# Decapitation on Greyhound



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

Ummmmmm, yeah...... WTF...

Man stabbed, decapitated on bus bound for Winnipeg : Home : News : Sympatico / MSN


...


----------



## fozy (Jul 18, 2006)

Yeah, I read the same report this morning! INSANE!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ya I saw this too, WTF is right, this is worse than that asphalt story. How do you decapitate someone with a butcher knife?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm sure that something as severe as this will change the political landscape for the federal law and order initiatives.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Wow, that's a doozy. I'm interested in seeing Greyhound's response to this problem, as I have been riding them on occasion for years. In the past, "security" was limited to bag inspection at random stops, but this was rare and I doubt they uncovered much. People are pretty much free to come and go on buses anonomously and bring whatever weaponry they like on board. The Ratso Rizzo culture of bus travel prevails.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Just... wow.


----------



## matriculated (Jan 2, 2008)

There were two passengers from France on board too. That'll be a trip they'll never forget.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

hate to see this posted here.................but is a sign of the times.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

MissGulch said:


> The Ratso Rizzo culture of bus travel prevails.


strange, i don't remember dustin hoffman cutting anyone's head off in that movie.

i doubt this will cause a pradigm shift in bus security.

you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning or going down in a 747 than having your head sawn off by some lunatic with a rambo knife on a bus.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

I heard the CBC report on the radio this morning and was shocked, after having read more of the details I am thoroughly disgusted. Sick mother******!! Incredible that they were able to contain him until the police arrived.

I know I am going to raise the ire of all the bleeding hearts out there. But why is that as a society we are going spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep guys like this imprisoned for life when we could just be done with it and give him what he truly deserves if we had the death penalty.

In general murder is an act of passion and most murders are actually at very little risk to reoffend. So I would only advocate the death penalty in extreme cases, like for serial and mass murders and sick f**** like this. The Bernardo's, Picton's, and their ilk; why should we as a society be paying to keep them breathing when they show such utter disregard for their fellow man?

So bring it on, all those who believe that the death penalty is immoral in every case. Should not justice be concerned with the greater good and what good is served when our resources are drained away and money that could be spent on things such as health care to keep people alive that truly do need and deserve saving vs. keeping people like this alive.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> ...and give him what he truly deserves if we had the death penalty.


To which he would stay on death row for 20 years after his conviction before actually receiving his sentence.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> To which he would stay on death row for 20 years after his conviction before actually receiving his sentence.


Completely part of the problem.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Completely part of the problem.


screature: I don't think that faction wants this person to have been imprisoned, so much as it wanted to see this wanton and brutal murder avoided through the provision of after school basketball programs and affordable housing.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> strange, i don't remember dustin hoffman cutting anyone's head off in that movie.


I never said that he did; I was referring to the anonymous, freewheeling culture that tends to attract some of the dregs.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> strange, i don't remember dustin hoffman cutting anyone's head off in that movie.
> 
> i doubt this will cause a pradigm shift in bus security.
> 
> you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning or going down in a 747 than having your head sawn off by some lunatic with a rambo knife on a bus.


Naw, Ratso just pissed his pants and died, as I recall.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature: I don't think that faction wants this person to have been imprisoned, so much as it wanted to see this wanton and brutal murder avoided through the provision of after school basketball programs and affordable housing.


:clap: :clap: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Naw, Ratso just pissed his pants and died, as I recall.


Yes, but he got to Florida, and that was all-important. :clap: 

And you cannot screen down to the lunatic level, so don't even try. To do so is just another reason to limit the average Joe's/Jane's freedoms.

On Capital Punishment, the driver, being "captain" should have convened a summary court amongst the passengers. Have a fair trial, find him guilty  , and the driver, being armed at this point, would summarily execute the bastard.

Nothing to see here. Move along please!! 

Send the money saved on incarceration to the poor dead guys next of kin.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Wow, that's a doozy. I'm interested in seeing Greyhound's response to this problem, as I have been riding them on occasion for years. In the past, "security" was limited to bag inspection at random stops, but this was rare and I doubt they uncovered much. People are pretty much free to come and go on buses anonomously and bring whatever weaponry they like on board. The Ratso Rizzo culture of bus travel prevails.




Ye gods and little fishes ...

You're right about bus travel "security" -- fairly similar to that of VIA Rail, which is what I normally use.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ComputerIdiot said:


> Ye gods and little fishes ...
> 
> You're right about bus travel "security" -- fairly similar to that of VIA Rail, which is what I normally use.


That's nothing, people get stabbed in front of the Cop Shop here in The Hammer...


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm wonderring... why didn't anyone help the poor fellow... a few guys would've brought this one guy down easy. Being in a public place is no one safe anymore. Someone would be killing you and everyone would just stand aside and watch or run away. For shame...

I'm a long time rider of the Greyhound and will continue to be but this just makes me think a bit...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Amazing framing this random and senseless act of violence as anything other than what it is. I guess that finding fault and blame are the only way some of us can get through this life of ours. The very idea of randomness and chaos are just too frightening I guess.

There are monsters all around us. Some wear red, some wear blue.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> I guess that finding fault and blame are the only way some of us can get through this life of ours.


Uhmm, who was doing that with specific citations please...


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

We ride the Greyhound to Winnipeg on Sunday. I can only imagine what every passenger is going to be thinking/feeling on that ride. 

It's a very sad, disturbing but random occurrence. I admit, I'm going to be looking for seats nearer to the front than the back after this, but we've taken that bus dozens of times without incident. 

We have to remember that no one writes a story about getting to your destination safely, even though that's by far the more common event.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

i would love to pick this monster's brain, to find reasons, before the execution that is.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

The fact that this happens so infrequently makes it big news. Despite the media's best efforts to convince you otherwise, it's actually pretty safe out there. If you wanted a hazardous time to be a traveller, how about the Middle Ages. Decapitation was routine.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

dona83 said:


> I'm wonderring... why didn't anyone help the poor fellow... a few guys would've brought this one guy down easy.


A fair question.

I believe it was 1:00 AM, and the interior bus lights were probably dimmed. I'm guessing most were dozing.

A hunting knife?? 

I would be looking for the bus fire extinguisher to spray at him, or a veeeerrrry long object of some kind to bop him with.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

This guy was apparently sitting _right next_ to the victim. No one had any inkling of what was about to happen. By the time anyone knew what was actually transpiring, I'm guessing the guy had had the time to execute the fatal stab. I'm guessing that his death may not have been at all easy to prevent but the subsequent atrocities may have - had sheer horror not taken hold of everyone in the bus.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

As to the question of why others didn't try to help, the reports have seemed to indicate:

- The pair were sitting in the back seat of the bus. So, there was no one behind who saw this coming, could sneak up on the guy etc. and the person sitting directly in front of them screamed to everyone to get off the bus. Given that yes, many were sleeping only to be woken up with "he's got a knife, get off the bus" and the flow of traffic would be one way, on those cramped buses (frequent rider, here!) there's no good way for anyone too far forward to get back without endangering others getting off. There was also a child seated near the rear of the bus that I'm sure people were trying to get off the bus.
- The guy was slashing rather intently with a "rambo" knife. A couple of unarmed passengers might not have had much of a chance against this guy, and no good way to subdue him given that no one could get behind him. Plus, the guy had already been stabbed repeatedly, and unfortunately was probably already fatally wounded very quickly. The best way to avoid further casualties was to focus on emptying the bus.
- Several people were (understandably) in shock, tears, vomiting etc. over what transpired. Your average citizen may not be much use in a horribly violent situation. That doesn't make them at fault for not fighting against a savage attacker.

