Greyhound Bus Cannibal rehabilitated after 4 years?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

So in your mind is there any difference between murder and manslaughter? Because my understanding is that murder requires intent. And how can you have any intent if you have an illness? Like I said to me it is no different than if someone gets into a car accident and kills someone because they have an illness. We don't charge them with murder either.

In your mind we should tell the McLean's that they should suck it up because accidents happen?

why go that route?

You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?

My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?

My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.

you can disagree with anything you wish. but try exercising a little respect when doing so.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?

My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.

you can disagree with anything you wish. but try exercising a little respect when doing so.

The comment that was made to me prefaced with, in your mind. I responded in kind. I'm not sure how you are reading that as disrespectful?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Well...

The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:

Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.

At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?

The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/brutal ... -517685268

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well...

The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:

Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.

At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?

The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/brutal ... -517685268

crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well...

The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:

Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.

At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?

The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/brutal ... -517685268

crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.

So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?

mickeyrat

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well...

The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:

Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.

At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?

The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.

http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/brutal ... -517685268

crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.

So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?

well, if they end up getting some kind of help to live some sort of sane life in treatment then I think it means they are in fact held accountable just not in a way that others are.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mickeyrat wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?

well, if they end up getting some kind of help to live some sort of sane life in treatment then I think it means they are in fact held accountable just not in a way that others are.

I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?

By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?

By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?

so by your reasoning that if there is no criminal by your definition then there is no crime, if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?

that is preposterous. a crime is an event. a criminal is defined by TWO things: as the person who is found guilty of perpetrating the act AND the person was able to determine right from wrong during said act.

eliminating the criminal from the equation does not by rule negate the crime itself.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?

By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?

so by your reasoning that if there is no criminal by your definition then there is no crime, if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?

that is preposterous. a crime is an event. a criminal is defined by TWO things: as the person who is found guilty of perpetrating the act AND the person was able to determine right from wrong during said act.

eliminating the criminal from the equation does not by rule negate the crime itself.

Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.

You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:

1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime

So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.

With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.

You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:

1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime

So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.

With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).

"if there is no criminal there is no crime, just an unfortunate event". yeah, and MY reasoning is flawed. saying your reasoning is solid doesn't make it so, my friend.

what I actually said was "if the rapist is never convicted", which is the same as no one being held accountable for a crime, thereby stating the same as you, that therefore the rape was not a crime, it was a mere happenstance. and to me, that is preposterous.

you're just using silly reasoning to get your point across, that holding someone not criminally responsible somehow diminishes the plight of the victim, which is debatable at best.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

it's kinda funny to me that you are using the old "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" to make your case that a mentally ill person needs to be locked away in prison with rapists and child molesters.

laughable.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).

and you can't say you are for those who need help, and then say "except....". That's like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying "oh, but I won't give money to anyone with stage 4". that's not being "all for helping" anything or anyone.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.

You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:

1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime

So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.

With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).

"if there is no criminal there is no crime, just an unfortunate event". yeah, and MY reasoning is flawed. saying your reasoning is solid doesn't make it so, my friend.

what I actually said was "if the rapist is never convicted", which is the same as no one being held accountable for a crime, thereby stating the same as you, that therefore the rape was not a crime, it was a mere happenstance. and to me, that is preposterous.

you're just using silly reasoning to get your point across, that holding someone not criminally responsible somehow diminishes the plight of the victim, which is debatable at best.

You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.

It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).

and you can't say you are for those who need help, and then say "except....". That's like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying "oh, but I won't give money to anyone with stage 4". that's not being "all for helping" anything or anyone.

Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.

It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.

no, your original point does not stand. by your reasoning if someone is not criminally responsible for a crime (whether a person is not caught or is not convicted, either way, no one is legally responsible for that crime by your definition), then that crime is not a crime, so my point stands. and that point is that your point is preposterous.

and no, it does not mean no crime happened. it means that particular person was not guilty of it. how can you possibly keep defending this immensely flawed logic? it's not even logic!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.

but they died of the disease you are giving money to help find a cure for. jesus.

so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

it's kinda funny to me that you are using the old "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" to make your case that a mentally ill person needs to be locked away in prison with rapists and child molesters.

laughable.

You don't think cannibals belong with rapists and child murderers?

You pardon mentally ill people because they are incapable of knowing what they are doing. How about the really, really stupid people that are found criminally responsible for acts they might have been responsible for, but unable to stop. For example, what about the woman who leaves her newborn in the car as she shops? She might have loved that newborn as much as a mother could love a baby... but she is so damn stupid that she is incapable of understanding or anticipating the hazards of leaving her child in a car with the sun baking down on it. Even though most of the public has the capacity to be above such an incident... this dummy really did the best she could, but it was all she was capable of.

Maybe we should excuse stupid people from being criminally responsible as well? It's not their fault they are stupid. Trust me when I say some stupidity is as legitimate as a mental illness. You likely wouldn't want to draw the line to account for stupid people. Maybe you do- I don't know. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think that line starts at the crime regardless of factors.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.

but they died of the disease you are giving money to help find a cure for. jesus.

so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.

My gawd, man. Read my posts instead of skimming.

You made a rather incongruent comparison that was faulty on many levels. I tried to illustrate what the actual comparison was that you were trying to make (that I was only willing to help to a point):

Cancer= wish to help.
Mentally ill= wish to help.

Dead cancer patient= no help from me (they are beyond it).
Mentally ill guy who mutilates and eats people= no help from me (they are beyond it).

When I say rather incongruent... I'm being nice.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.

It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.

no, your original point does not stand. by your reasoning if someone is not criminally responsible for a crime (whether a person is not caught or is not convicted, either way, no one is legally responsible for that crime by your definition), then that crime is not a crime, so my point stands. and that point is that your point is preposterous.

and no, it does not mean no crime happened. it means that particular person was not guilty of it. how can you possibly keep defending this immensely flawed logic? it's not even logic!

Did you read what you have written? How the fuck does your point stand? You're talking, but you're not saying anything.

If a guy is not guilty of a crime... then how was there a crime? I know we typically might still call it a crime, but why? Whether right or wrong, we pat the victims on the head and call the situation a crime (so maybe this makes them feel better?), but we deal with it as if it was a tragic accident.