PDA

View Full Version : Vince Li may soon be granted more freedom (update)



Prairie Dog
05-14-2012, 11:19 PM
WINNIPEG ó Crown prosecutors do not oppose letting a man who beheaded a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus off of the grounds of a Manitoba mental hospital.

A psychiatrist treating Vince Li has asked a federal review board to let Li take escorted trips into the city of Selkirk, Man.

Dr. Steve Kremer says Li has responded well to his treatment and understands he has schizophrenia.

The Crown did not object to the request at Mondayís hearing.

The board has reserved its decision.

Li has been in a mental hospital since he was found not criminally responsible for stabbing and decapitating Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in July, 2008.

Li was initially kept in a locked ward, but began being allowed short walks on the hospital grounds in 2010.

The victimís mother, Carol DeDelley, has opposed granting more freedom to Li, saying he should be kept behind locked doors for the rest of his life.

Liís trial was told he was an untreated schizophrenic who heard voices telling him to kill McLean, a young carnival worker who Li had never met before. Passengers said Li started stabbing McLean in an unprovoked attack.

After the driver stopped the bus and the passengers exited, Li decapitated McLean and ate pieces of his flesh.

The Crown had previously opposed some of the recommendations to give Li more freedom. Last year, Crown attorney Susan Helenchilde said Li should only be allowed to walk the hospital grounds during daylight hours and only when at least two staff members are with him.

The review board ruled that Li only needed to be escorted by one staff member, as long as that worker has a cellphone or two-way radio.

Li, 44, emigrated from China in 2001 and worked menial jobs in Winnipeg. He moved to Edmonton in 2006 and was on his way back to Winnipeg when he killed McLean.

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/health/beheaded+fellow+Greyhound+passenger+granted+more+f reedom/6616828/story.html#ixzz1uudaNVYY

'Crown prosecutors do not oppose letting a man who beheaded a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus off of the grounds of a Manitoba mental hospital.' PARDON!?! I've said it before and I'll say it again, bring back Mr. Ellis!!

jonanddad
05-15-2012, 02:55 AM
Omg!!! and jwire you said it was safe to ride the greyhound again!!!!

stevesummit
05-15-2012, 05:57 AM
Wow

jwirecom109
05-15-2012, 06:49 AM
Li, 44, emigrated from China in 2001

deport his a$$ back to china

Rory McCanuck
05-15-2012, 10:01 AM
We can't do that, they would execute him.
Can't have that now, can we?
No, really, can we?
Please?

Prairie Dog
02-23-2016, 02:13 PM
Meet Will Baker, formerly known as Vince Li

A man who beheaded a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba has changed his name and wants to leave his group home to live independently.

Vince Li appeared before a Criminal Code Review Board on Monday under the new name of Will Baker.

Baker killed Tim McLean during a bus trip on the TransCanada Highway near Portage la Prairie in July 2008. He was found to be not criminally responsible for the murder due to mental illness -- schizophrenia.

Baker was originally kept in a secure wing at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, but the board has granted him increasing freedoms starting with supervised walks on the hospital grounds and eventually escorted trips to nearby communities.

He won the right to live in a group home last year

His medical team is now asking the review board to let Baker live on his own, albeit with several conditions that would include daily monitoring to ensure he continues to take his anti-psychotic medication.

The board heard from Baker's doctors on Monday that he has been a model patient and has always taken his medication.

Crown attorney Brian Sharpe said Baker would continue to be monitored "for the foreseeable future" and did not object to the request for independent living.

"There have been no issues. He's described in positive terms by the staff," Sharpe told the hearing.

"As far as I can tell, he's done everything that's been asked of him."

A decision by the board is expected by the end of the week.

Baker, 47, sat next to the 22-year-old McLean on the Greyhound bus after the young man smiled at him and asked how he was doing.

Li said he heard the voice of God telling him to kill the young carnival worker or "die immediately." Li repeatedly stabbed McLean who unsuccessfully fought for his life. As passengers fled the bus, Li continued stabbing and mutilating the body before he was arrested.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/02/23/meet-will-baker-formerly-known-as-vince-li

Billythreefeathers
02-23-2016, 02:31 PM
and what will all of these experts be crying when he kills again?

