Jump to content

Again the soft-on-crime justice system results in multiple stabbing attacks in a Vancouver Park


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

BC has been softer on mental health than crime forever. Why? Because people like you who jump 10 feet in the air at the thought that someone might be getting free stuff.

Oh eat me. Someone like me has never complained about more doctors, more mental health, more addiction treatment and rehab, Even though I'm one of the people who actually pays the taxes that support it all. And what does that get me?  I pay several thousand dollars a year to be a member of a private medical practice where I can get proper access to doctors who won't rush through whatever issue I might present. 

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm not just suggesting a piece of crap housing project like you're probably imagining.

The ones where we pay half a million per apartment or townhouse?

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

I mean something nice with lots of free stuff including good drugs. 

Good drugs are their problem, not their solution. Incarceration and forced treatment should be society's solution. If we had anyone to do the treating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the soft on crime approach isn't limited to BC, unfortunately. Just look at this charming individual.

The jury heard about parts of Barkhadle’s monstrous past, including evidence about three other vicious sex attacks on on different women.

One survivor testified: “I couldn’t breathe.” (Barkhadle strangled her, then raped her as her infant slept in another room.)

So, while Barkhadle, a longtime sex predator and crack dealer, is finally going to prison, this was far from his first trip through the Elgin Street courthouse.

He was last set free on Oct. 26, 2016, after Justice Heather Perkins-McVey denied a Crown application to brand Barkhadle a dangerous offender, which would have kept him behind bars for an indeterminate sentence. The Crown also brought an application to designate Barkhadle a long-term offender, which would have come with strict supervision once he was released into the community. Perkins-McVey also denied that application.

Five months later, Barkhadle would rape and kill the single mom in this case.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/guilty-mohammed-barkhadle-convicted-on-charge-of-first-degree-murder-in-womans-2017-death

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Well, the soft on crime approach isn't limited to BC, unfortunately. Just look at this charming individual.

The jury heard about parts of Barkhadle’s monstrous past, including evidence about three other vicious sex attacks on on different women.

One survivor testified: “I couldn’t breathe.” (Barkhadle strangled her, then raped her as her infant slept in another room.)

So, while Barkhadle, a longtime sex predator and crack dealer, is finally going to prison, this was far from his first trip through the Elgin Street courthouse.

He was last set free on Oct. 26, 2016, after Justice Heather Perkins-McVey denied a Crown application to brand Barkhadle a dangerous offender, which would have kept him behind bars for an indeterminate sentence. The Crown also brought an application to designate Barkhadle a long-term offender, which would have come with strict supervision once he was released into the community. Perkins-McVey also denied that application.

Five months later, Barkhadle would rape and kill the single mom in this case.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/guilty-mohammed-barkhadle-convicted-on-charge-of-first-degree-murder-in-womans-2017-death

The political leaders responsible for this mess are tone deaf to what is going on.   As I said before, the ignorance of voters is widespread and is corrupt from bottom to top.  

I would add in my view the Supreme Court, and other courts and many politicians are immoral and place the rights of a convicted criminals and accused ahead of the safety of citizens or society.

Edited by blackbird
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

I'm not just suggesting a piece of crap housing project like you're probably imagining. I mean something nice with lots of free stuff including good drugs.  You need to get in the system's face for that but first you'll probably need to adjust your own attitudes.

Good luck.

Give criminals and mentally-ill dangerous offenders a mansion to live in, all the food they want, loose women, and free high quality drugs and maybe they will be happy.  Right.  That's your modus operandi.  Nobody has responsibility for themselves or their own behavior.  The rest of society is responsible for the crimes they commit and responsible for providing everything for them.  Give us a break.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Give criminals and mentally-ill dangerous offenders a mansion to live in, all the food they want, loose women, and free high quality drugs and maybe they will be happy.  Right.  That's your modus operandi.  Nobody has responsibility for themselves or their own behavior.  The rest of society is responsible for the crimes they commit and responsible for providing everything for them.  Give us a break.

Notice how you guys always get all extreme and overblown when it comes to free stuff? Just the word free is enough to trigger your reactionary proclivities. Is that what Jesus would do?

Mansions??

BTW I'm only taking about homeless people not criminals and dangerous offenders. I suspect a lot of these become do dangerous as time goes by and as cheapskate whiners keep politicians from doing better by then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Notice how you guys always get all extreme and overblown when it comes to free stuff? Just the word free is enough to trigger your reactionary proclivities. Is that what Jesus would do?

Mansions??

BTW I'm only taking about homeless people not criminals and dangerous offenders. I suspect a lot of these become do dangerous as time goes by and as cheapskate whiners keep politicians from doing better by then.

 

quote

Second Thessalonians 3:10 reads, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” This verse is set in the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, which warns believers against idleness and laziness. The focus of the command is against those who refuse to work rather than those who are unable to do so.

The verses preceding the instruction to those unwilling to work relate a positive example: “You ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate” (2 Thessalonians 3:7–9). Paul and his companions did not come to the people of Thessalonica to take food or money from them but to share Christ with them. They were willing to work a side job to provide for their food.

