it for any emergency for the journey to protect myself from the aliens. I was really scared... I believed he was an alien. The voices told me to kill him. That he would kill me or others. I do not believe this now. It was totally wrong. It was my fault. I sinned. But it was the schizophrenia."

[Guest American Woman]

Li gave an interview to the media last spring where he said:

"I bought a knife at Canadian Tire. I bought it for any emergency for the journey to protect myself from the aliens. I was really scared... I believed he was an alien. The voices told me to kill him. That he would kill me or others. I do not believe this now. It was totally wrong. It was my fault. I sinned. But it was the schizophrenia."

Yes, he said that last spring. So when did the "evil force" that was McLean become "an alien?"

[WWWTT]

That is just politically correct hair-splitting.

Another reason why she is on my ignore list.

Side note,killing is not a criminal offense.

WWWTT

[BubberMiley]

So when did the "evil force" that was McLean become "an alien?"

I don't think he was ever really either of those things. It was just in Li's mind. Edited June 3, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think he was ever really either of those things. It was just in Li's mind.

So you have no answer to my question?

[BubberMiley]

So you have no answer to my question?

I'm not sure what you're asking. You should try rereading your posts for clarity. It might relieve some of your frustration over being misunderstood all the time.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not sure what you're asking. You should try rereading your posts for clarity. It might relieve some of your frustration over being misunderstood all the time.

If you're not sure what I'm asking - try not answering. Hope that's clear enough for you to understand.

[BubberMiley]

If you're not sure what I'm asking - try not answering. Hope that's clear enough for you to understand.

I'm sorry I researched the alien question for you.

[eyeball]

I don't feel society owes Mr. Li that consideration or the taxpayer expense. What Mr. Li wants, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant.

Fortunately we still have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect us from your feelings and concerns.

I trust Harper's legislation will be given a swift boot right back into right-field where it came from.

[Moonbox]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that supervised visits to the beach for murderer-cannibals was a right guaranteed by the Charter. My mistake!

[eyeball]

Can't account for your opinion Moonbat? Go figure.

[Rocky Road]

www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/can-congress-cure-the-dis_b_3331570.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

mental health reforming

Edited June 4, 2013 by Rocky Road

[Moonbox]

Can't account for your opinion Moonbat? Go figure.

Are you upset that I called you out on your doltish use of the Charter in the conversation?

I'm soo sorry your feelings are hurt.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

You actually believe you called me out on something?

I should probably feel sorry for you.

[Moonbox]

Feel sorry for Mr. Li's victim's family first.

After that, feel sorry for yourself. By now you've been around the forum long enough to know how lame the clichéd "Boo hoo! Charter!" defence is, and how it's usually employed by people who can neither make a compelling argument nor interpret how it applies to the discussion at hand. What's even more funny is that you (unsurprisingly) refused to explain how the Charter applies to this discussion when challenged on it, and pathetically dodged and went with juvenile name-calling instead!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Moonbox

[eyeball]

I'm sorry for assuming the obvious needs to be explained to you.

Feel sorry for Mr. Li's victim's family first.

No. You feel for both at the same time in the same way the Charter does.

Get it?

[waldo]

What's even more funny is that you (unsurprisingly) refused to explain how the Charter applies to this discussion when challenged on it, and pathetically dodged and went with juvenile name-calling instead!

that's rich... you calling someone out to substantiate something! Here, let me jump in:

see Section 9 of the Charter - Legal rights heading, guaranteeing the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Perhaps you should actually read Bill C-54 and Harper's politicized base-serving plan to treat the mentally ill as criminals.

.

[Moonbox]

I'm sorry for assuming the obvious needs to be explained to you.

So you don't know then? That's what I thought!

that's rich... you calling someone out to substantiate something!

What am I supposed to be substantiating in this case waldo? Am I supposed to substantiate that the Charter does not guarantee Mr. Li's beaching rights, as I implicitly challenged eyeball? From my recollection, the Charter generally outlines what rights people do have, not which ones they don't have!

In any case, your broken-record hypocrisy, is cute! You're all too happy to inundate people with charts, graphs and walls of quotations/re-quotations when not asked, but as we've all seen you're far more slippery when someone offers a direct and specific challenge!

see Section 9 of the Charter - Legal rights heading, guaranteeing the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Perhaps you should actually read Bill C-54 and Harper's politicized base-serving plan to treat the mentally ill as criminals.

Brilliant! I love when your citations are this dumb! Would you care to explain how Mr. Li's imprisonment would be considered 'arbitrary' or how Section 9 pertains to his beaching rights!? Unfortunately for you, there's more to a good argument than the quantity of your reference material (which often sucks). Sometimes you're actually...required to...put a coherent...argument...together.

Don't dodge now waldo! That would be pretty funny considering what you just wrote above!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Moonbox

[Bonam]

see Section 9 of the Charter - Legal rights heading, guaranteeing the right against arbitrary detainment and imprisonment. Perhaps you should actually read Bill C-54 and Harper's politicized base-serving plan to treat the mentally ill as criminals.

.

Haha... "arbitrary". I don't know how much less arbitrary it can get than detaining you because you killed someone, lopped their body to pieces, and ate some of it...

[BubberMiley]

Haha... "arbitrary". I don't know how much less arbitrary it can get than detaining you because you killed someone, lopped their body to pieces, and ate some of it...

That would be true if he were found guilty and was not found to be not criminally responsible.

[Moonbox]

Bubber suggesting that Mr. Li's detention was arbitrary suggests that there was no reason for detaining him. The definition of 'arbitrary' in this context would be:

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Would you agree that Mr. Li's detention MIGHT be based on the fact that he beheaded someone and proceeded to eat him, thereby providing all the reason we need to detain him? His mental condition doesn't erase the reason he's being detained, it just explains how and why the event happened and how the justice and mental health system is to deal with him.

I realize we're on opposite sides of the debate here, but don't let yourself get drawn in to defending other people's dumb posts for that fact alone.

[BubberMiley]

He's being detained not to punish him but to keep him and the public safe. So long as there are reasonable assurances that a supervised outing on the beach will be safe (i.e., he is accompanied by guards and he is now medicated), I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to go. If the proper safeguards are possible, the detention would indeed be arbitrary.

[Moonbox]

He's being detained not to punish him but to keep him and the public safe.

All the reason needed for him to be detained, thus disqualifying waldo's raising of Section 9 of the Charter.

So long as there are reasonable assurances that a supervised outing on the beach will be safe (i.e., he is accompanied by guards and he is now medicated), I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be allowed to go. If the proper safeguards are possible, the detention would indeed be arbitrary.

Alright, fine. If you're going to insist on pushing a stupid point, I'll play. Show me where it's indicated that paying for guarded/supervised leisure treatment trips to the beach is guaranteed by the Charter. I'll give you a hint so you don't waste too much time by suggesting that Section 9 merely indicates that detention has to be justified, not that we have to justify why we don't go out of our way to keep him happy at taxpayer's expense.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Moonbox