Canadian Politics Redux

1109110112114115124

Comments

  • The deregulations in the trucking industry are not the fault of the driver. He was in compliance.

    He never deliberately mowed through that bus with murderous intent. It was an accident.

    I’m not making an excuse for him- he can serve his time- but after his penalty, we’ll have to forgive him (especially given he’s admitted to fault and accepted responsibility for the accident).

    To your other points, Meltdown, the trucking industry has lost serious professionalism over the years. They are wreaking havoc on our provincial highways. Many are absolute menaces.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,208
    The deregulations in the trucking industry are not the fault of the driver. He was in compliance.

    He never deliberately mowed through that bus with murderous intent. It was an accident.

    I’m not making an excuse for him- he can serve his time- but after his penalty, we’ll have to forgive him (especially given he’s admitted to fault and accepted responsibility for the accident).

    To your other points, Meltdown, the trucking industry has lost serious professionalism over the years. They are wreaking havoc on our provincial highways. Many are absolute menaces.
    many are slaves to timelines that simply aren't realistic without a super human at the wheel. 
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 4,942
    The deregulations in the trucking industry are not the fault of the driver. He was in compliance.

    He never deliberately mowed through that bus with murderous intent. It was an accident.

    I’m not making an excuse for him- he can serve his time- but after his penalty, we’ll have to forgive him (especially given he’s admitted to fault and accepted responsibility for the accident).

    To your other points, Meltdown, the trucking industry has lost serious professionalism over the years. They are wreaking havoc on our provincial highways. Many are absolute menaces.
    I know it's not entirely his fault.  A lot of the problem lies at the feet of the federal government.  The standards should be the same nationwide, if the provinces won't, the federal government needs to.  In time I will be more compassionate, it is still too soon.  I live along the 401 in Southern Ontario, truckers are causing far too much mayhem.  A little before Christmas a trucker was sent to jail for 4 years for killing a mother and son on the 401 near my community.  They were stopped for an accident, he plowed into the back of them.  He never accepted responsibility, showed up to court with all kinds of bs excuses, judged essentially didn't believe any of them.

    In the case of the Humboldt guy, he still blew through a decently marked intersection.  That's on him, he needs prison time. When you get behind the wheel of a semi, you need to be paying attention 100% of the time.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,208
    The deregulations in the trucking industry are not the fault of the driver. He was in compliance.

    He never deliberately mowed through that bus with murderous intent. It was an accident.

    I’m not making an excuse for him- he can serve his time- but after his penalty, we’ll have to forgive him (especially given he’s admitted to fault and accepted responsibility for the accident).

    To your other points, Meltdown, the trucking industry has lost serious professionalism over the years. They are wreaking havoc on our provincial highways. Many are absolute menaces.
    I know it's not entirely his fault.  A lot of the problem lies at the feet of the federal government.  The standards should be the same nationwide, if the provinces won't, the federal government needs to.  In time I will be more compassionate, it is still too soon.  I live along the 401 in Southern Ontario, truckers are causing far too much mayhem.  A little before Christmas a trucker was sent to jail for 4 years for killing a mother and son on the 401 near my community.  They were stopped for an accident, he plowed into the back of them.  He never accepted responsibility, showed up to court with all kinds of bs excuses, judged essentially didn't believe any of them.

    In the case of the Humboldt guy, he still blew through a decently marked intersection.  That's on him, he needs prison time. When you get behind the wheel of a semi, you need to be paying attention 100% of the time.
    uh, I think it speaks volumes that many, if not all, of the victims and families who have talked publically about it believe he is getting as much punishment as he deserves. 
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 4,942
    Algoma Steel Inc. getting help from governments as tariff squeeze continues

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/algoma-sault-announcement-thursday-1.4971823?fbclid=IwAR1SxTrELYVavYB-IxThxqwwLVEZCJ-zUAyjORPIuuYDBBWJpbC_Jwdto_E

    More corporate welfare.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 4,942
    "You're getting people arrested," George said. "You're a liar and a weak leader. What do you tell your children?"https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/01/10/trudeau-bc-town-hall_a_23639307/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR2F2gJ8uCF0Sa7WUAwkwEcQYwMBTAjlq2Vr_2MJW_nmhL3MqFkMW2nvrqc

    "You're getting people arrested," George said. "You're a liar and a weak leader. What do you tell your children?"