In contrast, if any Christian worker came to a church and refused to work, Paul says not to offer him food. This instruction also had application to people within their congregation. Verses 11–12 note, “We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.” This is the Christian work ethic. Believers are to be known for working hard, not for a lazy attitude.

Scripture often addresses sloth or laziness as sin. For example, Proverbs 18:9 says, “One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys.” Proverbs 19:15 adds, “Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless go hungry”—there is a clear link between not working and not eating in this proverb. Ecclesiastes 10:18 also notes the negative consequences of laziness: “Through laziness, the rafters sag; because of idle hands, the house leaks.”

Again, the admonition that “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” concerns unwillingness rather than inability. There is a difference. James 1:27 describes true religion, in part, as “look[ing] after orphans and widows in their distress.” Needy children and widows, the disabled, those with special needs, the elderly, and others who cannot earn a living are deserving of much help.

As believers, it is important that we be known for our strong work ethic and helping those in true need. We should “let [our] light shine before others, that they may see [our] good deeds and glorify [our] Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

unquote

What does it mean that the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10)? | GotQuestions.org

There is a difference between unable to work and unwilling to work.  People who are unwilling to work should not receive much from government.  There are many of those.  Street people are no exception.  Many of them are unwilling to work.  We see them all the time.  Perhaps it is time to think about putting them in institutions.  But we have to get past the Supreme Court which gives more rights to criminals, addicts, and mentally ill than law-abiding citizens.

People with mental illness who break the law should be in mental institutions or prison with a mental illness department or section.  They should definitely not be on the street sleeping in doorways or living on the streets in tents.

Drug addicts should be in an institution and on rehabilitation programs.  If they refuse, they should go to a prison.  I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts being on the streets or free to commit more crime.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's this "Free stuff" bullshit? You still pipe-dreaming they get drugs free?

They wouldn't be hauling bodies out every morning if they did. Nor wood they be stealing everything that's not tied down.

You can pay a few pennies for better mental health care, rehab and shelter or you can pay with a lump on your head, your whole wallet gone and 20% extra for goods to cover shoplifting. Some of you seem to prefer the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Second Thessalonians 3:10 reads, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” 

What does your stupid Bible say about the  mentally ill, screw em'?

Jesus would be ashamed of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

quote

Second Thessalonians 3:10 reads, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’” This verse is set in the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, which warns believers against idleness and laziness. The focus of the command is against those who refuse to work rather than those who are unable to do so.

The verses preceding the instruction to those unwilling to work relate a positive example: “You ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate” (2 Thessalonians 3:7–9). Paul and his companions did not come to the people of Thessalonica to take food or money from them but to share Christ with them. They were willing to work a side job to provide for their food.

In contrast, if any Christian worker came to a church and refused to work, Paul says not to offer him food. This instruction also had application to people within their congregation. Verses 11–12 note, “We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.” This is the Christian work ethic. Believers are to be known for working hard, not for a lazy attitude.

Scripture often addresses sloth or laziness as sin. For example, Proverbs 18:9 says, “One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys.” Proverbs 19:15 adds, “Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless go hungry”—there is a clear link between not working and not eating in this proverb. Ecclesiastes 10:18 also notes the negative consequences of laziness: “Through laziness, the rafters sag; because of idle hands, the house leaks.”

Again, the admonition that “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” concerns unwillingness rather than inability. There is a difference. James 1:27 describes true religion, in part, as “look[ing] after orphans and widows in their distress.” Needy children and widows, the disabled, those with special needs, the elderly, and others who cannot earn a living are deserving of much help.

As believers, it is important that we be known for our strong work ethic and helping those in true need. We should “let [our] light shine before others, that they may see [our] good deeds and glorify [our] Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

unquote

What does it mean that the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10)? | GotQuestions.org

There is a difference between unable to work and unwilling to work.  People who are unwilling to work should not receive much from government.  There are many of those.  Street people are no exception.  Many of them are unwilling to work.  We see them all the time.  Perhaps it is time to think about putting them in institutions.  But we have to get past the Supreme Court which gives more rights to criminals, addicts, and mentally ill than law-abiding citizens.

People with mental illness who break the law should be in mental institutions or prison with a mental illness department or section.  They should definitely not be on the street sleeping in doorways or living on the streets in tents.

Drug addicts should be in an institution and on rehabilitation programs.  If they refuse, they should go to a prison.  I have absolutely no sympathy for drug addicts being on the streets or free to commit more crime.

Eyeball doesn’t seem to see the moral hazard of not contributing one’s efforts towards the community, to earn one’s keep.  Of course we’re not talking here about those who are unable to work.  The community takes care of them.  The irony too is that Eyeball was in charge of workers.

If there’s nothing to do for able-bodied people but show up for free drugs and food, very soon such folks won’t be able bodied.  They will be addicted, weak, and dependent.   This isn’t a social safety net for those who lose their jobs but are willing to work.  This is how you damage people.   I understand free needles to avoid spread of disease through needle sharing, antidotes to overdoses, methadone for transitioning off heroin, that kind of thing within reason.   Giving people free drugs no questions asked is basically turning the state into a free crack house.  It won’t end well.