ROADGLIDE45
02-23-2016, 03:37 PM
and what will all of these experts be crying when he kills again?

Personally I think we should deport him.. But unfortunately that won't happen.

ANY of these "experts" who say he is fit to return to society should "put their money where their mouths are"

They should be held Criminally liable for ANY harm that Baker causes to anybody else when he is released, for the rest of his life.
They would definitely think twice before turning someone like him free back into society.

Rory McCanuck
02-23-2016, 03:58 PM
Every trip into town to get dogfood I drive past the little white cross and flowers, where that bus stopped 7 1/2 years ago.
.


His medical team is now asking the review board to let Baker live on his own,
No. Just, no.

RELOAD
02-23-2016, 04:46 PM
OH for fvcks sake just give him the order of canada already.:Bang head:

Hebrew Hammer
02-23-2016, 05:04 PM
They're not going to deport a Canadian citizen, so those suggestions are pretty ridiculous unless he was a terrorist. Otherwise it doesn't rate. I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand if he's complying with treatment and taking his medication etc., I don't see the point in spending money on keeping him locked up. At the same time, there are factors that make it a gamble so perhaps those assessing his case should be held responsible should it not work out.

Rory McCanuck
02-23-2016, 07:02 PM
I don't see the point in spending money on keeping him locked up
Because
He
ATE
a
Person!

If he goes off of his meds, and hears the 'voice of God' again, what'll happen?
I'm all for giving people second chances, and yes he is sick and it can be treated with meds, but I would think it reasonble to safeguard against him going out for a bite to eat.

Sadosubliminal
02-23-2016, 07:32 PM
...If he goes off of his meds, and hears the 'voice of God' again, what'll happen?

That's the crux of the matter right there. If I take his testimony and the verdict at face value, he is a schizophrenic and is not entirely accountable for his actions. I honestly don't blame this guy, as horrific and tragic as it was, I blame our backwards laws and neutered support systems.

It's hard enough to diagnose these people, they tend to go off, then are diagnosed. Sadly, even then you cannot force someone to take their medication, and that really is a failure on the part of the system. A schizophrenic inherently does not want to be on meds (and not just the paranoid ones).

My wife's cousin suffers the same illness. We can't force him to take his meds, he's an adult. So he gets in trouble with the law for doing something crazy, spends a few weeks in a jail, agrees to go on meds, then after a few weeks he decides "the meds are brainwashing him and they make him feel terrible" so he stops taking them. Rinse and repeat.

There should come a point where by you've forfeited your personal rights and freedoms and the meds are federally mandated to be force-fed to you every goddamn day. It's only a matter of time before the many thousands of people much like my wife's cousin go a little too far off the deep end and eat someone's face.

This topic gets my blood boiling every time.

Hebrew Hammer
02-23-2016, 07:36 PM
Because
He
ATE
a
Person!

If he goes off of his meds, and hears the 'voice of God' again, what'll happen?
I'm all for giving people second chances, and yes he is sick and it can be treated with meds, but I would think it reasonble to safeguard against him going out for a bite to eat.

Yeah, I get that. It's a risk, and I understand that argument. However, I can also understand the other side of the argument. The guy is a person with schizophrenia, and if he's responded well to treatment and continues with it then it seems logical to not waste the resources on keeping him locked up. I can see a need to monitor his compliance with treatment on the outside, if such were to happen, however.

Rory McCanuck
02-23-2016, 10:48 PM
However, I can also understand the other side of the argument. The guy is a person with schizophrenia, and if he's responded well to treatment and continues with it then it seems logical to not waste the resources on keeping him locked up.
Yeah, it's a tricky one either way. I feel for the guy, mental illnesses are just plain ugly.

Nobody, including him, wants this to happen again, but to properly monitor that it will not happen again, would probably be less expensive in a facility.
The only way him living on his own would be any cheaper, is having home-care come by however many times a day to make sure he has taken his meds.

I doubt he'll ever be employed again, so is it cheaper to pay his way in The System while he's out and free to roam, or is it cheaper to pay his way in The System while he's in a facility?