    At least he pissing everybody, both domestically and abroad...lol
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 4,942
  • Defence lawyers trying to make a case for Allan Schoenborn to be granted escorted outings from his country club. This is great news and with any luck... the poor poor man who killed his three children brutally with a knife can finally get out in the public where we are all so anxious and eager to have him!

    It's a great endeavour on the part of his lawyers funded by our tax pool. I mean... it's really really worth pursuing. Look at how much he's improved from being a psychopathic f**king loser:

    1. His attitude has become more positive over the years, Hediger said, but he continues to have “negative interactions” with both patients and employees. They haven’t gotten physical, but staff have had to intervene.

    2. The hospital’s two main concerns are that Schoenborn has trouble when he feels wronged or disrespected, and he tends to interpret “neutral” comments as negative, he said. His poor impulse control could cause issues on escorted outings.

    Hmm. Okay. Well just don't disrespect this guy like his ex did before he went and slaughtered their children and everything will be fine.

    3. And during the proceedings... he only had one outburst: at the very end of the day, when Crown counsel Trevor Shaw asked for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three murdered children, and other close family to be notified if Schoenborn had an outing.

    “Really? He doesn’t know why?” Schoenborn said loudly, interrupting Shaw’s reading of his arguments for victim notification.

    I know. I know. He was found not criminally responsible for his carnage so why am I even concerned in the slightest for such proceedings? I guess I'm just a little concerned that, in typical Canadian fashion, we might be trying just a little too hard to expedite this matter to satisfy eager rehabilitation enthusiasts.

    I guess I also wonder why he was found NCR in the first place? I know he was really mad and a heavy drug user so any crimes committed while being real mad or high don't count, but- call me obtuse- it just doesn't seem right for some reason.

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/crown-seeks-to-remove-b-c-child-killers-right-to-escorted-outings/

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    Defence lawyers trying to make a case for Allan Schoenborn to be granted escorted outings from his country club. This is great news and with any luck... the poor poor man who killed his three children brutally with a knife can finally get out in the public where we are all so anxious and eager to have him!

    It's a great endeavour on the part of his lawyers funded by our tax pool. I mean... it's really really worth pursuing. Look at how much he's improved from being a psychopathic f**king loser:

    1. His attitude has become more positive over the years, Hediger said, but he continues to have “negative interactions” with both patients and employees. They haven’t gotten physical, but staff have had to intervene.

    2. The hospital’s two main concerns are that Schoenborn has trouble when he feels wronged or disrespected, and he tends to interpret “neutral” comments as negative, he said. His poor impulse control could cause issues on escorted outings.

    Hmm. Okay. Well just don't disrespect this guy like his ex did before he went and slaughtered their children and everything will be fine.

    3. And during the proceedings... he only had one outburst: at the very end of the day, when Crown counsel Trevor Shaw asked for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three murdered children, and other close family to be notified if Schoenborn had an outing.

    “Really? He doesn’t know why?” Schoenborn said loudly, interrupting Shaw’s reading of his arguments for victim notification.

    I know. I know. He was found not criminally responsible for his carnage so why am I even concerned in the slightest for such proceedings? I guess I'm just a little concerned that, in typical Canadian fashion, we might be trying just a little too hard to expedite this matter to satisfy eager rehabilitation enthusiasts.

    I guess I also wonder why he was found NCR in the first place? I know he was really mad and a heavy drug user so any crimes committed while being real mad or high don't count, but- call me obtuse- it just doesn't seem right for some reason.

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/crown-seeks-to-remove-b-c-child-killers-right-to-escorted-outings/

    I don’t know why he was found NCRMD. I have trouble wirh this case myself, as I’ve said before. I can tell you categorically that psychosis induced by drugs is a disqualifier for a finding of NCRMD.  And of course “being really mad” doesn’t count, but you knew that already. 