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Eyeball doesn’t seem to see the moral hazard of not contributing one’s efforts towards the community, to earn one’s keep.  Of course we’re not talking here about those who are unable to work.

Sure we are it's just that the scale upon which you measure things is very very narrow.

I can't wait to see the day when automation starts eliminating work. What on Earth will you do then to justify your existence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 BC governments have actively pursued rationing. I was discussing it with my doctor last week. He said that in the 90's the government reduced the number of university slots and resident positions to save money. This affected him and he ended up going to Ireland to finish his training. Two of his kids are currently in Ireland taking medicine. He also said that if a doctor sees more than 50 patients a day, they only get paid half up to 55 and not at all for any over 55.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sure we are it's just that the scale upon which you measure things is very very narrow.

I can't wait to see the day when automation starts eliminating work. What on Earth will you do then to justify your existence?

Unlike you, I’m not a taskmaster.  I do know that nothing is free.  Giving up your ability to take care of yourself is giving up your agency.  I’m not talking about trading your work for other goods.  I’m also not denying that work comes in all forms and may appear leisurely to the unskilled.  I’m happy to have a shorter work week and let bots to the work, as long as there are no strings attached. Would you want to live in public housing? Would you want your kids living on welfare?  If we do eventually have UBI, its value will depend on what form it takes.  If it’s a universal cheque to everyone or a temporary EI type benefit for those thrown out of work, I could live with that. If it means accepting a lifestyle defined for me by the state, no thanks. That’s the end of innovation, pluralism, and vitality.  It’s in many ways the end of freedom, because as in the centrally planned communist state, how you live and what you have is decided for you.  It breeds weakness.  It’s certainly no way to build people up in the long run.  It would be wiser for such wayward souls to enter the military or to do anything that teaches self-discipline and fosters strength.  Construction, landscaping, learning a trade…Providing apprenticeships to people has great value.  Teaching someone to fish is usually better than giving them fish.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Aristides said:

 BC governments have actively pursued rationing. I was discussing it with my doctor last week. He said that in the 90's the government reduced the number of university slots and resident positions to save money. This affected him and he ended up going to Ireland to finish his training. Two of his kids are currently in Ireland taking medicine. He also said that if a doctor sees more than 50 patients a day, they only get paid half up to 55 and not at all for any over 55.

If a doctor works 8hrs straight with no breaks for doing forms or lunch, phone calls, or bathroom, or any other break (unlikely) 50 patients is giving ten minutes to each. Not very good service. If we take a more realistic 2hrs out for all that stuff then it's 7 minutes per patient. I can see why the government would not want them doing over 50. Even that is too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

If a doctor works 8hrs straight with no breaks for doing forms or lunch, phone calls, or bathroom, or any other break (unlikely) 50 patients is giving ten minutes to each. Not very good service. If we take a more realistic 2hrs out for all that stuff then it's 7 minutes per patient. I can see why the government would not want them doing over 50. Even that is too many.

I agree that it isn't a good situation but it has been brought on by government, not the doctors. Over a million BC'ers can't get a family physician but government limits how many patients they can have. There was an item on the news the other day that said out of 50 odd graduates only three were going into general practice. They interviewed one and he said that he really wanted to go into family practice but with the burden of his student loans, it wasn't economically feasible given the present system. 

My doc said he wouldn't see that many people now but when you are young you can do a lot of stuff and yes, it means working more than eight hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s Biblical.  You’re pharaoh and your employees on the boats were slaves.  Metaphor.  

what an insult to Ramesses II

being compared to a Canadian substitute drama teacher

we should be so lucky to have Pharaoh as our ruler

Ramesses II would decapitate the Government of Canada

every politician & senior civil servant would be executed for treason

 replaced by those actually loyal to the Crown

if Ramesses II were a Canadian, Vimy Ridge would be his religion

these "Progressives' attempting to destroy our nation; would be annihilated therein

Ramesses II would never tolerate the ineptitude, disloyalty,  nor lunacy of our political class

like the Canadian Corps from Amiens to Mons, nothing would stop Pharaoh

God Himself had to part the Red Sea in the face of Ramesses II

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

what an insult to Ramesses II

being compared to a Canadian substitute drama teacher

we should be so lucky to have Pharaoh as our ruler

Ramesses II would decapitate the Government of Canada

every politician & senior civil servant would be executed for treason

 replaced by those actually loyal to the Crown

if Ramesses II were a Canadian, Vimy Ridge would be his religion

these "Progressives' attempting to destroy our nation; would be annihilated therein

Ramesses II would never tolerate the ineptitude, disloyalty,  nor lunacy of our political class

like the Canadian Corps from Amiens to Mons, nothing would stop Pharaoh

God Himself had to part the Red Sea in the face of Ramesses II

Disturbing and poetic.  Read Rilke’s Torso of Apollo.  “You must change your life.”

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
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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