I'm sorry to be so intent about this, but I think comments like "why didn't anyone do anything?" (which are all over the CBC website and other fora) can only add to the trauma that the other passengers are experiencing right now. It's bad enough that they saw what they saw, have to think, "That could have been me" and are in need of trauma counseling. 

The implication that they should feel *guilty* about this, too, raises my blood pressure a little.

/rant


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good post, Sarah11918.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I apologize I didn't mean any disrespect for the fellow riders who must've been traumatize but with all due respect being in a public place no long guarantees your personal safety anymore. If someone is intent on killing you, just take fate as it is.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Armchair quarterbacks abound.

And they know Jack Schitt about anything.

CLARIFICATION: I meant the talking heads in the media. They are just selling a rather distasteful product.

They can go to hell.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

So once outside a few guys who thought they could disable the attacker, but when they went in he was already a goner... at least there was only one casualty. 

I hope this guy goes away for a very, very long time.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> So once outside a few guys who thought they could disable the attacker, but when they went in he was already a goner... at least there was only one casualty.
> 
> I hope this guy goes away for a very, very long time.


If I had it my way he would go away for a very short period of time and then be put in a pine box and cease to be a burden on society.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

I don't know whether this is true or not, but someone commented elsewhere that due to the legal fees involved with capital punishment, appeals etc. it actually costs *more* to execute a prisoner than to keep him/her in prison for life.

@Max: Thank you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sarah11918 said:


> I don't know whether this is true or not, but someone commented elsewhere that due to the legal fees involved with capital punishment, appeals etc. it actually costs *more* to execute a prisoner than to keep him/her in prison for life.
> 
> @Max: Thank you.


If that is true then it is just further condemnation of how screwed up our legal system has become. As I said before I would only advocate the death penalty for extreme cases, if we had the political will we could dramatically reduce the appeal process and put an end to such nonsense (if it is true).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sarah, you're welcome. I believe it was myself who made that point... probably more than once in here, but I've made it many a time on many boards. The legal system as it currently exists ensures that as many lawyers as possible will profit before a criminal on death row is finally executed... and the public bears tremendous legal costs while these proceedings drag on. And they can go on for several years, even decades. It has been suggested by some that capital punishment costs more to uphold than imprisoning offenders for life. I don't know if that's true - the costs on either side can certainly be staggering - but it does suggest that there are no simple solutions under the current system.

I don't know what the story is with this guy who committed this terrible, terrible act - but we'll be finding out a great deal more in the days to come. I can't help but think that this young man's life was just beginning. The senselessness of it is staggering.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

To paraphrase a line from M*A*S*H: 

Rule #1: God decides who lives or dies.

Rule #2: Doctors can't change rule #1.

The Fox is running the hen house. How could you expect a different result??


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

There's coverage of this story at CNN. The guy just got off the bus and had a smoke during a stop, chatted a bit, got back on and then he went nuts. His behaviour was totally normal, so there was no predicting. 

The crazies are like us. Double wow.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

screature said:


> If that is true then it is just further condemnation of how screwed up our legal system has become.


Agreed. Although, I can understand if you're fighting for your life, you'll do whatever it takes, draw it out as long as you can, and spare no expense.

Max: Sorry if I was reiterating something that had already been posted in this thread! I thought I'd read that in the comments on the CBC website this morning.

In further news, hubby's cab driver this morning told him that the attacker was from our town. Great.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Hope it's not something in the water.

Sorry, stream of consciousness.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

gastonbuffet said:


> hate to see this posted here.................but is a sign of the times.


What times? The time of man? Senseless, brutal killings have been occurring since the dawn of mankind.



screature said:


> In general murder is an act of passion and most murders are actually at very little risk to reoffend. So I would only advocate the death penalty in extreme cases, like for serial and mass murders and sick f**** like this. So bring it on, all those who believe that the death penalty is immoral in every case. Should not justice be concerned with the greater good and what good is served when our resources are drained away and money that could be spent on things such as health care to keep people alive that truly do need and deserve saving vs. keeping people like this alive.


Capital punishment is only good for one thing - it ensures the person executed NEVER commits another crime. That is the ONLY validation of capital punishment. It doesn't save society money. Vengeance is not a desirable trait for a civilized society.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Retribution is.

And it need not be limited to some unseen "Lord", as is vengeance.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Capital punishment is only good for one thing - it ensures the person executed NEVER commits another crime. That is the ONLY validation of capital punishment. It doesn't save society money. Vengeance is not a desirable trait for a civilized society.


Sorry GT couldn't disagree more. Of course capital punishment could reduce the financial burden on society. Housing and feeding someone over a life time is expensive when they have no means of production. If you want to guarantee that someone never commits another crime you don't need to execute them, so that logically rules out *your only* validation. Let the punishment fit the crime while serving the greater good is a reasonable starting point in determining what is an appropriate punishment.

Additionally you have got to be kidding me with the "vengeance has no place in a civilized society line." Punishment is vengeance. Period. Do we live in a civilized society? I guess it all depends on what you consider civilized. To me, random murders would not exist in a civilized society. 

Is it not vengeance to put Conrad Black in prison for his "white collar" crimes? Do you really think he is being put away to be rehabilitated? Let's get real!!

Is it not vengeance when someone caught growing marijuana is thrown in prison for ten year. Does that punishment fit the crime? We over penalize some crimes and under penalize others.

You may be right that vengeance has no place in a civilized society, but until we live in one, punishment (aka vengeance) serves a purpose.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with the previous two posters. Retribution, justice and elimination of evil people are perfectly legitimate goals--let's not even bring cost into it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Retribution, justice and elimination of evil people


and just who would you leave it up to to decide on such noble "goals".....










Perhaps we should imprison the prosecutors of Truscott or Millbank.....for their "sins".......

Remedial reading for the incipient mob

Restorative Justice


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

One wonders what the tune will change to if it's an ex Afghan vet with PTSS who snapped.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, this is most unlike you - to refrain from indignantly bringing into a discussion, most any discussion, the subject of costs inflicted on the populace. Amazing. I am surprised at this remarkable inconsistency; it is most unlike the character of arguments you typically present. You are among the first to loudly bray when you perceive that the common tax-paying citizen is being asked yet again to shoulder still more burdens caused by chronic government largesse and heedless spending. Am I to believe that you are perfectly willing to piously cast aside your philosophies for the sake of the almighty state killing the killers, no matter what it costs the citizenry? And what are we to make of your sudden readiness to subsume your cherished individual rights in favour of allowing some bureaucratic, opaque state machinery to decide grave moral issues for you?