    Also, FPH is by no means a country club; not by any stretch. I’ve been inside it. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Defence lawyers trying to make a case for Allan Schoenborn to be granted escorted outings from his country club. This is great news and with any luck... the poor poor man who killed his three children brutally with a knife can finally get out in the public where we are all so anxious and eager to have him!

    It's a great endeavour on the part of his lawyers funded by our tax pool. I mean... it's really really worth pursuing. Look at how much he's improved from being a psychopathic f**king loser:

    1. His attitude has become more positive over the years, Hediger said, but he continues to have “negative interactions” with both patients and employees. They haven’t gotten physical, but staff have had to intervene.

    2. The hospital’s two main concerns are that Schoenborn has trouble when he feels wronged or disrespected, and he tends to interpret “neutral” comments as negative, he said. His poor impulse control could cause issues on escorted outings.

    Hmm. Okay. Well just don't disrespect this guy like his ex did before he went and slaughtered their children and everything will be fine.

    3. And during the proceedings... he only had one outburst: at the very end of the day, when Crown counsel Trevor Shaw asked for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three murdered children, and other close family to be notified if Schoenborn had an outing.

    “Really? He doesn’t know why?” Schoenborn said loudly, interrupting Shaw’s reading of his arguments for victim notification.

    I know. I know. He was found not criminally responsible for his carnage so why am I even concerned in the slightest for such proceedings? I guess I'm just a little concerned that, in typical Canadian fashion, we might be trying just a little too hard to expedite this matter to satisfy eager rehabilitation enthusiasts.

    I guess I also wonder why he was found NCR in the first place? I know he was really mad and a heavy drug user so any crimes committed while being real mad or high don't count, but- call me obtuse- it just doesn't seem right for some reason.

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/crown-seeks-to-remove-b-c-child-killers-right-to-escorted-outings/

    I don’t know why he was found NCRMD. I have trouble wirh this case myself, as I’ve said before. I can tell you categorically that psychosis induced by drugs is a disqualifier for a finding of NCRMD.  And of course “being really mad” doesn’t count, but you knew that already. 

    Also, FPH is by no means a country club; not by any stretch. I’ve been inside it. 

    Sounds a bit like middle ground, Often. If you're struggling with this one... we can relate.

    I'll take your word on FPH- I've never been in it (not that it actually should be a country club mind you). I guess when I say 'country club'... I'm referring to the fact that it is compared to Hell (which is the most appropriate place for Allan).

    The pivotal issue in the trial was Schoenborn's state of mind at the time of the killings. His lawyer argued he was insane and therefore not criminally responsible, while the Crown said he was sane and murdered his children out of revenge against his ex-wife, who had spurned his pleas to renew their relationship.

    The judge basically ruled on a hunch ('unlikely' and 'probabilities' are words spoken by Justice Powers when describing his ridiculous verdict):

    B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Powers, who heard the three-month trial in Kamloops without a jury, found that the killings were deliberate and planned by Schoenborn, but that he was not sane at the time.

    "I find on balance of probabilities he was suffering from a disease of the mind," Powers told the court Monday.

    Powers rejected the Crown's assertion that Schoenborn killed his children as revenge against their mother.

    "I find it unlikely [he] would have killed his children out of anger given the close and caring relationship he had with his children," said Powers.

    This 'disease of the mind' has never been diagnosed as anything as far as I know. The guy is a rodent. Pure and simple. And from my way of thinking... this ruling was a careless effort. Sometimes... people do shitty things just because they are shitty- not every behaviour has a tidy explanation (in this case and in my mind, the 'disease of the mind' was an effort to encapsulate the obscenity). 

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/schoenborn-not-criminally-responsible-for-murders-1.899491

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    edited January 11
    Defence lawyers trying to make a case for Allan Schoenborn to be granted escorted outings from his country club. This is great news and with any luck... the poor poor man who killed his three children brutally with a knife can finally get out in the public where we are all so anxious and eager to have him!