Foxer
02-23-2016, 11:23 PM
Yeah, I get that. It's a risk, and I understand that argument. However, I can also understand the other side of the argument. The guy is a person with schizophrenia, and if he's responded well to treatment and continues with it then it seems logical to not waste the resources on keeping him locked up. I can see a need to monitor his compliance with treatment on the outside, if such were to happen, however.

I wouldn't say he should be locked up for punishment. Or that his lock up need to be unpleasant or that he shouldn't have a decent life within those walls.

And i get that as long as he takes meds he's ok, and that short term they'll monitor him and they would hope he would choose to keep taking the drugs.

But here's what it boils down to - The safety of the public is hinging on the idea that we can trust the mentally ill to make good choices.

That is not reasonable or prudent. IF he had a contagious disease which could kill others there would be no question, we'd lock him up to protect people. But the fact that his illness is mental, somehow it's ok to just hope for the best. And here's the sad part - if he DOES make a poor judgement call and goes off his meds and he DOES kill someone else.... none of these people willing to 'give him a chance' or 'speaking well of him' will suffer the slightest repercussions at all. They'll just say "ooopsie" and continue with life. While his victim and family will have to deal with the consequences forever.

No. i'm sorry he's sick. Make him as comfortable as we can and take care of him - but do NOT let him out in public to kill and EAT someone again. It's just not worth the risk.

SpenceyHR
02-23-2016, 11:43 PM
I wouldn't say he should be locked up for punishment. Or that his lock up need to be unpleasant or that he shouldn't have a decent life within those walls.

And i get that as long as he takes meds he's ok, and that short term they'll monitor him and they would hope he would choose to keep taking the drugs.

But here's what it boils down to - The safety of the public is hinging on the idea that we can trust the mentally ill to make good choices.

That is not reasonable or prudent. IF he had a contagious disease which could kill others there would be no question, we'd lock him up to protect people. But the fact that his illness is mental, somehow it's ok to just hope for the best. And here's the sad part - if he DOES make a poor judgement call and goes off his meds and he DOES kill someone else.... none of these people willing to 'give him a chance' or 'speaking well of him' will suffer the slightest repercussions at all. They'll just say "ooopsie" and continue with life. While his victim and family will have to deal with the consequences forever.

No. i'm sorry he's sick. Make him as comfortable as we can and take care of him - but do NOT let him out in public to kill and EAT someone again. It's just not worth the risk.

I can agree to that. We have to have compassion for the mentally ill, but we can't be stupid about it.

Foxer
02-24-2016, 01:12 AM
I can agree to that. We have to have compassion for the mentally ill, but we can't be stupid about it.

Precisely. It's fine to have compassion and provide for them a comfortable life and accommodate them as best we can. But not to the point of stupidity and not to the point where the public's safety is at risk on the hope that he will continue to make good choices forever when he's been shown to be of reduced capacity in that regard already.

Hebrew Hammer
02-24-2016, 10:25 AM
I've worked with individuals with serious mental illness for quite a few years, and understand the nuances of treating complex disorders. There will always be the potential for future instability with at-risk individuals. However, Li was not criminally responsible for the act at the time due to his mental state. Since then he's apparently been completely compliant with treatment, as he doesn't want something like that to every happen again. People with serious mental illnesses are one of the most stigmatized groups of people in the nation, and continually keeping one confined for something they weren't criminally responsible for can arguably be interpreted as punishment. Even if he gets to live independently, he's going to be monitored for the foreseeable future, so a part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he's monitored (which he will be) and he continues with treatment (which he's made no indication at this point that he won't) the risk to the public has been sufficiently mitigated in my eyes.

I can understand the argument they are making in this situation for those reasons.

Foxer
02-24-2016, 10:56 AM
People with serious mental illnesses are one of the most stigmatized groups of people in the nation, and continually keeping one confined for something they weren't criminally responsible for can arguably be interpreted as punishment.

Not really. If a person had an infectious disease that would kill people if he were exposed to them, then this wouldn't even be a question. It's not 'punishment', it's just necessary to contain an unfortunate threat. It's sad that he's got to go thru it, but it's the way it is.

You accept that him killing and eating a person is not a 'crime' - you'll have to suck up that keeping him from doing that again is not 'punishment'.