Money issues aside, the problem with zealous calling for the wholesale elimination of evil people is the remarkable ease with which good people can themselves become evil, all in the name of the dispensation of so-called justice. History is full of such aberrations. I suppose we are doomed to forever repeat these cycles of losing our way, of inevitably becoming that which we purportedly fear and despise.


----------



## bryand (Jul 12, 2008)

The police aren't releasing any details about the attacker yet, but want to bet his name is Mohamed?

That explains the motive, and say a lot about what kind of action needs to be taken. Not much point in discussing either until this is confirmed.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

gastonbuffet said:


> i would love to pick this monster's brain, *to find reasons*, before the execution that is.


And then what?


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I agree with the previous two posters. Retribution, justice and elimination of evil people are perfectly legitimate goals--let's not even bring cost into it.


*Kill'em all and let God sort 'im out!*









Except if it's one of my loved ones.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We interupt this thread to bring you the latest score:

Screature 1

guytoronto 0


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

All I can say is if it's got to be that brutal thankfully it was by someone who apparently wasn't calculating enough to get away with it. Imagine if this guy had a plan and was operating on the same level as an Olsen, Homolka, Dahlmer, Bundy, or Gacy Jr.?

Obviously the situation was tragic, but hopefully this missing link only got his one shot and he's out for good.

All those who have been directly affected by this tragedy, especially the victim's family and friends, I can not imagine the horror they are going through right now. Living hell.


----------



## Jason H (Feb 1, 2004)

Like anyone needed another reason to not take greyhound!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It gets worse.....apparently he ate part of his victim 

globeandmail.com: A quiet ride – then carnage


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

We interupt this thread to bring you the latest score:

MacDoc 1

Incipient mob 0

Please extinguish your torches and resume your normal lives.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Could we rent a guillotine from France??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF, this is most unlike you - to refrain from indignantly bringing into a discussion, most any discussion, the subject of costs inflicted on the populace... Money issues aside, the problem with zealous calling for the wholesale elimination of evil people is the remarkable ease with which good people can themselves become evil, all in the name of the dispensation of so-called justice.


I didn't say I would have them executed regardless of cost. Since people posting before me were arguing on the basis of whether execution or incarceration was the most expensive, I suggested removing cost from the equation to first decide on the desired outcome. Incarceration and execution achieve two different goals with some common benefits to both.

I personally have no problem with a decision to execute someone who commits murder in front of a large group of witnesses. It would certainly require a heavy burden of proof to recommend execution.

I would at least like to keep the option open, since it's currently open to criminals, spurned lovers and madmen who can calculatedly trade a full human life for seven years or less of imprisonment.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

No mobs needed or desired.  

Clearly, any use of the death penalty would have to go through the democratic channels of Parliament and through the judiciary.  

Restorative Justice clearly has a place in the judicial system where there is a possibility of some sort of restoration or restitution or rehabilitation and the public good is served.

What restoration is possible for the victim and family of yesterday's Greyhound tragedy?

A portion of the text you provided the link to highlights the absurdity of such a notion in extreme cases:

*Restorative justice involves a commitment to the idea
that victim, offender and the community may repair
the damage caused by the offender’s crime through
dialogue and negotiation, direct or indirect. *

Clearly, this is absolutely impossible in this case and to believe otherwise is simply pure fantasy of the most utopian kind, unless you believe in resurrecting the dead. 

In the case of overzealous prosecutors, who simply want "someone" to be held accountable to further their own career's, whether it is truly the guilty party or not, then yes incarceration would be reasonable. 




MacDoc said:


> and just who would you leave it up to to decide on such noble "goals".....
> 
> Perhaps we should imprison the prosecutors of Truscott or Millbank.....for their "sins".......
> 
> ...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> ...the remarkable ease with which good people can themselves become evil, all in the name of the dispensation of so-called justice. History is full of such aberrations. I suppose we are doomed to forever repeat these cycles of losing our way, of inevitably becoming that which we purportedly fear and despise.


Was it an act evil to stop the campaigns of Hitler and his slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents? They only way to accomplish this was in turn to kill. Killing is not desirable but at times it is prudent when it serves the greater good.

If we lived in a time where it was possible for utter banishment of an individual from society, where that individual was guaranteed to *never* enter *any* society ever again and be a threat, and at a reasonable expense to that society, then I would be all in favour of that as an alternative to a death sentence for extreme cases. Alas, the only place that I can think of that would fit the bill would be banishment to Antarctica, which would in fact amount to a death sentence and therefore would not represent a true alternative.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Was it an act evil to stop the campaigns of Hitler and his slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents? They only way to accomplish this was in turn to kill. Killing is not desirable but at times it is prudent when it serves the greater good.


Aye and there's the rub. It is not always crystal clear what the greater good is, and I can see where I might have a problem with the powers who step in for me and act on my behalf. Governments, elected or otherwise, do many things ostensibly in the name of the people, for the greater good. We've often seen what a shabby smokescreen that can be.

As for acts of evil and fighting the Nazis and whether or not doing so was an evil, I don't know. It was what it was. In wartime both sides of combatants do extraordinary things, acts which few wish to recall or analyze long after the fact. Atrocities and cowardly acts for which there are no witnesses on hand to testify to anything but the 'official story.' On the flip side, there can be extraordinary acts of kindness, compassion, mercy. At all times the fog of war lies low and heavy, obscuring much.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I personally have no problem with a decision to execute someone who commits murder in front of a large group of witnesses. It would certainly require a heavy burden of proof to recommend execution.
> 
> I would at least like to keep the option open, since it's currently open to criminals, spurned lovers and madmen who can calculatedly trade a full human life for seven years or less of imprisonment.


I can see situations where large groups of witnesses does not preclude the possibility of them secretly agreeing to collude and invent an official story for political and/or life-threatening reasons of their own. I understand the thrust of your clarification - and I am not trying to argue that the Greyhound incident resembles the situation I've just described - I'm merely pointing to how your proviso can be horribly abused.

To your second point, since you claim to want the same brutal options as those available to criminals, spurned lovers and madmen, how can you remain better than them, stronger than them? You would put yourself on the same amoral platform as the people you consider yourself morally superior to... how does that work, exactly?

[I realize this is an ancient argument, one which plays itself out endlessly in our society. My questions to you here are merely rhetorical.]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: All of our decisions are fraught with the possibility of error. Perhaps you can invent a reasonable scenario by which the alleged Greyhound murderer was railroaded by an instant collusion of witnesses who gathered randomly to take that bus.


----------



## sarah11918 (Jul 24, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Perhaps you can invent a _*reasonable*_ scenario . . .