    It's a great endeavour on the part of his lawyers funded by our tax pool. I mean... it's really really worth pursuing. Look at how much he's improved from being a psychopathic f**king loser:

    1. His attitude has become more positive over the years, Hediger said, but he continues to have “negative interactions” with both patients and employees. They haven’t gotten physical, but staff have had to intervene.

    2. The hospital’s two main concerns are that Schoenborn has trouble when he feels wronged or disrespected, and he tends to interpret “neutral” comments as negative, he said. His poor impulse control could cause issues on escorted outings.

    Hmm. Okay. Well just don't disrespect this guy like his ex did before he went and slaughtered their children and everything will be fine.

    3. And during the proceedings... he only had one outburst: at the very end of the day, when Crown counsel Trevor Shaw asked for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three murdered children, and other close family to be notified if Schoenborn had an outing.

    “Really? He doesn’t know why?” Schoenborn said loudly, interrupting Shaw’s reading of his arguments for victim notification.

    I know. I know. He was found not criminally responsible for his carnage so why am I even concerned in the slightest for such proceedings? I guess I'm just a little concerned that, in typical Canadian fashion, we might be trying just a little too hard to expedite this matter to satisfy eager rehabilitation enthusiasts.

    I guess I also wonder why he was found NCR in the first place? I know he was really mad and a heavy drug user so any crimes committed while being real mad or high don't count, but- call me obtuse- it just doesn't seem right for some reason.

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/crown-seeks-to-remove-b-c-child-killers-right-to-escorted-outings/

    I don’t know why he was found NCRMD. I have trouble wirh this case myself, as I’ve said before. I can tell you categorically that psychosis induced by drugs is a disqualifier for a finding of NCRMD.  And of course “being really mad” doesn’t count, but you knew that already. 

    Also, FPH is by no means a country club; not by any stretch. I’ve been inside it. 

    Sounds a bit like middle ground, Often. If you're struggling with this one... we can relate.

    I'll take your word on FPH- I've never been in it (not that it actually should be a country club mind you). I guess when I say 'country club'... I'm referring to the fact that it is compared to Hell (which is the most appropriate place for Allan).

    The pivotal issue in the trial was Schoenborn's state of mind at the time of the killings. His lawyer argued he was insane and therefore not criminally responsible, while the Crown said he was sane and murdered his children out of revenge against his ex-wife, who had spurned his pleas to renew their relationship.

    The judge basically ruled on a hunch ('unlikely' and 'probabilities' are words spoken by Justice Powers when describing his ridiculous verdict):

    B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Powers, who heard the three-month trial in Kamloops without a jury, found that the killings were deliberate and planned by Schoenborn, but that he was not sane at the time.

    "I find on balance of probabilities he was suffering from a disease of the mind," Powers told the court Monday.

    Powers rejected the Crown's assertion that Schoenborn killed his children as revenge against their mother.

    "I find it unlikely [he] would have killed his children out of anger given the close and caring relationship he had with his children," said Powers.

    This 'disease of the mind' has never been diagnosed as anything as far as I know. The guy is a rodent. Pure and simple. And from my way of thinking... this ruling was a careless effort. Sometimes... people do shitty things just because they are shitty- not every behaviour has a tidy explanation (in this case and in my mind, the 'disease of the mind' was an effort to encapsulate the obscenity). 

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/schoenborn-not-criminally-responsible-for-murders-1.899491

    That’s the way lawyers and judges talk. “Balance of probabilities” is the legal test so that’s what the judge has to use, and that is reflected in the language wirh terms like likely or unlikely. It’s not the same as a hunch. 

    I have not read the assessment reports so I don’t know the basis for the recommendations made to the judge, but you’re right that it is ultimately in the judge and not on the assessors. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 17,208
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    "It's so nice when toxic people stop talking to you.
    It's like the trash took itself out"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,917
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Of course there was. He "forgot" to mention that part.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • PJ_Soul said:
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Of course there was. He "forgot" to mention that part.
    I never forgot to mention anything. Of course there was. Who cares? I’ve never seen it- not that it would be a slam dunk anyways. The judge interpreted his actions and court room ‘act’- coupled with a professional diagnosis for something that is not an exact science- as insane.

