Calgary Bus Murderer Now Free

[dre]

1 hour ago, blueblood said:

Nobody is lying.  There is information that was given to you that he went off his meds.  

I would rather have Vince li locked in the crazy house for the rest of his life so that his medication can be monitored and that the risk to society is zero.  If that's inhumane then so be it.  The only one triggered is you because a majority of people don't believe a crazy murderer should be loose and you can't handle that.

 

Well you could also have the court order him to report for a blood test once a week to make sure he is still taking his meds, and arrest him for breach of probation if he doesnt.

[dre]

On 2/11/2017 at 6:07 PM, taxme said:

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. 

Blah blah liberal this, liberalism that.

This post is particular inane. You talk about "liberalism" turning Canada into a "basket case" and "public safety". But this is one of the safest places to live in all of human history.

And violent crime and murder has been in decline for almost 30 years.

 

The problem is if you have EVEN ONE adverse outcome "law and order, get tough" conservatives are howling with outrage and crapping in their little panties. You are NEVER going to have a system without adverse outcomes. Conservative outrage over things like this is just part of their personalities. No system is even possible  that would stop this.

[blueblood]

3 hours ago, dre said:

Well you could also have the court order him to report for a blood test once a week to make sure he is still taking his meds, and arrest him for breach of probation if he doesnt.

Except he's not convicted so he can't be on probation.  He would have to be put on a section 810 and good luck with that...

[Boges]

Does he get thrown back in jail if he misses taking his meds for at even one day? 

[blueblood]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Does he get thrown back in jail if he misses taking his meds for at even one day? 

No, he's out with no conditions.  Pray he doesn't skip his meds again...

[Boges]

Just now, blueblood said:

No, he's out with no conditions.  Pray he doesn't skip his meds again...

Well that's ridiculous. 

If he re-offends, these doctors will have blood on their hands. 

[Rue]

17 hours ago, ?Impact said:

He wasn't on medication when he did this, he had no meds to be off of.

We do not know prior to the attack whether at any time he was given medication and refused to take it or whether he just refused to take medication. We will never know exactly because Mr. Li claims he does not remember.

What I am saying is it is not possible if he was hospitalized that  doctor would have not tried to give him medication and treatment. Of course they would have tried. What I am saying is he had the legal right to refuse medication. Under Canadian law, one is presumed sane until proven insane. To force him to take medication before he has committed a crime one must show he is of sufficient danger to himself or others to justify being declared incompetent . Until the declaration of incompetence the state has no right to force medication on him.

We know he was never declared incompetent prior to his crime so no one could force him to take medication. Let's talk reality. In reality the doctor sees him, sees he is deranged, offers him medication and treatment but he refuses. Out he goes. The psychiatrist has no evidence of past crimes nor immediate evidence of imminent peril and asks himself, do I want to go to court and fight this guy? They don't have time. They have a never ending list of patients to get to. Out he goes onto the street. Also the doctor does not want to get sued. Many mental patients sue their doctorsf or false diagnosis, etc.

The battle with schizophrenics and most people with mental illnesses is in getting them to take medication. Ask their loved ones. Ask the people who treat them. Ask the patients themselves.

By the way most mentally ill people know they are sick or need help including schizophrenics and manic depressives they just believe that medication is not the way to treat them or they believe they have a weakness will power not medication should fix.

99.99% of alcoholics deny they have a mental illness. You have to break through that denial before treatment begins..

Yes a delusion or distorted thinking processes  brought on by a mental illness can impair judgement sufficiently t prevent someone from understanding the consequences of not taking their medication. However the vast majority of people who refuse medication are sane.

I concede its possible Li had no proper understanding of his disease to take the medication. However and that is why I stated it as my In my personal opinion, m e personally  I doubt that he was unaware he had schizophrenia prior to the attack and therefore refused treatment prior to the attack.

Unless a schizophrenic is in a total and constant state of disassociation from reality they can function sufficiently to know something is wrong. How sufficiently impaired they are to not be able to understand the consequence of refusing medication, well I agree its not an exact science, some have sufficient awareness others don't. There's no absolute rule.  With schizophrenics some have paranoia and believe the medication is poison yes. Some may have voices that tell them not to take medication.

Why I am having problems with this case is because no careful tracking of Li was done prior to his crime to ascertain which hospitals he went to prior to the attack. Its all murky. Of course his wife will deny he was on medication and stopped taking it. She would protect him.