I think part of the problem might be that there isn't a *reasonable* one . . . but that doesn't make it any less *possible.* And in fact, its success would be largely due to its unreasonableness.

(Not that I am saying that this is what happened, of course.)

There's a great line in a great song about having a bank robbery planned down to the tee, but then arriving to pull off the job only to find that the bank is full of nuns: 

"It's not what you're sure of; it's what you don't know."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Aye and there's the rub. It is not always crystal clear what the greater good is, and I can see where I might have a problem with the powers who step in for me and act on my behalf. Governments, elected or otherwise, do many things ostensibly in the name of the people, for the greater good. We've often seen what a shabby smokescreen that can be.



Absolutely, it is not always clear. But at times it is. The imposition of the ultimate punishment would have to be issued only in the most extreme cases, as I mentioned way back at the outset of this thread (the Bernardo's, the Picton's and their ilk) and this latest tragedy would also, I believe, fall into a category of the most extreme cases.

How inclusive that category would be is, of course, where the problem lies and is, in my opinion, why ultimately the death penalty was repealed. 

Clearly, this would not be a punishment to be handed out or sought lightly and the criteria by which an execution would be deemed to serve the greater good would have to be sever. However, the rarity of the occurrence of the circumstances combined with the meeting of the severity of the criteria should not necessarily exclude the possibility of the imposition of the punishment.


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

sarah11918 said:


> I don't know whether this is true or not, but someone commented elsewhere that due to the legal fees involved with capital punishment, appeals etc. it actually costs *more* to execute a prisoner than to keep him/her in prison for life.


Interesting. I heard that it costs $70,000/year to imprison someone in Canadian jails. If lifers have to do a mandatory 20 years, it'll cost $1.4 million to take care of that prisoner. And while he is a lifer and have to serve that 20, he'll be roaming around the general population brutalizing, sodomizing and terrorizing those who are serving only short sentences. When the short-stay prisoners are released, having been exposed to that brutality, they will come out and project that brutality on those of us out here.

Most of the people in this country will never see $1.4 million in their lifetime, yet we have to shell it out to keep those who take life behind bars.

What our rampaging Greyhound murderer needs is a very cheap and inexpensive solution. I think a Speer 325g .50 AE round ought to do the trick, and it's only about $1.20 a round with body disposal/burial. Execution for under $4,000. Sure sounds better than $1.4 million.

With life-terminating violence on the rise, I don't agree with those who hold the view against capital punishment. It's necessary, but not the way the Americans do it. None of this waiting on death row for 30 years bullsh!t. You get convicted, you get your appeal within 60 days. If you lose that, you're done.

We're getting to the point where the system is not satisfying anyone. Most victims' families feel that the justice system has done nothing more than show 'em the finger. I think going from conviction to execution in 90 days is good. It will be good for the families of the victims because their feelings of having received justice will be satisfied. It will serve as a warning to future murderers of what will happen to them and how fast it will come. Perhaps the executions should be public events.

Politicians don't come from high crime areas, most of them were born with the silver spoon in their mouths. Me, I'm writing this to you from Morningside and Kingston Road, where police sirens and single mothers ball almost every nite cause another life has been taken in our streets. When artists come to my studio to write rhymes, they don't have to look too far for "inspiration", it's right in my backyard.

If I was Minister of Justice...shoot, criminals would not want me to be Minister of Justice.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF... your last response to me, while perhaps fleetingly witty, is too silly to address beyond this single sentence.

Screature, good post. I find myself in agreement with much of it. As ever, the devil is in the details.

TheShadow: whenever I read or hear of those advocating the stunningly simple, direct kinds of solutions you are today referring to, I have to ask myself if you would be the one willing to take on the role of 'justice deliverer...' you know, the very messenger with that all-too-decisive bullet. Doubtless some individuals would! But I suspect in many cases it amounts to tough talk for the sake of venting. It's one thing to talk about the justice system in ruins and how no one's cause is being served, it's quite another to be the man taking another individual's life - whether the state is behind you or not.

On the other hand, since you do feel strongly, what prevents you from attempting to become Minister of Justice? _Minister Shadow_ has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Perhaps under your reign we might see legions of stormtroopers - the non-nonsense good guys ready to defend the public from its worst members.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I am not sure what Hitler has to do with the Greyhound Stabbing Dude...

It is certainly one of the most bizarre things that has happened in recent times, but knowing our "justice" system, the Dude will be back on the street in a matter of a few months, or a year, tops. It will be revealed that his crime was caused by something, like the Church, or his parents, or some other defect of the system.

However, I for one think that the dude should just be strung up. There is no need to waste resources on a "trial", at least of the kinds of trials that they have these days that go on ad nauseum. It's a clear cut case with a multitude of witnesses - no DNA is needed.

But we all know that this clown will be on the streets very soon. Sure, some judge will make a ruling that he won't be able to take a bus - but we all know that those rulings don't hold any water. Just like all of the molesters that end up living beside schools or public parks, and wife abusers that end up returning to beat the wife one more time. Our justice system is about making victims pay for crime, over and over again; and about providing a cushy and easy lifestyle for the criminal, including conjugal visits and cheap drugs.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

In another era (or in this era, perhaps, but in another country), some of the crowd might have banded together to nab the assailant and dispense justice right then and there. Rip him limb from limb, or simply plug him full of holes.

I think his acts were so off the scale and horrific it effectively paralyzed the lot of them; it was so nightmarish and demonic it was all they could do to simply keep him from escaping the bus and endangering anyone else.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> MF... your last response to me, while perhaps fleetingly witty, is too silly to address beyond this single sentence.


Won't even give it a shot, eh? Thought not.



Max said:


> It's one thing to talk about the justice system in ruins and how no one's cause is being served, it's quite another to be the man taking another individual's life - whether the state is behind you or not.


This is a really weak argument against capital punishment. It _is_ another thing, and there would be plenty of people willing to help. In some countries, a group of people all participate in the execution, but only one member is actually responsible--and will never know that he or she was the one.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

So far, what options have we come up with to make a bad situation, that's been long over, better?

(1) Bring back the death penalty and the victim is still dead.

(2) Don't bring back the death penalty and the victim is still dead.

(3) Increase security similar to what has happened in airports and the victim is still dead.

(4) Talk about morals, ethics, capital punishment, restorative justice and the victim is still dead.

(5) Do something or don't do nothing at all and the victim is still dead.

Doesn't look good for the victim. 

And the next time, and there will be a next time, a person who is wired (my guess is as good as yours as to the "wiring") to commit an act of violence like that I doubt there's anything that man is currently able to come up with that's guaranteed "bullet-proof" (complete self annihilation?) that will prevent another possible tragedy of this nature.

BTW, if some of you truly believe that you are above others because you haven't committed such a terrible act then you're only fooling yourself. We're all a bunch of animals but our egos try to make us believe otherwise. God's chosen ones :lmao:


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

I'm thinking Greyhound might want to pull the large billboard they have up at Ontario Place...

