Jump to content

Calgary Bus Murderer Now Free


Rue

Recommended Posts

You all know the story. A man walked into a hospital in Halifax. He had schizophrenia for years. He had stopped taking his medication. The hospital released him saying he was no danger.

Weeks later he shows up on a greyhound bus travelling in Alberta. He hears voices from God. He pulls out a knife, chops off the head of the person siting next to him.

The bus comes to a stop. People screaming and yelling exit.

The man then walks up and down the aisle of the bus with the head slicing chunks off it and eating them slowly.

The RCMP Officer first on the scene is told to just make sure the bus door is shut and to wait it out.

That first officer on the scene for the next five years after the incident had severe post traumatic stress syndrome and after repeat attempts to get help committed suicide.

The killer?

Under Canadian Criminal law, we have a concept that if a person can not form mens rea, i.e., criminal intent, they can't be found liable for a murder. So this individual's lawyer pleased he was insane at the time of the killing and so could not be guilty of a homicide. Its also known as the insanity defence. At he time of the killing the murderer was having what is called a disassociation-he's not in our world-he's in so me other world where he hears voices and feels compelled to do what the voices say.

Schizophrenia is a disease where something goes wrong in how the brain sends messages. They are still working on what is going wrong but it is believed the chemical required to pass on a thought, called a neurotransmitter is defective in some way. Either that or the place where the message traves from and to is defective in some way. Think of it as an electric wire shorting out and not sending the complete wave of electricity just part of it.

There is no cure. If people take medication they can control its symptoms. Each patient has unique symptoms and some common symptoms. Less than 5% of schizophrenics are actuall violent. Most end up homeless and on the streets if they don't get help. They walk up and down the streets talking to imagined people. A schizophrenic's head scould sound like hundreds of people trying to talk to him at the same time, or they smell strange things, hear strange things, feel strange things. Their five senses get confused and scrambled. The colour red for example could come across as the smell of sulphur or the taste of garlic only the schizophrenic may not know that is how his brain is processing the colour.

Many schizophrenics smoke cigarettes because nicotine in tobacco has a temporary dulling effect on these symptoms, i.e., it can make the voices seem less loud.

Older drugs given to schizophrenics caused drooling, body spasms and paralysis, or such complete sedation the user could not function. The most well known of those old psychotropic drugs was Thorazine. Its not used anymore. In the old days they tried everything from electro-schock therapy, to lobotomies, to  behaviour modification by rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad (with electric volts, water hose blasts, corporal punishment).

Today drugs used have varied effects. Every patient reacts to the differently and the key is to assure the patient will take that medication.

This brings us to the problem. This killer who has now changed his name legally  yet again for the third time to Wil Baker, is free.

He's on the street walking. He is under no obligation to report once a day to a hospital and take his medication in front of a nurse or doctor.

That is insane! This man can at any time stop taking his medication and then all the symptoms will be back.

The very reason he murdered is because he stopped taking his medication.

The Manitoba board that released him should have made his release contingent on him once a day reporting to a nurse or doctor to take his pill and the moment he refuses, to be re-arrested.

This is I repeat insane. He's now walking the street free as a bird with no guarantee he will keep taking his medication.

You mark my words. This man will kill again. Its not whether he will kill its when. It could be a month, a year, two years, three years, he will stop taking his pills and then the symptoms will come back.

The problem is with the Manitoba Board who released him. They are idiots. Yes if he's on his medication he's harmless. However he already has shown he stopped taking his medicine when he was on it and knew to go off it would cause him to become dangerous. He's already demonstrated negligence while sane for not continuing with his medication.

I argue yes he should not be held liable for the murder itself but surely our law should hold him criminally responsible for a lesser charge of refusing to take his m edication when he was sane and knew or ought to have known by not taking it he could be a danger. To me that is pre-meditated negligence, the equivalent of being an accomplice to a rime before it happens.

Our criminal law does not have that concept. Its time they create that category of crime so that after someone is back on medication, they still have to serve some criminal sentence and not just walk out of the hospital. We have to show society and its members if you refuse to take medication you know you should take and you go on because of your illness to commit a crime you are responsible for refusing to take your medication, a separate criminal issue from the actual crime itself. The insanity plea should not allow you to evade your decision when you had full awareness to stop taking medication.

As for this idiot board in Manitoba they had the responsibility to attach a condition to the release that he sign in once a day to take his pill. They  have not imposed that condition and that to me is sheer negligence on their part and wherever this Wil Baker goes, is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen.

However do not kid yourself, there are thousands of Wil Bakers walking your streets some like him cannibals, others rapists, pedophiles, on and on.

Its why people who have worked the legal and mental health systems sleep with one eye open. We can't change the system. We are trying through public education but its always interfered with by politicians, interest groups, patients right groups, victim groups, all who have strong emotional reasons for speaking out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rue changed the title to Calgary Bus Murderer Now Free

While I support the idea of not criminally responsible, that does not mean that person is not guilty and more important not a threat to society. While this man may not belong in a jail, he certainly does belong in an institution that can ensure his disease is properly monitored and treated. While he may be able to function in society, he can also quickly cease to function normally and become a threat. He needs to be very closely monitored, and that is not possible when granting him the full freedoms other citizens enjoy.