Whether he used his name or an alias while travelling all over Canada we will never know. Its possible he was given medication under an alias. Its possible doctors know about him but can't violate their code of confidentiality as to what he told them when they tried to treat him in the past. Its possible he slipped through all the cracks.

What I am saying is the automatic assumption someone with schizophrenia is crazy, a victim and does not make informed choices is a stereotype. Each schizophrenic's capacity is different. In this case Li appears to have been in a hyper-state, a heightened intense state of delusion and disassociation at the time of the attack-he certainly at the time of the attack was not capable of understanding what he did. However what I am arguing is back two, three years earlier, it may be he was given the opportunity to take medication and refused it and had sufficient knowledge to understand the consequence of his actions.

The law is in a state of confusion. While it deems all mentally ill to be assumed competent and therefore be able to  refuse treatment, it will also allow them to be incompetent to commit a subsequent crime after refusing treatment and retroactively at the time they refused treatment to be non culpable for that refusal decision.

So I argue, go backwords and look at the decision to refuse treatment and I argue, when we look at that refusal to take treatment, we have to look at that more carefully. We have to have a law that just as it errs on the side of individual rights of the mentally ill patient, also errs on the side of safety to society.

So the law should hold mentally ill culpable for not taking medication not withstanding they subsequently qualify as incompetent if at the time they refused the medication it can be proven they had sufficient awareness to understand the negative consequences that could happen by not taking medication.

Its frustrating. I have seen so many schizophrenics released from the Clark Institute and walking the streets un-medicated because of their individual rights to refuse medication and so living compromised lives.

I would also caution it is absolutely incorrect as some of the media have said that once violent schizophrenics are on medication they are safe. Bull sheeyit. Medication for violent schizophrenia has specific unique individual effects. On some it may work very well, on others its useless. What psychiatry and pharmacology does not know, is the long term use of anti-violent schizophrenia medications. There is zero guarantee if they are working they will continue to work the same way. Most medicatiosn long term take on different effects and side effects and whether that compromises their ability to contain specific symptoms such as paranoid delusions no one knows. This is why when people are given such medication they need to be carefully monitored. Also the assumption Vince Li aka Wil Baker will continue to take his medication is not based on an onjective opinion. The psychiatrists who state they trust him have no, I repeat no scientific basis to say that. They are guessing. There is no guarantee any patient takes their medication.

This man is living alone and unsupervised. Common sense would tell you places him in a high risk situation.

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

12 hours ago, dre said:

Well you could also have the court order him to report for a blood test once a week to make sure he is still taking his meds, and arrest him for breach of probation if he doesnt.

He was not found guilty of a crime. There's no probation.

The Criminal Board had the power  to have him report to a pharmacy once a day to take his meds and have the pharmacy warn the police if he goes off med. Its less invasive. Pharmacies will officer that service. Public health services can offer that service. Out patient clinics at hospitals will provide that service.

There's no probation officer watching him as one contributor explained because he was completely exonerated.

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2017 by Rue

[OftenWrong]

Forget the medication in a case like this, when a person demonstrates the capability of committing such violence. He can't be trusted to take his medication, his judgement is impaired for cryin out loud. A  "frontal lobotomy" should be applied in such extreme cases. Then the individual is no longer a harm to society, or themselves.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Forget the medication in a case like this, when a person demonstrates the capability of committing such violence. He can't be trusted to take his medication, his judgement is impaired for cryin out loud.

AFAIC anyone who needs to establish a lie so they have a basis for their case should be disqualified from any further participation in the debate. They lack, completely, the moral and ethical background required to weigh in on any issue of any import at all.

A  "frontal lobotomy" should be applied in such extreme cases. Then the individual is no longer a harm to society, or themselves.

What we really need is a vaccine for conservatism.

 

[OftenWrong]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

AFAIC anyone who needs to establish a lie so they have a basis for their case should be disqualified from any further participation in the debate. They lack, completely, the moral and ethical background required to weigh in on any issue of any import at all.

 

On the contrary, sir, I do have a point to make and it is that the person may not have willfully committed a crime, they could still represent a threat to society. I'm not saying he's guilty of murder, but that he might still be dangerous. Sure, lot's of scitzophrenics have plenty of problems, but they don't go slicing people's heads off just because they're not taking their medication. If he moved into my neighbourhood I know many people would feel uncomfortable. Like those with little kids, for example.