"The reason why there is no such thing as bus rage"

Not quite fitting at the moment, I wonder how long it will be be fore it's replaced ?

What an awful thing to happen though, my heart really goes out to the family of the young man who was murdered and to all the people who had to see such a terrible tragedy.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It is quite sad the number of people in this thread that want vengeance. The guy is obviously very sick. The number one priority should be to protect society. That should ALWAYS be the number one priority when dealing with criminals.

Jail shouldn't be used as a punishment. It should only be used for protection of society. There are much better ways to deal with criminals who are not a threat to society. Example: Conrad Black shouldn't be in jail. Sure, he stole lots of money, but how does locking him up solve anything? As long as he's prevented from being in a position that allows him to steal money the way he did, then that should be good enough. But if all you people are still hell bent on punishment, make him work the McDonalds counter selling fries for the next five years. I guarantee you that is a more severe punishment than five years in prison.

What should we do with "decapitation man"? Number One: protect society. Lock him up. Then, let's find out what snapped in this guys head.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Won't even give it a shot, eh? Thought not.
> 
> This is a really weak argument against capital punishment. It _is_ another thing, and there would be plenty of people willing to help. In some countries, a group of people all participate in the execution, but only one member is actually responsible--and will never know that he or she was the one.


You're right! _Thought not._ Thank you for that clarification.

Onward... methinks your own argument ain't exactly invulnerable, bud. Why do suppose they arrange it so that no one involved will know just who the killer of the killer is?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Onward... methinks your own argument ain't exactly invulnerable, bud. Why do suppose they arrange it so that no one involved will know just who the killer of the killer is?


I was just pointing out that execution can be arranged in such a way as to negate the original objection--who would pull the switch. On the other hand, you could find plenty of volunteers to pull the switch on a one-to-one basis. Don't like that concept? Perhaps you could employ the services of a murderer who enjoys such things.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> It is quite sad the number of people in this thread that want vengeance. The guy is obviously very sick. The number one priority should be to protect society.


And how would you propose to "protect society"? If a rabid dog, a bear, a tiger, or whatever, bites someone, we have no doubts when it comes to killing the animal. But for some reason, our soft society does not have the guts to put a murderous jerk like this to death. This was not a typical murder, considering that the person he attacked was entirely an innocent bystander, and the depraved acts of butchery and consumption of the flesh go without saying.



> Example: Conrad Black shouldn't be in jail. Sure, he stole lots of money, but how does locking him up solve anything?


I have long thought that perverts like Conrad Black deserve the death penalty because he ripped so many people off, like all of the Dominion Store employees that lost their entire retirement fund to feed his insatiable greed. It's not like he took a risk and lost - he intentionally robbed people of their money so he could soil his silk panties for a cheap thrill. Prison is too good for scum like Black. He should be publicly flogged, at least 200 lashes, then hanged with all of the other filth.



> What should we do with "decapitation man"? Number One: protect society. Lock him up. Then, let's find out what snapped in this guys head.


Why bother with the "locking up" or the "finding out", and just lob his head off, to see if he likes it!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I was just pointing out that execution can be arranged in such a way as to negate the original objection--who would pull the switch. On the other hand, you could find plenty of volunteers to pull the switch on a one-to-one basis. Don't like that concept? Perhaps you could employ the services of a murderer who enjoys such things.


The Romans actually used a convict for the strangulation of Vercingtorix during the Gallic Triumph. They reasoned that there was no sense in demeaning an actual citizen in good standing for such a task.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> It is quite sad the number of people in this thread that want vengeance. The guy is obviously very sick. The number one priority should be to protect society. That should ALWAYS be the number one priority when dealing with criminals.
> 
> Jail shouldn't be used as a punishment. It should only be used for protection of society. There are much better ways to deal with criminals who are not a threat to society. Example: Conrad Black shouldn't be in jail. Sure, he stole lots of money, but how does locking him up solve anything? As long as he's prevented from being in a position that allows him to steal money the way he did, then that should be good enough. But if all you people are still hell bent on punishment, make him work the McDonalds counter selling fries for the next five years. I guarantee you that is a more severe punishment than five years in prison.
> 
> What should we do with "decapitation man"? Number One: protect society. Lock him up. Then, let's find out what snapped in this guys head.


Do you honestly think there's hope of rehabilitation for this guy? He was unprovoked. How do you know he won't do the same thing working at Wal-Mart sometime? A true sociopath has no remorse, and this person seems like a true sociopath. Of course, if he was a soldier in Afghanistan and had done this to one of the "enemy," we'd probably look the other way.

I'm not big on capital punishment, but when there is no chance of rehabilitation, I tend to think capital punishment may be the best way to protect society. We do it with rabid animals.

One other thought: as often happens with sudden violent crime, all the attention goes out to the offender and the victim becomes almost a prop. One passenger said he had a smoke with the guy, well, the head, just an hour before. That "head" was somebody's child, brother, father, uncle, neighbor. How would you like it if the victim was someone you know and the descriptions of the victim's head being "swung around like a trophy" appeared in every paper? Thank god no video has shown up. Yet.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

If Conrad Black is guilty of stealing, he needs to be in jail for a period of time.

It seems to me he did what many business owners do: paid himself from his own and shareholders money, and informed them he was doing it. He didn't "steal from a bunch of people" as above. He stole from a few rich people. Still a crime if he didn't do it entirely properly but hardly deserving of the comments above.

And yes, the beheader needs to get better in a prison hospital--and to never be released, once found to be guilty by a court.





guytoronto said:


> It is quite sad the number of people in this thread that want vengeance. The guy is obviously very sick. The number one priority should be to protect society. That should ALWAYS be the number one priority when dealing with criminals.
> 
> Jail shouldn't be used as a punishment. It should only be used for protection of society. There are much better ways to deal with criminals who are not a threat to society. Example: Conrad Black shouldn't be in jail. Sure, he stole lots of money, but how does locking him up solve anything? As long as he's prevented from being in a position that allows him to steal money the way he did, then that should be good enough. But if all you people are still hell bent on punishment, make him work the McDonalds counter selling fries for the next five years. I guarantee you that is a more severe punishment than five years in prison.
> 
> What should we do with "decapitation man"? Number One: protect society. Lock him up. Then, let's find out what snapped in this guys head.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, I think the state employing sadists and murders to do its dirty work brings it all full circle, gentlemen. There is a certain undeniable harmony to it. Plus there's the added entertainment value of doing live executions in front of crowds... concession stands can turn over a respectable portion of their earnings over to the state, of course. Everything old is new again.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

sarah11918 said:


> I think part of the problem might be that there isn't a *reasonable* one . . . but that doesn't make it any less *possible.* And in fact, its success would be largely due to its unreasonableness.
> 
> (Not that I am saying that this is what happened, of course.)
> 
> ...