Even if he gets to live independently, he's going to be monitored for the foreseeable future, so a part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Ok - well lets say i put the choice to do that in your hands. Poof - you get to decide if he gets that freedom or not. Now - If you are WRONG and he kills again... what would YOU be willing to give up to pay for that mislaid trust? Would you give up YOUR life? Or the lives of a family member?

You have to remember - that's the bet you're asking someone ELSE to take. Someone ELSE would have to give up their life and/or the life of a family member if you're wrong. So- is it fair for YOU to place that bet for them unless YOU will also pay?

Stigma or not, criminal or not, he has proven to be a serious threat to the public and there is no cure. AT best there's only treatment. And if he ever goes off that treatment whether it's 1 year from now or 5 or 10 - he'll probably kill again.

So. There you go.

kennymo
02-24-2016, 11:07 AM
I've worked with individuals with serious mental illness for quite a few years, and understand the nuances of treating complex disorders. There will always be the potential for future instability with at-risk individuals. However, Li was not criminally responsible for the act at the time due to his mental state. Since then he's apparently been completely compliant with treatment, as he doesn't want something like that to every happen again. People with serious mental illnesses are one of the most stigmatized groups of people in the nation, and continually keeping one confined for something they weren't criminally responsible for can arguably be interpreted as punishment. Even if he gets to live independently, he's going to be monitored for the foreseeable future, so a part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Assuming he's monitored (which he will be) and he continues with treatment (which he's made no indication at this point that he won't) the risk to the public has been sufficiently mitigated in my eyes.

I can understand the argument they are making in this situation for those reasons.

Part of the issue is that the greyhound bus wasn't his first incident. He has had at least a couple other mental breaks before, and they were related to him deciding not to take his meds. There's a bit of a pattern, though he didn't perform any acts of extreme violence towards others in the previous incidents. IIRC, his MO is to disappear for a while before cropping up in a different city in a psychiatric ward.....

* Can't find any sign of the article I'd read that in, though it was some time ago now.... Just a few references to him suddenly disappearing from work for days at a time, randomly...

Hebrew Hammer
02-24-2016, 12:11 PM
Not really. If a person had an infectious disease that would kill people if he were exposed to them, then this wouldn't even be a question. It's not 'punishment', it's just necessary to contain an unfortunate threat. It's sad that he's got to go thru it, but it's the way it is.

You accept that him killing and eating a person is not a 'crime' - you'll have to suck up that keeping him from doing that again is not 'punishment'.

A person with an infectious disease would be contained until it was treated and no longer an issue. A mental illness isn't an infectious disease; it cannot spread to other people. As such, if we apply that logic then Li was contained and treated until he was no longer symptomatic. So long as he continues treatment, there is no reasonable expectation that he'll kill again. Also, you absolutely can be "punished" for something that isn't a crime, so that's an irrelevant consideration.


Ok - well lets say i put the choice to do that in your hands. Poof - you get to decide if he gets that freedom or not. Now - If you are WRONG and he kills again... what would YOU be willing to give up to pay for that mislaid trust? Would you give up YOUR life? Or the lives of a family member?

You have to remember - that's the bet you're asking someone ELSE to take. Someone ELSE would have to give up their life and/or the life of a family member if you're wrong. So- is it fair for YOU to place that bet for them unless YOU will also pay?

Stigma or not, criminal or not, he has proven to be a serious threat to the public and there is no cure. AT best there's only treatment. And if he ever goes off that treatment whether it's 1 year from now or 5 or 10 - he'll probably kill again.

So. There you go.

Yes, I probably would take that bet. If he has responded well to treatment, has done everything that was asked of him, and will be further monitored for compliance then I would be reasonably assured that it won't happen again. I understand the argument in the sense that keeping him locked up would not particularly make sense in this regard. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree there; otherwise the rest of this is just emotional rhetoric based on hypotheticals.

firemachine69
02-24-2016, 12:23 PM
Rest assured folks, my former co-workers at greyhound have assured me that should he ever get on a greyhound again, it will be his last. :)

Foxer
02-24-2016, 03:33 PM
A person with an infectious disease would be contained until it was treated and no longer an issue. A mental illness isn't an infectious disease; it cannot spread to other people. As such, if we apply that logic then Li was contained and treated until he was no longer symptomatic. So long as he continues treatment, there is no reasonable expectation that he'll kill again. Also, you absolutely can be "punished" for something that isn't a crime, so that's an irrelevant consideration.
Well then once he's treated and cured, then I guess we can let him out. And unfortunately mental illness is an infectious illness in the sense that it leads to direct physical ailments in others. Like beheading. It has a direct impact on those who come in contact with the affected person. Same thing, different biology.