    Now that he’s been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing... he ‘seems’ to have gotten better (despite still being a f**kig dickwad in his current facility).

    If you’re happy with the verdict that’s your prerogative. I can tell you that there are very few people in my area are (where the trial was and close to the crime).
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Yes, there was. I can’t recall how many, but in a high profile and controversial case like this there would have been probably at least a couple, because I bet that the Crown got one privately outside of the usual system. Possibly AS got one privately. I know that there was an assessment through the forensic psychiatric service, which is the usual practice in BC. Virtually all NCRMD cases in BC are much more straightforward and there is only one assessment, the FPS assessment, which is an unbiased assessment for the court, not for Crown or defence. The judge still makes the decision, obviously. I can assure you that the judge didn’t “wing it” or take this at all lightly. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,917
    edited January 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Of course there was. He "forgot" to mention that part.
    I never forgot to mention anything. Of course there was. Who cares? I’ve never seen it- not that it would be a slam dunk anyways. The judge interpreted his actions and court room ‘act’- coupled with a professional diagnosis for something that is not an exact science- as insane.

    Now that he’s been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing... he ‘seems’ to have gotten better (despite still being a f**kig dickwad in his current facility).

    If you’re happy with the verdict that’s your prerogative. I can tell you that there are very few people in my area are (where the trial was and close to the crime).
    Dude, I live a 10 or 15 minute drive from where he's being held. If he is able to go out into the community, he will literally be out in MY community. And I'm still not willing to just blow of a judge's decisions, nor doctors' evaluations, the way you are. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it, or necessarily agree. But it's never a bad thing to keep an even head about things though, and I do think that mental illness IS a legitimate thing that needs to be seriously considered in the justice system and with sentences.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Of course there was. He "forgot" to mention that part.
    I never forgot to mention anything. Of course there was. Who cares? I’ve never seen it- not that it would be a slam dunk anyways. The judge interpreted his actions and court room ‘act’- coupled with a professional diagnosis for something that is not an exact science- as insane.

    Now that he’s been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing... he ‘seems’ to have gotten better (despite still being a f**kig dickwad in his current facility).

    If you’re happy with the verdict that’s your prerogative. I can tell you that there are very few people in my area are (where the trial was and close to the crime).
    Dude, I live a 10 or 15 minute drive from where he's being held. If he is able to go out into the community, he will literally be out in MY community. And I'm still not willing to just blow of a judge's decisions, nor doctors' evaluations, the way you are. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it, or necessarily agree. But it's never a bad thing to keep an even head about things though, and I do think that mental illness IS a legitimate thing that needs to be seriously considered in the justice system and with sentences.

    Because judges never error on the wrong side?

    I watch countless documentaries detailing how judges made errors and imprisoned the wrong person. Obviously, judges can error on the other side of the equation... just like this moron did.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 45,917
    edited January 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    But there’s essentially an acquittal on a ‘likelihood’.

    The crime was committed. It was egregious. He was 100% guilty. His attorney played the legal system- tossing a Hail Mary (the only defence available to him to escape any real consequences). The judge bought it.

    Nothing since has indicated the judge nailed it. He continues to be the piece of shit he’s always been.

    Justice has not been served. The legal system demonstrated that it needs work.
    how did the judge come to this conclusion? was there no psych analysis to draw from?
    Of course there was. He "forgot" to mention that part.
    I never forgot to mention anything. Of course there was. Who cares? I’ve never seen it- not that it would be a slam dunk anyways. The judge interpreted his actions and court room ‘act’- coupled with a professional diagnosis for something that is not an exact science- as insane.

    Now that he’s been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing... he ‘seems’ to have gotten better (despite still being a f**kig dickwad in his current facility).

    If you’re happy with the verdict that’s your prerogative. I can tell you that there are very few people in my area are (where the trial was and close to the crime).
    Dude, I live a 10 or 15 minute drive from where he's being held. If he is able to go out into the community, he will literally be out in MY community. And I'm still not willing to just blow of a judge's decisions, nor doctors' evaluations, the way you are. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it, or necessarily agree. But it's never a bad thing to keep an even head about things though, and I do think that mental illness IS a legitimate thing that needs to be seriously considered in the justice system and with sentences.