Good point, sarah11918. Of course, the only time I got the strap in school was from a nun, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> Yes, I think the state employing sadists and murders to do its dirty work brings it all full circle, gentlemen. There is a certain undeniable harmony to it. Plus there's the added entertainment value of doing live executions in front of crowds... concession stands can turn over a respectable portion of their earnings over to the state, of course. Everything old is new again.


Ever see OZ? That gave you a whole new perspective on prison life and the death penalty and such. Kathryn Erbe was cool as a cucumber after killing her daughter and chose hanging as a last hurrah because the hanged person's twitch at the last moment when the neck snaps. They call it the dance of death and she thought it would be nice to go out dancing. Cool as a cucumber until the final moment when they put the hood over her head and she panicked and screamed and you could see how inhumane the death penalty can be even if the person "deserves" it. Tough call.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now Max if you would just lose the masked nic your argument might carry a bit more weight 

as it is.....









it almost seems a volunteering for the public service role....axe supplied by crown n'all

Why there is even a bit of poetry there...Max the Axe


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, I've seen Oz. Pretty brutal show. Not familiar with all of the story lines over the years, of course, but I've seen enough of it to know it sure ain't pretty and it's pretty unsentimental... about as far from Hollywood as you're going to get in a cable series about contemporary prison life in America.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Black needs to go to a real prison, not the one he'll end up in.

HowEver, found guilty by a court? I'm all for getting one's day in court but in acts like this we shouldn't even waste tax payers money, court or jail.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> ...you could see how inhumane the death penalty can be even if the person "deserves" it. Tough call.


Or conversely, you might say they become afraid of facing the death they deserve. Perhaps we should compare their demise to that of their victim.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, that's what I look like these days. A tragic accident, way back in the day... I don't like to speak of it...

OK, I see your point. I often get a surreal feeling when addressing the furious Patrick McGoohan fellow... or yourself, for that matter, you bookish green worm, you.

Back to the decapitation story... I have to wonder if someone so fundamentally screwed up is even capable of appreciating the nature of his act - much less any justice meted out to him for committing said act.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Or conversely, you might say they become afraid of facing the death they deserve. Perhaps we should compare their demise to that of their victim.


Agreed. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to pull the switch. I also wouldn't want to be the one working in the slaughterhouse, but I sure do like steak. I guess we each have our specialties.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: he needn't be capable of appreciating the justice. His job at that point would be to leave this earthly veil of tears post haste.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> MacDoc, that's what I look like these days. A tragic accident, way back in the day... I don't like to speak of it...
> 
> OK, I see your point. I often get a surreal feeling when addressing the furious Patrick McGoohan fellow... or yourself, for that matter, you bookish green worm, you.
> 
> Back to the decapitation story... I have to wonder if someone so fundamentally screwed up is even capable of appreciating the nature of his act - much less any justice meted out to him for committing said act.


I wonder if it was payback for some transgression we don't know about yet. Given the names of the victim and perp, there may be a racial motivation.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

dona83 said:


> but with all due respect being in a public place no long guarantees your personal safety anymore. If someone is intent on killing you, just take fate as it is.


I wouldn't think that being in a public place, as you put it, ever did guarantee your safety.
I believe a very large percentage of random violent crimes, murders included, have more then often happened in public places, bars, clubs, eateries, washrooms, malls, streets etc.
Violence that happens in private spots, residences etc, aside from home invasions is more often then not of a domestic nature, which qualifies it as a targeted crime.

jb.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Max: he needn't be capable of appreciating the justice. His job at that point would be to leave this earthly veil of tears post haste.


No, I suppose not. He might not be the sort that appreciates much of anything.

But calling it "a job" is a choice euphemism. Like he applied for it because he heard the benefits were good and the hours steady... nope, once you pull something like that, jobs are no longer part of the equation. Someone hands you a verdict, not a job.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

His appointed path...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, we're all on that path, aren't we. All with appointments to keep.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

...each with our own destination, some of which may include execution.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Some of which doubtless will include execution. None of us knows what's in store, though. But hey! You can definitely pad your chances of _not_ being executed.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

bad taste


----------



## The Shadow (Oct 28, 2006)

Max said:


> MF... your last response to me, while perhaps fleetingly witty, is too silly to address beyond this single sentence.
> 
> Screature, good post. I find myself in agreement with much of it. As ever, the devil is in the details.
> 
> ...


You should come to my neighborhood, Max...Morningside and Kingston. Spend a good week here, then let's see what kind of song you'll be singing then. And we're not as hot as some of the other blocks in the city. I've attended five funerals this year...for gunshot victims. If I could, I would wax 'em, no doubt. I'm sure it's all white picket fences and roses where you live, but not in my blocks. When rappers come to record in my studio, they don't gotta look too far for inspiration, I'm literally 30 seconds from it.

My cousin got his skull back blown off 10 years ago in this neighborhood and he wasn't even banging or dealing or any of that. He was just minding his own business and in an instant, snuffed out. 

So Max, you can save your high and mighty bull**** for your bridge group or your wine-tasting buddies...don't be dismissing what's happening in neighborhoods like mine as ranting. You, in your spit-polish communities, don't see what we see...you'll never see what we see. 

You asked if I would be willing to take on the job of dispensing that justice. After what I've seen, I could be that justice deliverer. I know I could bring people the justice that they want, not what the state says is right for them. These softie-softie ministers are Grey Poupon bourgeoisie, they're not ready to make the hard choices. They need someone to run that place like Crazy Joe Clark. I know I could do that. 

The time for soft-handed, turn the other cheek horse**** is done. Toronto will become as 1970s/1980s New York City unless someone is brought in willing to kick ass in the name of protecting innocent life.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

TheShadow, I'm afraid you have taken your angry agenda far enough. You are under the tragic, hideously false impression that I dwell in some nice, safe, inner city gated neighbourhood, one well patrolled by cops, buttressed by loads of money and political influence. Is that about right? Does that describe your comic book concoction of a vision well enough? I wouldn't want to let the truth intrude on your seething mega-tirade, so I'll sit back and watch you void yourself. Afterwards, you can wipe your own spittle off of your chin, I'm sure... or is that too effete for you?

As an aside, I've been to your neck of the woods many a time. Used to work there, matter of fact. We used to jokingly call it Mars, on account of how far away it was from where I happened to be living at the time. Quite the tedious journey on ye olde TTC. But heck, you don't want to hear about that.

Please! - continue with your self-righteous diatribe; you obviously need to vent. Better that than you dispensing your own dire brand of justice on your local streets.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So to date Shadow has attended funerals for 14% of the victims of all the murders in the GTA this year. ( 5 of 36 in 4.5 million population ) 

Get out the vigilantes all hell is breaking loose......NOT.