At the very least, they could mandate some kind of oversight on his use of medication. If that's not good enough, He should be lobotomized. That would work for me.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Sure, lot's of scitzophrenics have plenty of problems, but they don't go slicing people's heads off just because they're not taking their medication.

He was undiagnosed and therefore not on any medication at the time. You are determined to remain informed with bullshit and contaminate your points with it and for that reason everything you say should simply be ignored and dismissed as a lie. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by eyeball

[Rue]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He was undiagnosed and therefore not on any medication at the time. You are determined to remain informed with bullshit and contaminate your points with it and for that reason everything you say should simply be ignored and dismissed as a lie. 

He was not undiagnosed. He would have been diagnosed. He was hospitalized at least twice once after being arrested by the OPP and at least one other time.. It would have been impossible for doctors  not to notice he had schizophrenia. They would have offered him both medication and the option to self-admit.You are making statements assuming because he refused to take medication and admit himself to hospital that he had never been diagnosed. The issue was and remains that prior to the murder he committed, he had the right to refuse medication and treatment because the law presumes people innocent until they prove they are a harm to themselves or others.

He was able to commit a crime as he did because the law does not allow hospitals to force detention or medication on someone until in fact they do something actually negative to themselves or others. Until then they walk around as this man was, sick, demented, and capable of engaging in gruesome murders and then be able to plead insanity to get off the crimes entirely. The legal fiction of sane until proven insane clearly doe snot work with violent schizophrenics as this case shows. Something has to be done before they commit a crime not after.

This man gets the benefit of the doubt to argue he is sane to refuse medication but insane to be held culpable to commit a crime. That is a clear disconnect. As was earlier stated, if he shows clear signs of schizophrenia and is refusing medication the law should have stronger teeth to do something about it.

In this case Li's own statement admits he knew there was something wrong with him prior to committing the crime. If he can argue he has insufficient capacity to have understood he should not get treatment, society should have the equal right to argue it should not have to wait for him to commit a crime to get him to take his medication. There should be a test other than actual physical self harm or harm to others before society cn protect itself.

That said you have completely missed the issues and chosen to engage in insults.

This is why you have chosen to attack me and others personally on this thread and engage in insults and pose as if you are the only one who understands the actual facts.

This crime was preventable. Its also now inexcusable to have this man walk the streets after what he did assuming he will stay on his medication.

It is absolutely idiotic to state this man would not have been offered treatment for schizophrenia and medication when he was hospitalized prior to this crime.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

40 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He was undiagnosed and therefore not on any medication at the time. You are determined to remain informed with bullshit and contaminate your points with it and for that reason everything you say should simply be ignored and dismissed as a lie. 

Calling people liars because you disagree with them speaks for itself. You do not have a monopoly on truth as to this thread or the facts.

You have no clue, no idea, no information as what the hospitals and physicians did or for that matter what Li's wife tried to do before he committed his crime.

To say they all did nothing and never tried to get him medication and help or that the doctors did not tell him he was mentally ill with schizophrenia is based on you assuming because he never obtained treatment he was never offered it.

I have explained to people on this thread, doctors, loved ones all try to incarcerate and treat schizophrenics. Some not all schizophrenics refuse treatment because they are too far gone into their world of delusions to get help-in such cases we need to strongly look at laws that examine whether the individual rights of such persons and the assumption they are sane and so able to refuse medication is the right way to handle this.

We err on the side of caution in favour of the individual mental rights of the patient. What about the safety of the public? Is it not an equal concern to err on the side of caution with. As well do we now not have enough knowledge to be able to know when someone has schizophrenia and require them to take medication. Its that cruel> Is it unfaur to force someone to take a pill, so that they can get better and not have to be on the streets, helpless and homeless?

With the 5% who are exhibiting violence as Li did prior to his attacks, the combination of schizophrenia and violent tendencies should be sufficient grounds to force their incarceration until they take medication and show signs of being in control.

You miss the point and choose instead to keep making this personal.

[OftenWrong]

 

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

He was undiagnosed and therefore not on any medication at the time. You are determined to remain informed with bullshit and contaminate your points with it and for that reason everything you say should simply be ignored and dismissed as a lie. 

You misunderstand, the point is not did he go off any prescribed medication before he went on his rampage. The point is, could he do it again if he goes off.
Not trying to get you all worked up now, stay calm, stay calm. Inhale... exhale... no one hates you, because you're good enough, and smart enough...