    Because judges never error on the wrong side?

    I watch countless documentaries detailing how judges made errors and imprisoned the wrong person. Obviously, judges can error on the other side of the equation... just like this moron did.
    No, I'm not say that at all. I'm not even claiming that this judge is right.
    I also don't think it's reasonable to be calling the judge a moron. I guarantee you that the judge knows a hell of a lot more about it than you do. From what I can tell, you seem to think that without doubt this guy was not psychotic at the time. Can you please post a link to proof of this?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Quotes were getting lengthy.

    I'm not saying I know more than the judge. I'm saying the judge rendered a terrible verdict.

    Let's talk about probability and likelihoods. Is it probable to suggest an insane guy... who loved his kids immensely... thought that his ex-wife's new boyfriend was going to sexually molest them... kills his kids to save them from the molestation (versus maybe kill the new boyfriend if killing was the answer to the problem he claimed to perceive)?

    Or is it more probable that a career loser with a history of harassing his ex-wife and an extremely checkered past acted out violently- trying to hurt the woman he was scorned by? 

    It was a lame defence from a rat. When that plea was entered, our entire area was chagrined; however, with what we knew, we did not think for a second the ghoul was going to evade appropriate charges. And with hindsight now afforded to us... Allan's current mental state isn't that of an insane guy who cannot tell reality from fiction. He's the same loser he always was and always will be. 
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    edited January 12
    So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    That is, media reports rather than the actual assessment data. I’m sure you recognize that the media has its own biases. No offence to you, but you don’t have enough information on which to base this conclusion. You can have an opinion on whether he is mentally ill or not but you don’t have the information or the training to say he isn’t mentally ill. 

    Edit - adding that deciding based on media reports that someone does or does not have a mental illness makes about as much sense as you watching someone on the news and deciding that he does or doesn’t have diabetes. 
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    That is, media reports rather than the actual assessment data. I’m sure you recognize that the media has its own biases. No offence to you, but you don’t have enough information on which to base this conclusion. You can have an opinion on whether he is mentally ill or not but you don’t have the information or the training to say he isn’t mentally ill. 

    Edit - adding that deciding based on media reports that someone does or does not have a mental illness makes about as much sense as you watching someone on the news and deciding that he does or doesn’t have diabetes. 
    So fake news?

    It is just my opinion, but there’s plenty of that around these parts no? I can have one.

    And not quite on your edit (and no offence taken... we’ve had our battles in the past that have stifled any meaningful conversation.... I’m ready to move past that and interpret the message versus the delivery)

    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    That is, media reports rather than the actual assessment data. I’m sure you recognize that the media has its own biases. No offence to you, but you don’t have enough information on which to base this conclusion. You can have an opinion on whether he is mentally ill or not but you don’t have the information or the training to say he isn’t mentally ill. 

    Edit - adding that deciding based on media reports that someone does or does not have a mental illness makes about as much sense as you watching someone on the news and deciding that he does or doesn’t have diabetes. 
    So fake news?

    It is just my opinion, but there’s plenty of that around these parts no? I can have one.

    And not quite on your edit (and no offence taken... we’ve had our battles in the past that have stifled any meaningful conversation.... I’m ready to move past that and interpret the message versus the delivery)

    Fake news? I don’t know what you are referring to. 

    You can definitely have an opinion, but you can’t make a diagnosis, which is what you’re doing when you state categorically that someone doesn’t have a mental illness based on media reports. 

    I also don’t have any idea what you’re saying in your last paragraph, either. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 4,942
    Defence lawyers trying to make a case for Allan Schoenborn to be granted escorted outings from his country club. This is great news and with any luck... the poor poor man who killed his three children brutally with a knife can finally get out in the public where we are all so anxious and eager to have him!