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

The Shadow said:


> You should come to my neighborhood, Max...Morningside and Kingston. Spend a good week here, then let's see what kind of song you'll be singing then. And we're not as hot as some of the other blocks in the city. I've attended five funerals this year...for gunshot victims. If I could, I would wax 'em, no doubt. I'm sure it's all white picket fences and roses where you live, but not in my blocks. When rappers come to record in my studio, they don't gotta look too far for inspiration, I'm literally 30 seconds from it.
> 
> My cousin got his skull back blown off 10 years ago in this neighborhood and he wasn't even banging or dealing or any of that. He was just minding his own business and in an instant, snuffed out.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should take a trip to a local rez and then you wouldn't feel so hard done by.

Somebody is always suffering worse than someone else, but nobody can understand that suffering until they themselves experience it. Gandhi probably had it tougher at times than some of the "rappers" you speak of and yet...

Bottomline: Our world will never change until we change. No amount of peaceful talk/action or war on crime talk/action will ever eliminate something that comes as a result of being HUMAN. Humans are their own worst enemy.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

I skipped from Page 6 to Page 10.

What's the point??

It's all the same **** all over again, just a different pile.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sure it is. But look at what started it... an extraordinary act of barbarism. You don't seriously expect no one would post about it, do you?

Well, you've said what you think. If it bugs you, I suggest you considering walking away and staying cool. This thread will run its course in time (and yes, the many sentiments attached to it will return too).


----------



## skinnyboy (Oct 7, 2007)

*** eagerly awaits next "gun control" or "global warming" thread ***


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Black needs to go to a real prison, not the one he'll end up in.


Yeah, one where they don't have soap on a rope...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> So to date Shadow has attended funerals for 14% of the victims of all the murders in the GTA this year. ( 5 of 36 in 4.5 million population )
> 
> Get out the vigilantes all hell is breaking loose......NOT.


The number of murders is only part of the story. Violence is up quite a bit here in The Hammer, and the Police can not get the upper hand. It was recently reported in the local paper that it takes 12 hours for each officer to fill out paperwork for a drug bust. So they only bust the really blatent places, and entire neighbourhoods have turned into grow-ops or crack dens. They can't afford the paperwork, and the criminal get away with a slap on the wrist.

Even in my girlfriend's neighbourhood, which is basically suburbs and was traditionally a quiet area, has turned nasty in the past two years or so, mostly because of the drug trade. The building across the street has a crack den in it, and all kinds of people are going there at all hours of the day. There is more breaking and entering, as well as bank robberies in the area, not to mention the bad driving as the crack houses attract street racers.

The spread of crime is rampant, despite the official 'numbers'. Half the murders are never reported, covered up by corrupt officials (something that happens in The Hammer on a regular basis), because in many cases, the corrupt officials are running the grow-ops and crack houses.

This stuff has to stop, otherwise we will end up being ruined like Detroit.


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

Just checking in today, and saw this sub-topic. Seems to have been going on for a while.
As a previous post seems to have hinted, maybe this isn't a place for comment. Surely, this fellow's family and friends are humiliated and not need hear our outrage and opinions. Let the young man rest, no?


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Are you talking about the deceased or the alleged killer?

If the former, I understand that there is a Facebook web site receiving remembrances of this young man.

If it's the latter, then let the loss of face fall wherever it may.

Last I heard, he was still breathing.


----------



## ryerman (Mar 26, 2008)

I still cannot grasp this concept. It's too surreal and I don't know how to process this. 

That man will pay. One way or another, he will pay. 

It makes me sick.


----------



## Sitting Bull (Feb 4, 2008)

What I don;t understand amongst other things, is how can someone commit such a crime and only be charged with 2nd degree murder? What happened to 1st degree. It seems like we hardly ever use 1st degree in this country. All ready I have seen interviews with psychiatrists trying to explain away what rational may have caused this act.
What's with that? It can't be any more plain than that. He did it, he was seen doing it, now pay the price. Oh wait a minute I am sure there will be some judge that will give him a soft sentence for some human rights violation thing or... parole after a minimal amount of time.
Sorry about the rant, it just reminds me of a recent case here in Edmonton 'Nina Courtepatte'where several teen agers including girls and friends of the victim plotted and lured a teenage girl to a golf course, raped murdered with a hammer. They got diddli squat for the crime.
Sorry again, but our whole justice system is a joke in my personal opinion. And yes it is just my personal opinion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Seeing that this is Canada - we will end up paying. There will be endless court cases, the defense will suckle on the teets of the government for their filthy cash as long as possible. We all know that it will not go to court any time soon. Sure, there will be "court hearings" where the judge will just delay the trial so that they can fall even further behind in processing cases.

When it does get to an actual court, they will struggle to find a jury of the most brain damaged people - people who will be easily goaded and bullied by the savvy lawyers. After a period of six or seven years, the jury will probably move for acquittal, then the government will be forced to pay off the butcher for wrongful imprisonment.

Of course, the jury could find the guy guilty, which will lead to an endless series of appeals. Even losers in Small Claims Court think that they have a right to have their case heard by the Supreme Court; criminals know it is their right.

In the end, the guy will end up perhaps serving a one day sentence, and will be free on the streets - free to return to the needle exchange clinic that he was probably frequenting in the first place. It's all about wasting as much money as possible, a big government make work project, and this act of butchery will end up costing us, as taxpayers, an easy two or three million dollars right off the top.

It makes me sick.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Justice delayed is justice denied.

And that knife cuts both ways.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Sitting Bull said:


> What I don;t understand amongst other things, is how can someone commit such a crime and only be charged with 2nd degree murder? What happened to 1st degree.


First-degree murder is premeditated murder. The Crown would need to prove that the accused planned the murder over a period of time; basically that he went on the bus with the intent of murdering the victim.

Since in this case, the accused and the victim had really "just met", there was little or no apparent opportunity to form intent and even less likelihood of proving intent to the satisfaction of a judge/jury.

Should police find such evidence -- that he went on the bus with the expressed intention of killing someone -- then the charge could be upgraded.


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

iJohnHenry said:


> Are you talking about the deceased or the alleged killer?
> If the former, I understand that there is a Facebook web site receiving remembrances of this young man.
> If it's the latter, then let the loss of face fall wherever it may.
> Last I heard, he was still breathing.


Please, be serious. I'm certainly not talking about the lunatic "alleged" monster. He will be carefully given all HIS rights as the process unfolds. God forbid we should violate HIS rights.


----------



## mgmitchell (Apr 4, 2008)

All intelligent posts recently ... SittingBull, EvanPitts, iJohnHenry. Can't say it any better.
M.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Brainstrained said:


> First-degree murder is premeditated murder. The Crown would need to prove that the accused planned the murder over a period of time; basically that he went on the bus with the intent of murdering the victim.
> 
> Since in this case, the accused and the victim had really "just met", there was little or no apparent opportunity to form intent and even less likelihood of proving intent to the satisfaction of a judge/jury.
> 
> Should police find such evidence -- that he went on the bus with the expressed intention of killing someone -- then the charge could be upgraded.


Given your theory on murder, the victim is somehow less dead?

BS.

Murder is murder and there is no reason to give a murderer a break because he "didn't mean to do it." That is bleeding heart crappola.