Edited by ?Impact
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You ever had someone you love become ill with schizophrenia Hal?

Do you punish your kids when they come home with the flu?

Why not? 

 

This guy murdered someone because he fell off the apple cart.  He needs to be in a mental health centre for life so that society doesn't pay the price the next time he comes off his meds.

 

so what happens to people with Ebola, do they get to roam around willy billy when they get the disease or are they quarantined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blueblood said:

This guy murdered someone because he fell off the apple cart.  He needs to be in a mental health centre for life so that society doesn't pay the price the next time he comes off his meds.

Are you a psychiatric expert?

Quote

so what happens to people with Ebola, do they get to roam around willy billy when they get the disease or are they quarantined?

I guess that depends on what the medical experts who know about ebola prescribe. Are you one by any chance?

In any case, is it safe to assume you punish your kids when they come home with the flu?

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eyeball said:

Are you a psychiatric expert?

Being a a psychiatric expert has nothing to do with it.  Society has an expectation of safety and that trumps some jackass's head issues.

 

Just now, eyeball said:

 

I guess that depends on what the medical experts who know about ebola prescribe.

Are you one by any chance?

Ebola people get quarantined until the disease is gone.  Ebola is cured.  Mental issues not.

Schizophrenia to the point where buddy chops off a head isn't cureable as he has to be on a cocktail and has to remain on said cocktail.  Even worse is when buddy has been known to not comply with taking said cocktail resulting in someone to die.  Buddy can have a doctor observe him take medication for the rest of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You ever had someone you love become ill with schizophrenia Hal?

Do you punish your kids when they come home with the flu?

Why not? 

 

My kids have had the flu several times but they've never chopped off someone's head and eaten it, if they did then yes, I'd punish them.  

But Really, is this the parallel that we're using now?  Are you people really defending this guy or the decision to set him free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're talking about the difference between illness vs criminality and experts vs people who don't know the difference.

Why don't you punish your kids for catching the flu? What if your kids infect your mother and she dies?

Edited by eyeball
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Eyeball, at some point this guy made decisions that directly resulted in the death of an innocent person.  You keep talking about the flu, how about using drunk driving as a parallel.  Why don't we look at drunk drivers and say "oh, they were really fukd up and not being themselves, lets just let it slide"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was not culpable then because of his illness. Why is he not culpable now that his illness is addrested?

Remember this story?  Guy wants to get back at his wife and kills his 2 kids. He was also deemed not culpable then. Thankfully he is now.

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/quebec-man-guilty-of-stabbing-two-kids-eligible-for-parole-in-17-years-judge-1.2738473

Edited by drummindiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

He was not culpable then because of his illness. Why is he not culpable now that his illness is addrested?

Remember this story?  Guy wants to get back at his wife and kills his 2 kids. He was also deemed not culpable then. Thankfully he is now.

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/quebec-man-guilty-of-stabbing-two-kids-eligible-for-parole-in-17-years-judge-1.2738473

Turcotte was found guilty at re-trial. There has not been a re trial in this case. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have said it again and again we must bring back Capital punishment for violent crimes against women and children, cold blooded murderers (hearing God's voice my ass), and mass murderers/terrorists. There is a lot of things wrong with our system even in this one of the top democracies in the world. Very sad.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I have said it again and again we must bring back Capital punishment for violent crimes against women and children, cold blooded murderers (hearing God's voice my ass), and mass murderers/terrorists. There is a lot of things wrong with our system even in this one of the top democracies in the world. Very sad.

What about violent crimes against men?  What about us, I mean, do we deserve violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how mentally ill this person is.  The only thing that matters is that he never gets the chance to do it again.  By definitiion, the possibility exists.  So he should be kept secure for the rest of his life.  It should be in a hospital environment, not a prison environment, but there should be no question of him ever being released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Look Eyeball, at some point this guy made decisions that directly resulted in the death of an innocent person. You keep talking about the flu,

He didn't decide to become ill any more than your kids decide to, That's why I keep talking about the flu.  You mean to say you really don't get the parallel here?

Do you realize just how many millions of deaths have been caused by influenza? Again I ask why don't you punish your kids for catching it? I know you said you didn't punish them when they did but you didn't actually say why.  Think about it for minute.

Just so you know It's a long well established fact that far far more schizophrenics die at the hands of healthy people than the other way around.   

Quote

how about using drunk driving as a parallel.  Why don't we look at drunk drivers and say "oh, they were really fukd up and not being themselves, lets just let it slide"?

Because your parallel is a really stupid and misleading one that's why.  As usual half the shtick you guys subscribe too is forever using the government's force of law to address potential threats that are so statistically small its ridiculous and yet the real clear and present dangers, like legal alcohol for example, slide.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rue said:

You all know the story. A man walked into a hospital in Halifax. He had schizophrenia for years. He had stopped taking his medication. The hospital released him saying he was no danger.

Weeks later he shows up on a greyhound bus travelling in Alberta. He hears voices from God. He pulls out a knife, chops off the head of the person siting next to him.

