[TattoodGirl]

Brenda Brenda:

romanP romanP:

FUD is not a legal policy.

FUD?

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

[romanP]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

Plus it's not like this disease can be managed...if he has one...again I'm going off of what i read in the article

Schizophrenia can be managed. There are quit a lot of people walking the streets who are schizophrenic and not a danger to anyone as long as they take their meds and go to therapy.

[romanP]

cheryl08 cheryl08:

"euthanasia for the mentally ill" although i would say it has a barbaric feel to it...

You would say that because it is. This is what eugenics ultimately ended up prescribing for mental illness.

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

Well, I am sorry to have bothered you... All I have seen you state are emotional opinions.

Where did she do that? Your responses have been much more emotional than hers.

$1:

No facts.. Just assumptions...

Her assumptions are based on facts. We know that Li is schizophrenic, was not taking meds and was behaving strangely. Therefore, a logical inference can be made that he might have had a psychotic break on the bus, which is far more reasonable than "he just a crazy fucking bastard, he did it on purpose, let's all grab our pitchforks and kill him!"

$1:

What was your point again?

I think the point now is that you don't actually care one bit about justice or the law, or a reasonable argument, you just want to perpetuate a mob mentality in response to violent crime, without even attempting to understand what actually happened.

[romanP]

Yogi Yogi:

What is the point of keeping this person, or others like him, alive?

What is the point of keeping anyone alive?

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

romanP romanP:

Brenda Brenda:

It should not matter if "he meant to do what he did". He did, he murdered someone SO brutally...

Which is pure emotional nonsense. Is it less brutal to stab someone only twenty times and not cut off their head? The person is still dead in the end. If he had done this several times to several people, then we could argue that he meant to do it and was fully conscious of what he was doing.

No, there is no difference. You might keep your assumptions to yourself.

My assumptions are much more reasonable than yours. You assume that this was entirely premeditated, and that he did this because he wanted to, which does not fit any of the evidence so far.

$1:

We can never argue if he was fully concious.

We mostly certainly can. Of course, if you know absolutely nothing about schizophrenia, you might say that.

$1:

There is only one who knows that, and that is himself. Any more assumptions?

I am now making the entirely reasonable assumption that you're ignorant of how this could have happened, given that we already know Li is schizophrenic, refused treatment and was acting strangely, and the only suggestions you have are that he should be locked up for life with no treatment, without bothering to figure out if Li was insane at the time of the murder, which is entirely possible.

[Brenda]

Oh Roman, you are the sweetest... Assumptions are assumptions, nothing reasonable about it. Assumptions cannot be more reasonable than other assumptions.

You claim "we know now he has schizophrenia". That is news to me, sweets

Your personal insults slide off of my back, as you know. I couldn't care less where he gets locked up, I don't want this guy on my streets anymore for a second. Medicated or not. I don't want to be his next victim, nor do I want the rest of the world to be that.

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

Assumptions are assumptions, nothing reasonable about it. Assumptions cannot be more reasonable than other assumptions.

They most certainly can, if you know some facts. This is how we come up with what is known as a "hypothesis", which is the foundation for a reasoned debate.

$1:

You claim "we know now he has schizophrenia". That is news to me, sweets

Maybe you should pay more attention to the issue instead of sowing FUD. Then you'd know that.

[Brenda]

I am responding to the story as posted. At least, I was yesterday.

Sooooo, you are claiming that YOUR assumptions are more reasonable and can be used as hypothesis, but mine can't, because in your opinion mine are less reasonable than yours.
Nice start of a good debate

[cheryl08]

Brenda Brenda:

I am responding to the story as posted. At least, I was yesterday.

Sooooo, you are claiming that YOUR assumptions are more reasonable and can be used as hypothesis, but mine can't, because in your opinion mine are less reasonable than yours.
Nice start of a good debate

I don't think your getting it...they aren't assumptions anymore...they are hypothesis' based on facts...and maybe we can't prove that Li was having an episode but you can't prove he didn't either. The point is, it's not up to the defence to prove guilt, all they have to do is provide reasonable doubt that Li was not in the mind to commit the crime..and there is enough REASONABLE DOUBT to assume that he didn't do it intentionally.

The law doesn't care about what you think, this is all about what you can prove and i guarantee you that if Li is a schizophrenic he will be deemed NCR

[cheryl08]

$1:

What should be avoided, is that people like this ever walk on the streets again. I don't care how it is going to be avoided.

If they are so sick to not be able to function in today's society, they should be in a safe place. For my safety.

The precedent that a case like this will send to the public needs to be avoided.
The law would not be just if it locked people up for crimes that they were not in the mind to commit. And for people who say that because this guy can never be mentally stable on his own and thereby cannot be useful to society so he should be killed, need a brain.
So does that mean that a child with down syndrome who needs special care should be killed too, because he's weighing down society? People need to connect the dots...don't treat this as an isolated incident and don't get on about this emotional psychobabble bullshit because I guarantee you that there are far more dangerous people in our society than a schizophrenic. A precedent like this could tarnish the administration of justice from which the law was based on.

[Brenda]

$1:

I don't think your getting it...they aren't assumptions anymore...they are hypothesis' based on facts...and maybe we can't prove that Li was having an episode but you can't prove he didn't either.

Which makes your guess as good as mine.
I never said he was NOT mentally ill, I said, that as long as that is not diagnosed by a team of psychiatrists, I am not willing to risk anything.
So I take it you did not get it.

$1:

So does that mean that a child with down syndrome who needs special care should be killed too, because he's weighing down society? People need to connect the dots...

YOU need to connect the dots, and not compare any innocent person with a murderer.
Again, I think you missed my point. I never said he needs to be "killed" as you say so crude. I said this gentleman should be put in a safe place.

[cheryl08]

$1:

Quote:
I don't think your getting it...they aren't assumptions anymore...they are hypothesis' based on facts...and maybe we can't prove that Li was having an episode but you can't prove he didn't either.


Which makes your guess as good as mine.
I never said he was NOT mentally ill, I said, that as long as that is not diagnosed by a team of psychiatrists, I am not willing to risk anything.
So I take it you did not get it.

I think you need to go back to the message that your responding from because your missing the point. the law states that the crown has the burden of proof and therefore must prove there case beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.
I don't care about what you think happened, I'm telling you that there is reasonable cause to assume that Li was having an episode creating reasonable doubt and thereby making the defense have a case. And obviously he will be given treatment, no one is saying their just going to release him.

And by the way even if he didn't have an episode....he wouldn't get life, he's be charged with second degree murder which requires him to serve 14-25 years without parole depending on the judges discretion, just so you know.

[Brenda]

And you agree with that "fact"?

(again, I see NO proof to back up your assumptions. Which, again, make them as good as mine. Funny thing, I never claimed my assumptions to be fact. You did. Please, back it up )

[cheryl08]

OMG!!!!
i can clearly see that you don't understand how the law works because everything i type doesn't seem to be processing with you. So please just google it and then get back to me. I am not assuming, i am using inductive logic and coming to the conclusion that if Li is a scizophrenic (which was stated in the article), then it is likely given the nature of the accused, his record and the crime, that he was having an episode.
If the defense were to use that argument in court it would prove that there is no men rea to the crime by way of mental illness.
You are assuming he is just a sick murderer....did you even read the article????
I'm merely analyzing how this will unfold in court using the LAW...the thing that we consider JUST in this courty. I don't really care about your personal opinion