    It's a great endeavour on the part of his lawyers funded by our tax pool. I mean... it's really really worth pursuing. Look at how much he's improved from being a psychopathic f**king loser:

    1. His attitude has become more positive over the years, Hediger said, but he continues to have “negative interactions” with both patients and employees. They haven’t gotten physical, but staff have had to intervene.

    2. The hospital’s two main concerns are that Schoenborn has trouble when he feels wronged or disrespected, and he tends to interpret “neutral” comments as negative, he said. His poor impulse control could cause issues on escorted outings.

    Hmm. Okay. Well just don't disrespect this guy like his ex did before he went and slaughtered their children and everything will be fine.

    3. And during the proceedings... he only had one outburst: at the very end of the day, when Crown counsel Trevor Shaw asked for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three murdered children, and other close family to be notified if Schoenborn had an outing.

    “Really? He doesn’t know why?” Schoenborn said loudly, interrupting Shaw’s reading of his arguments for victim notification.

    I know. I know. He was found not criminally responsible for his carnage so why am I even concerned in the slightest for such proceedings? I guess I'm just a little concerned that, in typical Canadian fashion, we might be trying just a little too hard to expedite this matter to satisfy eager rehabilitation enthusiasts.

    I guess I also wonder why he was found NCR in the first place? I know he was really mad and a heavy drug user so any crimes committed while being real mad or high don't count, but- call me obtuse- it just doesn't seem right for some reason.

    https://www.columbiavalleypioneer.com/news/crown-seeks-to-remove-b-c-child-killers-right-to-escorted-outings/

    Well, you can not expect to keep murderers locked up indefinitely, that's not the Canadian way. 
  • So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    That is, media reports rather than the actual assessment data. I’m sure you recognize that the media has its own biases. No offence to you, but you don’t have enough information on which to base this conclusion. You can have an opinion on whether he is mentally ill or not but you don’t have the information or the training to say he isn’t mentally ill. 

    Edit - adding that deciding based on media reports that someone does or does not have a mental illness makes about as much sense as you watching someone on the news and deciding that he does or doesn’t have diabetes. 
    So fake news?

    It is just my opinion, but there’s plenty of that around these parts no? I can have one.

    And not quite on your edit (and no offence taken... we’ve had our battles in the past that have stifled any meaningful conversation.... I’m ready to move past that and interpret the message versus the delivery)

    Fake news? I don’t know what you are referring to. 

    You can definitely have an opinion, but you can’t make a diagnosis, which is what you’re doing when you state categorically that someone doesn’t have a mental illness based on media reports. 

    I also don’t have any idea what you’re saying in your last paragraph, either. 

    You said you can't trust the media because they are biased- in other words... fake news. You are all over this forum in various threads touting your opinion based on what you have read so are you the one that gets to decide when we can and when we can't trust the media?  

    I have an opinion that Allan played the 'insanity card' successfully and got off lightly. I've already said why. I'm free to do so and in this case... I think my opinion is spot on for good reasons I've already detailed. I've also have an opinion that the judge f**ked up sentencing this scumbag for good reasons I've already detailed as well (judges only f**k up verdicts when good guys are impacted though... not when bad guys benefit, right?). Poor verdicts work both ways.

    I'm sorry you don't like my opinions, but I'm sticking with them. For perspective, I have also opined that Trump is a narcissist without truly being able to adequately assess him with a battery of questions designed by an expert to definitively diagnose him as such. And I've also opined that Trump has zero EI. You have 'diagnosed' the same yourself. So... again... you're lack of consistency reveals your willingness to play out of bounds provided it suits your perspective. 

    My last paragraph basically stated that your analogy is goofy. Really goofy. You know... the one where you stated I might just as easily diagnose someone on the news for diabetes as they might mental illness. And I'm not even going to elaborate why it's goofy. It's obvious.

    Have a good night.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    So what's his mental illness then?

    He knew exactly what he was doing. This was not an act to save his kids from molestation as he pleaded. This was the act of a career loser and habitual junkie who wanted to hurt his ex-wife.

    And he knew what he did afterwards. He scurried off into the woods and tried to hide until a tracker from the area went and retrieved him. When he was found, he pathetically begged for food and water.

