Greyhound Bus Cannibal rehabilitated after 4 years?

The difference is that the person drinking and driving made a concious choice to get behind the wheel, while Li did not have the capacity to make his own choice. While alcohol impairs judgment, it doesnt eradicate it.

paulonious said:

The difference is that the person drinking and driving made a concious choice to get behind the wheel, while Li did not have the capacity to make his own choice. While alcohol impairs judgment, it doesnt eradicate it.

They are very similar. Both speak to diminished capacities.

Li couldn't control his impulses given his illness and mutilated MacLean because he thought he was an alien.

Some drunks are not capable of making a sound decision to refrain from getting behind the wheel (killing people accidentally in the process)- they are impaired. The 'conscious' choice is hardly that.

If one can argue that there is at least some potential for the drunk person to somehow make a safe decision at some point in their consumption timeline, then someone could make the same argument that a mentally ill person such as Li seek help when they start hearing voices.

In Li's case, he started hearing voices that eventually escalated to ones telling him to chop MacLean's head off, stuff some parts of him in his pockets, and eat him too. To that, he wasn't simply defending himself from a perceived threat- he was savagely attacking his imagined adversary with extreme violence and unfathomable gore. Hardly a simple self defense.

If we cannot see the similarities between these two scenarios, then we are either discounting one disease or lending much more support to the other. They both can contribute to poor behavior. They both can be treated. Yet we seem willing to pardon one and not the other.

Why would we be so willing and eager to rehabilitate and forgive Li after doing what he did... yet reluctant to do the same for, say, the lifetime victim of abuse that kills someone at a crosswalk while highly impaired escaping from their pain?

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

benjs said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

Agreed. For me, it's as simple as the notion that an alcoholic dictates his or her own mental clarity. You sacrifice your clarity willingly by drinking, and you accept the ramifications that may arise after that first sip. Very different than someone whose mental clarity is clearly beyond his or her control.

Except raging alcoholics are not in control of their mental clarity. Their illness commands them and their actions much like voices inside someone's head might command them. In extreme cases, an alcoholic's day is seeking the bottle at any cost. People don't drink at work because they think it might be fun... they do so because they are compelled to and powerless to abstain. They are in a free fall that when not under the influence might be able to recognize such, but are too sick to do anything about it.

It's not so simple to suggest alcoholics are electing to drink and assuming all the consequences resulting from doing so. Alcoholics are shackled to their addiction and why we might say, "Well, they only have themselves to blame"... in many cases, the substance abuse is linked to underlying issues that we might be sympathetic to.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.

As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.

On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.

As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.

On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.

Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.

But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.

Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.

These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.

How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.

My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.

The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.

Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.

Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.

As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.

On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.

Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.

But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.

Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.

These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.

It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.

Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.

So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?

Blanket statements usurp people to question.

Say what?

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.

As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.

On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.

Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.

But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.

Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.

These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.

How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.

My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.

The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.

Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.

Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.

Okay. I got it now.

Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.

That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.

I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.

If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

paulonious said:

I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.

This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.

I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.

In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.

And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.

Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.

Again... our courts are a joke.



http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/

You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.

As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.

On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.

Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.

But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.

Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.

These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.

How is it an extreme exaggeration? How many court cases, drunk driving cases, assault cases, et al, are before the courts in this country at any one time? Thousands. And how many gross injustices do you hear about in that same time frame? Not even a fraction. And of that fraction, many of those are debatable.

My opinion on alcoholism being a disease is something personal to me that I will choose to refrain from going into, for obvious reasons. I understand that it is a terrible thing to overcome, and I highly commend those that do. I have witnessed it first hand. I continue to, actually, and it is really sad. Those that don't, however, CHOOSE not to. However difficult that choice is, it is still a choice.

The thing is, they are not even close to comparable, and I am really kind of surprised anyone would attempt to draw such a comparison. It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.

Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help. Someone like Li did not. Your comment that he heard voices he hadnt heard before being something he should have known was wrong is the case and point here: you dont seem to understand that his disease preclued him from understanding those voices were not real. he didnt think "shit, what the fuck was that? I had better see someone about that". He listened to them.

Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.

Okay. I got it now.

Comparatively speaking, alcoholism is really easy to beat and those that don't beat it have simply made (as you say) a CHOICE not to because they are weak; therefore, if they commit a crime while under the influence... they are entirely responsible. Mental illness renders people completely powerless and any crime they commit is not their fault given what they must overcome to act as a sane and responsible person. What an oversimplification for the struggling alcoholic's plight.

That big piece of fluff that you submitted contained a Li interview where Li stated he would phone his doctor if he began having an episode- suggesting (despite what you say) there actually is some level of awareness. Regardless of what you have written (in the melodramatic style you are typically so opposed to)... I'm not convinced that the disease seized him in a trance-like state upon the onset of its very first symptoms so that he simply could not recognize something was wrong.

I could be wrong as a non-voice-hearer, but so could you because mental illness is very far from an exact science. His experts declaring him 'good to go' are not exactly examining x-rays or peering through a microscope to validate their claims.

If you seriously think the disease is so debilitating leaving its victim powerless in the event of an episode, then why would you be such a staunch proponent for Li's release knowing his capacity for extreme violence? And yes... I do understand that there are safeguards in place for people such as these- just like there are safeguards for child services which routinely fail.

Ah, the melodrama. Never once did i claim alcoholism was easy to beat and those that dont are weak. Actually, i stated the exact opposite of that, pretty clearly i might add. I didnt bother reading the rest. Good day.