The second part there is just nonsense. Nobody said anything about not being able to punish people for something that's not a crime. Pay attention. What was said was that If you accept that an offense can be committed without it being a crime, then you have to accept that a person can be contained without it being punishment. And do think that thru.a bit before you make some knee jerk comment and I have to walk you thru it.

As to the bet - great! You work that deal out and when you do it's ok for him to leave in my books. Otherwise - he can stay were he is.

Hebrew Hammer
02-24-2016, 04:05 PM
he second part there is just nonsense. Nobody said anything about not being able to punish people for something that's not a crime. Pay attention. What was said was that If you accept that an offense can be committed without it being a crime, then you have to accept that a person can be contained without it being punishment. And do think that thru.a bit before you make some knee jerk comment and I have to walk you thru it.

Actually, Foxer, the idea that "If you accept that an offense can be committed without it being a crime, then you have to accept that a person can be contained without it being punishment" is what's complete nonsense. You're going to have to produce some sound mental gymnastics to establish that being contained cannot be interpreted as a punitive measure in light of someone not being criminally responsible. One doesn't have to accept anything of the sort.

It's pretty simple, really: Guy does the act. Is found not criminally responsible and contained for treatment. Guy responds well to treatment, is doing well, is "sane" and is now being considered for independent living. Since this is now the case, any attempt to keep him contained when he is no longer in the state of mind that influenced the act (which he wasn't criminally responsible for) could be interpreted as punitive.

Foxer
02-24-2016, 04:54 PM
Actually, Foxer, the idea that "If you accept that an offense can be committed without it being a crime, then you have to accept that a person can be contained without it being punishment" is what's complete nonsense. Siigh. I did ask you to think about it first. Give it a crack, if you can't see the obvious logical connection then i'll spell it out for you. But at LEAST make an effort.


It's pretty simple, really: Guy does the act. Is found not criminally responsible and contained for treatment. Guy responds well to treatment, is doing well, is "sane" and is now being considered for independent living.Well that WOULD be simple. And desirable. Unfortunately, it's not true.

He is unfortunately not 'sane' at all. What is happening is that his insanity is being held in check by drugs. He's just as insane as he was when he killed and ate someone.

So if he stops taking those drugs, his behavior and insanity is no longer held in check, and it's snack time again sooner or later.

The thing is - they ALWAYS stop taking the meds. Time goes by, and they forget the positive effects of the drugs and they focus on the negative effects - and there are some pretty serious negative effects. It's not like you just pop the pill and everything's the same except you don't feel the need to kill and eat people.

So sooner or later they decide to 'try' going with out. And then they're in that trap - they don't want to go back and they 'think' they're doing fine when they aren't.

If it were possible to make him sane we wouldn't have a problem. But that's not the case.

OEM
02-24-2016, 06:29 PM
Mental illness? Or just plain evil?

My view is that he needs to be under constant observation. What he did is quite different from the garden variety "mental illness", which seems like a too-convenient catch all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RangeBob
02-24-2016, 06:58 PM
My wife's cousin suffers the same illness. We can't force him to take his meds, he's an adult. So he gets in trouble with the law for doing something crazy, spends a few weeks in a jail, agrees to go on meds, then after a few weeks he decides "the meds are brainwashing him and they make him feel terrible" so he stops taking them. Rinse and repeat.

Yep.
There was a show about similar problems in New Orleans. The meds made them feel stupid and slow and ill and not enjoy the world. So they stop.
The problem in New Orleans was compounded the by the only hospital doing such treatment/review closing, so the police ended up taking all the mental health patients who had fallen off their meds to jail -- which didn't work.

svehn
02-24-2016, 07:21 PM
Some bleeding hearts won't like my view. But, I don't care. The only treatment that animal should have gotten was a chunk of high speed lead to the brain pan. I guarantee, he'd never be a repeat offender.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

killer kane
02-24-2016, 07:22 PM
He needs to be out of the general public, plain and simple. How many of us would have plugged him had we been armed and sitting across from him and saw the start of the attack? Also, he's had episodes in ontario and was supposedly dropped off by the chinese, this I can't say is absolute, but I'm sure I read it somewhere.