    And he also knew his only salvation was to plead insanity to which he did.

    He's still an asshole. He's not remorseful. And he's still not 'mentally ill'. Calling him such is a disservice to those who actually are.
    What are you basing your opinion about his mental state on?

    Whatever has been made available to us. Same information that you have access to. So close to home, our region has followed this case closely.
    That is, media reports rather than the actual assessment data. I’m sure you recognize that the media has its own biases. No offence to you, but you don’t have enough information on which to base this conclusion. You can have an opinion on whether he is mentally ill or not but you don’t have the information or the training to say he isn’t mentally ill. 

    Edit - adding that deciding based on media reports that someone does or does not have a mental illness makes about as much sense as you watching someone on the news and deciding that he does or doesn’t have diabetes. 
    So fake news?

    It is just my opinion, but there’s plenty of that around these parts no? I can have one.

    And not quite on your edit (and no offence taken... we’ve had our battles in the past that have stifled any meaningful conversation.... I’m ready to move past that and interpret the message versus the delivery)

    Fake news? I don’t know what you are referring to. 

    You can definitely have an opinion, but you can’t make a diagnosis, which is what you’re doing when you state categorically that someone doesn’t have a mental illness based on media reports. 

    I also don’t have any idea what you’re saying in your last paragraph, either. 

    You said you can't trust the media because they are biased- in other words... fake news. You are all over this forum in various threads touting your opinion based on what you have read so are you the one that gets to decide when we can and when we can't trust the media?  

    I have an opinion that Allan played the 'insanity card' successfully and got off lightly. I've already said why. I'm free to do so and in this case... I think my opinion is spot on for good reasons I've already detailed. I've also have an opinion that the judge f**ked up sentencing this scumbag for good reasons I've already detailed as well (judges only f**k up verdicts when good guys are impacted though... not when bad guys benefit, right?). Poor verdicts work both ways.

    I'm sorry you don't like my opinions, but I'm sticking with them. For perspective, I have also opined that Trump is a narcissist without truly being able to adequately assess him with a battery of questions designed by an expert to definitively diagnose him as such. And I've also opined that Trump has zero EI. You have 'diagnosed' the same yourself. So... again... you're lack of consistency reveals your willingness to play out of bounds provided it suits your perspective. 

    My last paragraph basically stated that your analogy is goofy. Really goofy. You know... the one where you stated I might just as easily diagnose someone on the news for diabetes as they might mental illness. And I'm not even going to elaborate why it's goofy. It's obvious.

    Have a good night.

    No, you're just not getting what I'm saying. I don't know why, because it seems clear to me, but maybe it's just because I work in a medical field so these concepts are second nature to me.

    First off, why are you buying into Trump's assertions about "fake news"? "Fake news" is not the same as media bias. I never claimed that the news media lied or faked anything with AS's case. They have a bias, sure. They also don't print or broadcast all the facts that one would need to make a diagnosis, which is my point.

    Of course you can have an opinion. I never said you couldn't; in fact, in the post you quote, it says it right there. What you can't do is make a medical diagnosis. To the best of my knowledge you don't have the skills or training, and you definitely don't have the knowledge on this case. When you say he "doesn't have a mental illness" you are making a diagnosis, and you just can't do that, with any legitimacy. I know the psychiatrist who did the original assessment for the court - he's an experienced, skilled physician. He made a diagnosis because he is able to do that, but you can't. It has absolutely nothing to do with me liking or not liking your opinion; it's just a fact. 

    And you're really claiming that I've made a diagnosis on Trump? Seriously? Just find one place where I've done that. Just one, because I know I have not and would not. And by the way, "zero EI" (your words, not mine) isn't a diagnosis. That isn't a medical condition. 

    Why are you putting diagnosis in quotes? You seem to be taking this lightly, but I don't, which is my point.  There is no lack of consistency, there is just your lack of understanding of this concept.

    Given all of this, my analogy isn't "goofy", it's correct. You can no more watch the news and say someone doesn't have diabetes as you can watch the news and say someone doesn't have a psychotic illness. 


    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,519
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sign In or Register to comment.