The bus comes to a stop. People screaming and yelling exit.

The man then walks up and down the aisle of the bus with the head slicing chunks off it and eating them slowly.

The RCMP Officer first on the scene is told to just make sure the bus door is shut and to wait it out.

That first officer on the scene for the next five years after the incident had severe post traumatic stress syndrome and after repeat attempts to get help committed suicide.

The killer?

Under Canadian Criminal law, we have a concept that if a person can not form mens rea, i.e., criminal intent, they can't be found liable for a murder. So this individual's lawyer pleased he was insane at the time of the killing and so could not be guilty of a homicide. Its also known as the insanity defence. At he time of the killing the murderer was having what is called a disassociation-he's not in our world-he's in so me other world where he hears voices and feels compelled to do what the voices say.

Schizophrenia is a disease where something goes wrong in how the brain sends messages. They are still working on what is going wrong but it is believed the chemical required to pass on a thought, called a neurotransmitter is defective in some way. Either that or the place where the message traves from and to is defective in some way. Think of it as an electric wire shorting out and not sending the complete wave of electricity just part of it.

There is no cure. If people take medication they can control its symptoms. Each patient has unique symptoms and some common symptoms. Less than 5% of schizophrenics are actuall violent. Most end up homeless and on the streets if they don't get help. They walk up and down the streets talking to imagined people. A schizophrenic's head scould sound like hundreds of people trying to talk to him at the same time, or they smell strange things, hear strange things, feel strange things. Their five senses get confused and scrambled. The colour red for example could come across as the smell of sulphur or the taste of garlic only the schizophrenic may not know that is how his brain is processing the colour.

Many schizophrenics smoke cigarettes because nicotine in tobacco has a temporary dulling effect on these symptoms, i.e., it can make the voices seem less loud.

Older drugs given to schizophrenics caused drooling, body spasms and paralysis, or such complete sedation the user could not function. The most well known of those old psychotropic drugs was Thorazine. Its not used anymore. In the old days they tried everything from electro-schock therapy, to lobotomies, to  behaviour modification by rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad (with electric volts, water hose blasts, corporal punishment).

Today drugs used have varied effects. Every patient reacts to the differently and the key is to assure the patient will take that medication.

This brings us to the problem. This killer who has now changed his name legally  yet again for the third time to Wil Baker, is free.

He's on the street walking. He is under no obligation to report once a day to a hospital and take his medication in front of a nurse or doctor.

That is insane! This man can at any time stop taking his medication and then all the symptoms will be back.

The very reason he murdered is because he stopped taking his medication.

The Manitoba board that released him should have made his release contingent on him once a day reporting to a nurse or doctor to take his pill and the moment he refuses, to be re-arrested.

This is I repeat insane. He's now walking the street free as a bird with no guarantee he will keep taking his medication.

You mark my words. This man will kill again. Its not whether he will kill its when. It could be a month, a year, two years, three years, he will stop taking his pills and then the symptoms will come back.

The problem is with the Manitoba Board who released him. They are idiots. Yes if he's on his medication he's harmless. However he already has shown he stopped taking his medicine when he was on it and knew to go off it would cause him to become dangerous. He's already demonstrated negligence while sane for not continuing with his medication.

I argue yes he should not be held liable for the murder itself but surely our law should hold him criminally responsible for a lesser charge of refusing to take his m edication when he was sane and knew or ought to have known by not taking it he could be a danger. To me that is pre-meditated negligence, the equivalent of being an accomplice to a rime before it happens.

Our criminal law does not have that concept. Its time they create that category of crime so that after someone is back on medication, they still have to serve some criminal sentence and not just walk out of the hospital. We have to show society and its members if you refuse to take medication you know you should take and you go on because of your illness to commit a crime you are responsible for refusing to take your medication, a separate criminal issue from the actual crime itself. The insanity plea should not allow you to evade your decision when you had full awareness to stop taking medication.

As for this idiot board in Manitoba they had the responsibility to attach a condition to the release that he sign in once a day to take his pill. They  have not imposed that condition and that to me is sheer negligence on their part and wherever this Wil Baker goes, is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen.

However do not kid yourself, there are thousands of Wil Bakers walking your streets some like him cannibals, others rapists, pedophiles, on and on.

Its why people who have worked the legal and mental health systems sleep with one eye open. We can't change the system. We are trying through public education but its always interfered with by politicians, interest groups, patients right groups, victim groups, all who have strong emotional reasons for speaking out.

 

No supervision. No checking up on him as to whether he is taking his medicine. A pardon from his crime. Free to walk the streets again. I would not want to be living next door to this guy. I say good luck to anyone who comes into contact with this guy. Liberalism, isn't it just wonderful. Politicians? Always have the people and their safety in mind. 

Canada has become a basket case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I have said it again and again we must bring back Capital punishment for violent crimes against women and children, cold blooded murderers (hearing God's voice my ass), and mass murderers/terrorists. There is a lot of things wrong with our system even in this one of the top democracies in the world. Very sad.

One of the things that is NOT wrong with it is we had the good sense to get rid of the death penalty long ago. A lot of countries that are not democracy's still have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...