Swampdonkey
02-24-2016, 09:55 PM
Mental illness? Or just plain evil?

My view is that he needs to be under constant observation. What he did is quite different from the garden variety "mental illness", which seems like a too-convenient catch all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a subjective line between bad attitude and mental illness.

Psychiatry isn't scientific like engineering, it's scientific like global warming.

JustBen
02-24-2016, 10:10 PM
When a dog bites... you put it down. Can't have a dog going around biting people. Did it once, how can you trust them again?

Hebrew Hammer
02-24-2016, 10:13 PM
There's a subjective line between bad attitude and mental illness.

Psychiatry isn't scientific like engineering, it's scientific like global warming.

Great, please post your credentials so we can see what qualifications you have for making such great assessments.

Swampdonkey
02-24-2016, 10:14 PM
When a dog bites... you put it down. Can't have a dog going around biting people. Did it once, how can you trust them again?

Because dogs can be trained. People are capable of learning.

But, animals are not persons, they are property. A biting dog isn't a criminal, it's like a condemned building or recalled car. Different paradigm.

Mark-II
02-24-2016, 10:41 PM
I'm sure that Tim's family feels that justice was served....


Let's not forget the one True victim.

Benito
02-25-2016, 04:40 AM
How about some compassion for his victim and his family, and potential victims when he re-offends.
I really don't get it. Are these medical "experts" stupid, naive, or simply evil and conducting social experiments with their subjects and the public?
Maybe let him go free, and I pray to God that he has an untimely fatal "accident". No further comment.

RangeBob
02-25-2016, 08:34 AM
Mental Health
When it comes to gun violence there's two problems. There's inner city violence, which is a matter of gang violence and people shooting each other unfortunately because they are involved in gangs, in Chicago and Los Angeles and Washington DC and all the major cities and these are all the heavily gun controlled areas the democratic areas these are the places where people are getting killed en mass. And then you have the mass shooting issue. The mass shooting issue is largely because in the 1960s and 1970s, this is the one area where I think the government should be involved, in the 1960s and 1970s there was a decision that was made basically all across the country to empty out all the mental facilities because there was an idea that went around the country and gained a lot of traction that mental illness was basically One Flew Over The Coo coo's Next. That nobody was actually crazy, everybody was just eccentric. And this is why you have a mass growth in homeless people. In 1960, how many people do you think were in mental institutions in the United states in 1960? Half a million, and we had half the population then. Today there are 25,000 people in mental facilities. So you've got a lot of violent people on the streets. And if you have a lot of violent people on the streets you're going to end up with a lot of mass shootings, and that's why whenever there's a mass shooting almost invariably it's somebody who is crazy and we've known they are crazy. And involuntary commitment laws are really really difficult because you have to show that the person is a threat to themselves or others, as opposed to the old standard which was they are incapable of caring for themselves. One of the big problems with paranoid schizophrenia which has afflicted a lot of these shooters is that you have a condition where you literally can't even recognize that you have a condition, so you won't take your drugs. And when they let you out, you just go off the drugs, and you go right back to doing whatever it was you were doing in the first place. Most of the people who are committing these acts are not on heavy medication. Most of the people who are committing these acts have gone off their medication, and they have significant mental illness, and they need to be medicated. This is an area where the medical health system is dramatically underfunded, the laws are complete ..., when it comes to people who legitimately can not take care of themselves. And I'm speaking as somebody who's grandfather was a schizophrenic, and went into a mental hospital and they gave him lithium, and then he spent the rest of his life as a happy productive human being. These are things that might not have been possible now. This is an area where I think there is a role for the government in this. John Locke would have thought the same. John Locke said this in his writings he said the problem of mental illness is one that falls upon the society as a whole because you have a group of people who can't take care of themselves. That's the real problem with mass shootings. Taking guns away from me, is not going to stop the mass shooter. In fact it's probably going to create more mass shootings because now I can't defend myself.
-- Ben Shapiro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ_mphb7HU @18

kennymo
02-26-2016, 09:25 AM
Forgot to mention, in the news yesterday Will Baker (aka Vince Li) was denied his request to live independently....

