drummindiver Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: Did you read what you quoted. I said I was a teacher and had hundreds of male and female students and in exams and final grading and industriousness female students generally speaking and on average did better. What kind of proof do you want? Like a lie detector device to test people who is smarter?. Personal anecdotes is not proof. Your sampling size is pitiful. Want to try again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, drummindiver said: 100% is totally achievable. Put him in Oak Ridges, an institution designed for people with mental issues who commit crime. Or criminals with mental health issues. However you want to look at it. If he was untreatable you'd have a point but since he is you don't. 100% certainty is not only impossible it's also unnecessary. The only reason for requiring 100% is political not medical. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, eyeball said: If he was untreatable you'd have a point but since he is you don't. 100% certainty is not only impossible it's also unnecessary. The only reason for requiring 100% is political not medical. There's always a spot where you find the basic disagreement fuelling the argument. After that there is no point in arguing. Nothing is going to change. You think some chance, no matter how small, that he is going to do it again is acceptable in exchange for his freedom. I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITIZEN_2015 Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, drummindiver said: Want to try again? No I give up on you................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 It appears to me the only real point of contention here is that conservatives think the team of doctors and experts dealing with his case are unqualified to make the determination that it's safe to release him. You have to make a better case that politicians are somehow better positioned to do so and why. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, bcsapper said: There's always a spot where you find the basic disagreement fuelling the argument. After that there is no point in arguing. Nothing is going to change. You think some chance, no matter how small, that he is going to do it again is acceptable in exchange for his freedom. I don't. It appears to me the only real point of contention here is that conservatives think the team of doctors and experts dealing with his case are unqualified to make the determination that it's safe to release him and that leftism is somehow responsible. You have to make a better case that politicians are somehow better positioned to do so and why. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 1 hour ago, eyeball said: It appears to me the only real point of contention here is that conservatives think the team of doctors and experts dealing with his case are unqualified to make the determination that it's safe to release him and that leftism is somehow responsible. You have to make a better case that politicians are somehow better positioned to do so and why. No I don't. Like I said, there's always a sticking point that won't be overcome. I don't think I mentioned politicians or lefties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Your cohorts certainly have and Harper's attempt to have the law trump medicine has been cited as well. All you've accomplished is to declare you don't agree with Baker's release. Fortunately your opinion doesn't matter, nor should it because it's based on emotion as opposed to medical science. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: Your cohorts certainly have and Harper's attempt to have the law trump medicine has been cited as well. All you've accomplished is to declare you don't agree with Baker's release. Fortunately your opinion doesn't matter, nor should it because it's based on emotion as opposed to medical science. I don't have any cohorts. Who's Baker? Are we arguing about the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I don't have any cohorts. Who's Baker? Are we arguing about the same thing? Will Baker is Vince Li's new name. Why does he need a new name if all is forgiven by the state after beheading and cannibalizing someone on a bus ? Not one mention of the family/victims in any of this. Go Vince !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 We're taking about the same person. Vincent Li changed his name to Will Baker. You'd know that if you were really serious about understanding and debating his case. You certainly have a number of fellow posters who share your view that Baker should not be released. The reasons why range from the ridiculous to the mysterious. You still haven't said why you feel that way, just that you do. I'm quite certain the people that released Baker also insisted on being presented with something other than people's jerky knees to inform their decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Will Baker is Vince Li's new name. Why does he need a new name if all is forgiven by the state after beheading and cannibalizing someone on a bus ? Not one mention of the family/victims in any of this. Go Vince !! I notice there are food connotations. Is that all he thinks about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Will Baker is Vince Li's new name. Why does he need a new name if all is forgiven by the state...? Because of the stigma emanating from an ignorant and unforgiving court of public opinion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 Just now, eyeball said: Because of the stigma emanating from an ignorant and unforgiving court of public opinion. What stigma ? Vince Li is not responsible for what he did. All is forgiven. I'm sure all the bleeding heart liberals who support the decision to release him would be more than happy to live next door to Vince, or have their family live next door to Vince. If he harms/kills another person, no big deal....Vince is never responsible for what Vince does....ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: We're taking about the same person. Vincent Li changed his name to Will Baker. You'd know that if you were really serious about understanding and debating his case. You certainly have a number of fellow posters who share your view that Baker should not be released. The reasons why range from the ridiculous to the mysterious. You still haven't said why you feel that way, just that you do. I'm quite certain the people that released Baker also insisted on being presented with something other than people's jerky knees to inform their decision. Well, it's not my new number one pastime. I'm sure I did say why I felt that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said: No I give up on you................... You're a "teacher" who uses personal anecdotes as statistical fact and you give up on me. Cool beans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, bcsapper said: I notice there are food connotations. Is that all he thinks about? lol...I want to up vote this +100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, eyeball said: Because of the stigma emanating from an ignorant and unforgiving court of public opinion. Probably cause he cut off a guys head and ate some. That kind of behaviour does tend to follow you around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2017 Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, drummindiver said: You're a "teacher" who uses personal anecdotes as statistical fact and you give up on me. Cool beans. Just noticed this. Let's please try to not make personal comments in these threads. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 12, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Some of you have mixed up the issues. One issue deals with the insanity defence, i.e., not holding someone liable for a crime if they are insane at the time of committing the crime. He was insane at the time he murdered the victim. He was NOT insane when he made the decision not to take his medication however and so he should have been found liable for criminal negligence for not taking his medication, but not the murder. That's one issue. The other is his conditions on release. The Board who released him has the mandate to assure his release is done in accordance with conditions that protect the public. They chose not to exercise their mandate and release him without requiring he report to a clinic once a day to take his medication. Why? He demonstrated when he was sane and knew better that he would not take his medication. What makes it different now? There is no difference. He will mark my words in a month, a year, stop taking his medication again. His symptoms will come back immediately and we will have another crime on our hands. I am not here to beat up on 95% of schizophrenics who are non violent. They have a disease. It's only this rare 5% I am warning we have to supervise at all times and the Board has failed on this one by releasing him with no conditions. That's my concern the lack of conditions on his release. Society has the right to expect someone guarantees he takes his medication every day. As for his family they now live with the realization this man who has changed his name to avoid the consequence of what he did which no one seems to have noticed, is sout there with no checks or balances. By letting him out with no conditions, this board has failed the society they are supposed to protect and spit on the victim's family. It is sheer negligence not to have placed supervision and other conditions on this man as a condition of release into society. Edited February 13, 2017 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 hours ago, bcsapper said: Well, it's not my new number one pastime. I'm sure I did say why I felt that way. Yes you did, my apologies. Basically the 100% argument based on some obviously insignificant chance, as far as much better informed professionals must have taken great pains to determine. The gist of arguments against his release are basically just feelings which are flimsy at best and irrelevant to boot. That said, if people really do believe their feelings are all the only thing that's relevant and have a solid case that the law should trump health-care in the case of certain illnesses they should make it. I'd suggest people look to the war against drugs for a really good example of what happens when we go that route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Rue said: Some of you have mixed up the issues. One issue deals with the insanity defence, i.e., not holding someone liable for a crime if they are insane at the time of committing the crime. He was insane at the time he murdered the victim. He was NOT insane when he made the decision not to take his medication however and so he should have been found liable for criminal negligence for not taking his medication, but not the murder. That's one issue. This is pure bullshit and really underscores the stupidity of letting public sentiments inform this debate and probably mental illness generally. Vincent Li was not on medication because he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic at the time of the incident. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) On 2017-02-11 at 2:38 PM, betsy said: The difference before was that he didn't have any understanding of his illness. But that has changed now. He's well aware that he has to keep up with his meds, and follow what the mental health experts had told him. The courts believed the above otherwise they could have held him criminally negligent for not taking his medication. If he now stops taking his medication and you mark my words he will, he will then turn around and argue he thought he was aware this time but he wasn't really aware even though he said he was because he was mentally ill. What you think he does not know he can manipulate his way out of a future murder? He's changed his name 3 times to escape the consequence of his actions! That shows he understands avoiding negative consequences by using the legal system. This is why, I argue the real issue now is to make sure when you release this guy he is required to report in each day to take his medication. The Board did not do this. Why? That's the real issue. How the hell do you release a dog that kills without a muzzle? 99% of the 5% of violent schizophenics spit out their medication. I worked as an orderly as a young man with guys like this. You do not under any circumstance turn your back on them ever. They turn on you in a second. This notion medication stops them from being manipulative liars is insane. I know such people. One minute they are "normal" smoking a cigarette asking you about your family or taking sports, the next they attack their eyes bulging and vibrating and theyl try bite your face, poke out your eyes, bite your neck, grab your testes....if theyanything, glasses, a fork, a knife, a pen a shoe, a shoe lace their finger nails a shirt, anything, they will try use it to kill you. It can take 10 grown men to hold one violent patient down and you are lucking if they don't hurt you or bite you. To think this guy is fine on his medication is sheer insanity. He's a bomb waiting to detonate. Edited February 13, 2017 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2017 Report Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Rue said: The courts believed the above otherwise they could have held him criminally negligent for not taking his medication. What medication? Everything else you wrote is also a bunch of garbage. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.