[taxme]

On 2/13/2017 at 4:50 PM, eyeball said:

Yes I did. I told you I'd try my best to emulate the woman in the story I posted - I'd try to maintain my humanity.

I sure as hell wouldn't turn into a conservative and start demanding the death penalty and blaming the god damn lefties for everything.

 

 

Leftists are the problem. They seem to lack any kind of common sense and logic, and prefer to live in an emotional world. The death penalty is required for those who could care less about someone's life and who will go out and kill someone for fun or money or vengence. Now that makes common sense. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

Leftists are the problem. They seem to lack any kind of common sense and logic, and prefer to live in an emotional world. The death penalty is required for those who could care less about someone's life and who will go out and kill someone for fun or money or vengence. Now that makes common sense. 

Really? 

[taxme]

52 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Really? 

 

52 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Really? 

Yup, really. 

[taxme]

On 2/14/2017 at 6:48 PM, eyeball said:

AFAIC anyone who needs to establish a lie so they have a basis for their case should be disqualified from any further participation in the debate. They lack, completely, the moral and ethical background required to weigh in on any issue of any import at all.

 

 

What we really need is a vaccine for conservatism.

 

C'mon now? You must mean liberals need a vaccine, right?  A few injections of common sense and logic should do the trick to help them start to think for a change. I vaccinate myself all the time with conservatism. It seems to be working quite well for me. 

[Rue]

This is not a conservative or liberal issue. Its an issue as to when and how far the state should intervene when it appears someone is mentally ill and/or incompetent.

Its a complex issue. We don't want to end up like a police state having the state able to control people's political views and freedom of expression by using the pretext they are mentally ill as they do in totalitarian regimes both fascist, communist and religious extremist. On the other hand no one wants to see mentally ill people suffer needlessly because we deem them competent legally for the purpose of denying medication and in so doing leave them on the streets not just to suffer but harm others.

Its a complex issue because in this case most schizophrenics are not violent and they starve themselves to death or freeze themselves to death on the streets from self neglect.

Schizophrenia and schizophreniform a similar disease like manic-depression (bi-polar disease) are tough to treat because patients resist medication. Its frustrating for doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers, loved ones who want to help but can't. Police are placed in horrible situations where they m ay have to decide in a split second to shoot them.

We have to rexamine the issue of when we should allow society to intervene balancing individual rights. Its not a conservative or liberal issue. I would expect Eye to turn it into one, call people liars, label them however. He seems unable to transcend name calling when discussing such topics

Traditional conservatism does not champion state intervention, liberalism does. Law and order is not a stereotype conservative ideology. In fact its a liberal one.

Its Bentham and Hobbes not Burke who wanted government and social intervention.

I think a balancing act between social and individual rights is a tricky one here and is needed. Most of us agree-we don't want mentally ill people sent on the street who are a danger to themselves or others because of some idiot concept that we are oppressing them giving them a pill. On the other hand yes a state can abuse itd powers by calling people "mentally ill", surely we have seen that in Russia and China.

Now in the past we used to do horrible things with the mentally ill in the name of their own good. The pendelum swung the other way. In the 60's mental health proponents like Esterton and Lang claimed the mentally ill were not crazy society was. The movie One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest with Jack Nicholson depicted the mentally ill as tragic heroes and mainstream psychiatry as oppressive.

The Church of Scientology used its quasi religious  organization to recruit mentally ill people and alcoholics telling them psychiatry was part of a conspiracy to poison them.

People come on this forum making stupid and insipid comments about depressive illness when discussing deranged people who commit shooting sprees.

I started this topic because everyone knows its topical and there is no one solution.

We can only hope this guy does not kill someone but its time to move on. Calling conservatives names is stupid. Its childish.  This is not about being pro or anti mentally ill people.

There's a huge problem. To let a dangerous man out assuming he will take his medication because he says he will is just nonsensical. Demanding he have someone asure he take his medication each day is common sense, its not oppressive, its not degrading and if we think so lightly about the public's safety on such an issue, I will speak up. It doesn't mean I am a fascist, etc. or that conservatives automatically hate this individual.

That childish stereotyping is the domain of people who can't separate their own individual issues from the larger issue being discussed..

Edited February 17, 2017 by Rue

[eyeball]

On 2/16/2017 at 6:59 PM, Rue said:

This is not a conservative or liberal issue.

The issue is why anyone should listen to any argument that needs to be based on a lie before it can proceed - something right-wing conservatives appear to do a lot more routinely than progressives.