Foxer
02-26-2016, 09:40 AM
Forgot to mention, in the news yesterday Will Baker (aka Vince Li) was denied his request to live independently....

... for now. THey will reconsider if a 'detailed community living plan' is filed, whatever that is and whenever that might be.

Mark-II
02-26-2016, 12:56 PM
Bit of sanity, then, or is it a good bit of public pressure? This community will never accept him. Not the part that believes a mental defense is an escape from justice.

kennymo
02-26-2016, 01:08 PM
Bit of sanity, then, or is it a good bit of public pressure? This community will never accept him. Not the part that believes a mental defense is an escape from justice.

The latter, maybe a bit, the first, not so much. He's still being sent out to a monitored group home in the area.

sikvenum93
02-26-2016, 03:44 PM
What the hell man.. You guys are too soft on crime. I get that he's mentally ill but he deserves at least 20 years to make sure he's fully recovered.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

Hebrew Hammer
02-26-2016, 03:45 PM
What the hell man.. You guys are too soft on crime. I get that he's mentally ill but he deserves at least 20 years to make sure he's fully recovered.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

eh, I'd rather have that than American style mass incarceration

sikvenum93
02-26-2016, 03:49 PM
eh, I'd rather have that than American style mass incarceration
I'm not a fan of US incarceration either but he murdered somebody. That is a very serious crime. Even if he is now sane he still needs to reflect on what he did.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

Wendell
02-26-2016, 03:51 PM
Not guilty I said, you've got the wrong man
Nothing touched the knife but the Devil's right hand (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfiOD82_fo0)

kennymo
02-26-2016, 04:54 PM
I'm not a fan of US incarceration either but he murdered somebody. That is a very serious crime. Even if he is now sane he still needs to reflect on what he did.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

I don't know that time to reflect is the correct way to put it.... The guy was definitely right out of his head when he did it, and has shown extensive remorse since being brought back down to reality.... But with what he's shown himself to be capable of doing there's no way in hell he should be out on his own. I'm not a fan of the group home even. This is a man who most people in the province believe should be kept segregated from society for some time yet, though not necessarily imprisoned... He simply needs someone to watch over him, as he could easily find himself in a state where he is incapable of doing it for himself.

Edward Teach
02-26-2016, 10:16 PM
he still needs to reflect on what he did.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/b9838ca19270722494e6cc5260082e59/tumblr_mo5wmgLOTZ1rawb5do1_500.jpg

Metric Warrior
02-27-2016, 08:19 AM
Until there is an absolute guaranteed way for him to get his meds every day, on time, in the right dosage, he should never be free.
He lost that when he chopped off a guys head and started eating him.

We do not have that system in place yet. Far too many come off their meds at some point.

labradort
02-27-2016, 08:45 AM
There's a subjective line between bad attitude and mental illness.

Psychiatry isn't scientific like engineering, it's scientific like global warming.

I don't have academic qualifications in that area, but I can smell when there is political correctness preventing those in the field from telling it like it is. Finding the right concoction to treat an individual is "more of an art than a science". Some people have great results, others never find a solution, and some with a solution really hate the side effects of the medicine. I've met people who even with their meds, are like an unstoppable steam locomotive.

For those of you big fans of long term incarceration, do you know what it costs to keep a federal prisoner per year? I wish I was making that. It's about 5 times the rate for welfare.

My feeling is there was value in the old idea of having a monitored situation like a psych hospital. There should be a way to run something like it that is far cheaper than federal prisons - like a village of group homes, but without the full freedom to get in trouble in the world which includes knives, recreational drugs, con artists, etc. Make a village which will allow employment, productive citizens, but without the risk they will try crack or meth, and end up tasered on the evening news. I think if it wasn't for mentally ill people on the streets, the number of police we need would be about halved.

Deuce-deuce
02-27-2016, 09:42 AM
Feed him grain.