I suppose he "didn't mean" to cut off the guy's head or eat part of him either?

Lock him up and throw away the key.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Given your theory on murder, the victim is somehow less dead?
> 
> BS.
> 
> ...


I feel it's less Brainstrained's theory and more 'the law'.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I feel it's less Brainstrained's theory and more 'the law'.


Well, that certainly comes as no surprise. I have stated numerous times that our justice system is severely flawed and this is just one more example.

"Sorry, I didn't mean to do it. Judge pats perpetrator on head, sentences him to 10 years and releases him on parole in 10 months."

It's the Canadian way. tptptptp


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Not my theory. That's the way it is in Canada and the U.S.

I suspect that the feeling or rationale is that premediated murder is more "cold blooded" and deserving of greater punishment than a murder of passion or quick reaction.

Britain, which currently has only one class or degree of murder, is considering a move to classified murder: first degree for those who intended to kill, second degree for those who intended to cause harm but killed, and manslaughter for those who kill but had no intention of killing.

And regardless of the crime, intent is a very significant factor in guilt or innocence.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

If you don't agree with the way our laws are written, why don't you do something about it? If you already have I'll apologize in advance. I wish you luck.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, though these dry technicalities understandably irk you and many others, I believe Brainstrained is right, that the onus is on the crown to prove that the killer planned the murder out reasonably well in advance - meaning, I think, that the victim was known to him in advance, that he in fact targeted him, tracked him down and then killed him. That is not necessarily a very easy thing to prove.

If however the investigation reveals that this is _not_ an random killing (i.e. that the assailant decided on the spot to go to the back and kill the first person he sat next to, _whoever that might happen to be_,) then it's an entirely different story... the victim becomes someone who was hunted down, as opposed to a terribly unfortunate individual who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and then the crown can therefore boost the charge to first-degree.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Brainstrained said:


> Britain, which currently has only one class or degree of murder, is considering a move to classified murder: first degree for those who intended to kill, second degree for those who intended to cause harm but killed, and manslaughter for those who kill but had no intention of killing.
> 
> And regardless of the crime, intent is a very significant factor in guilt or innocence.


Yes. And I agree in principle with the shading in meaning we accord to the different murders. Alas, to the victims and their surviving loved ones, these legal distinctions are not generally well-received.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> I am not sure what Hitler has to do with the Greyhound Stabbing Dude...


See Godwin's law.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Is it just me, or is the world getting a little crazier? I mean, this is the second, high-profile murder / decapitation and first (as I'm aware cannibalism)in Canada in the last few years. The first was in my home province, NB, wh ere a disturbed young man brutally murdered an elderly couple and cut an old man's head off. 

People have been killing each other since Cain and Abel. But lately it seems like criminals and crazies are upping the stakes.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> If you don't agree with the way our laws are written, why don't you do something about it? If you already have I'll apologize in advance. I wish you luck.










Please, excuse my guffaw.

I fondly remember the Barney Miller episode, when the guy from the future said, "Oh, right, we killed all the lawyers in '96."



NBiBooker said:


> People have been killing each other since Cain and Abel.


*Allegedly!!!*

Let's stick to fact please, not fiction.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Murder is murder and there is no reason to give a murderer a break because he "didn't mean to do it." That is bleeding heart crappola.


He isn't necessarily being given a break by having him charged with 2nd-degree murder; the degree of the murder charge is decided on whether or not there is evidence to support the murder was premeditated (as stated earlier by others), and does not always decide on the severity of the punishment if convicted. I doubt this guy (but could be wrong) will see a light punishment, based not only on the fact that he committed murder, but the brutality of the circumstances surrounding it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

iJohnHenry said:


> Please, excuse my guffaw.


There is some required reading to be done between the lines....


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> There is some required reading to be done between the lines....


Only one word is necessary.

Lawyers.

The fox is in charge of the hen-house, and there will be no ejecting him without a major upheaval.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Lars said:


> He isn't necessarily being given a break by having him charged with 2nd-degree murder; the degree of the murder charge is decided on whether or not there is evidence to support the murder was premeditated (as stated earlier by others), and does not always decide on the severity of the punishment if convicted. I doubt this guy (but could be wrong) will see a light punishment, based not only on the fact that he committed murder, but the brutality of the circumstances surrounding it.


Let me ask you one more time.

Is the guy any LESS dead because he didn't mean to do it?

Right, I thought so.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> Let me ask you one more time.
> 
> Is the guy any LESS dead because he didn't mean to do it?
> 
> Right, I thought so.


Is it just the way the charges 'sound' that is a problem?

But it doesn't matter in a way since the sentence will be the same: life with no chance of parole for 25 years.

In this case, that 25 years will actually be "indefinite" because the killer will likely be deemed mentally ill. In Canada, that is not a way to shorten a sentence once you're "cured"; it's a way to keep the killer in jail. He could also be deemed a dangerous offender based on the severity of the act, and for the same reason may be detained indefinitely.

The reason he isn't being charged with murder? Probably related to this being an attack on a stranger. He may very well have brought the knife on the bus to kill someone; but not this victim specifically. So a murder charge would fail. Calling for a charge that is inappropriate to the crime is unhelpful at best, and expressing surprise or offense at the second-degree charge is unfortunate.

Finally, police can change charges based on information that surfaces. The charge could be changed to murder, but only if it's appropriate.


----------



## nice&easy mac&cheesey (Apr 10, 2008)

*My 2 cents*

I'll start by saying that I don't have a problem bringing back the death penalty. Not to save money though. I don't care about the cost of housing or killing prisoners. Nor of the difference between those two figures. I support the death penalty to keep society a little bit safer. I recognize that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and I believe this has been proven in many studies. But it sure does cut down the recidivism.

If we were all shepherds and there were wolves and foxes that tried to prey on our flock, we wouldn't hesitate to kill them. Why then do we not protect society the same way? There are wolves and foxes among us yet we do little to stop them from preying on society.

I would support the use of the death penalty in cases where guilt is a sure thing. Also, in cases where the accused has proven through his/her actions that s/he is a perpetual threat to society.

Also, I don't have a problem with an accused who is to be put to death having an exhaustive appeal process. This is not an area where we can afford to make a mistake. One innocent man's life is certainly worth more than several guilty ones. The names of Truscott and Milgaard are aptly mentioned here, as is Thomas Sophonow (an extremely interesting case for those that don't know it).

But with science being what it is today guilt is getting easier to prove in many cases. DNA is a wonderful thing. Also, very tough to argue against under the right circumstances. (The names of Truscott and Milgaard are aptly mentioned here again... Truscott because DNA was not available in his case and Milgaard because it ultimately helped exonerate him.)

As for why the victim's fellow riders did not come to his aid... First off, none of us were there. Far be it for me to tell someone to jump into the breach without me being there and experiencing what they were going through at the time. We weren't there, we don't know.

Also, going into a knife fight unarmed, well, let's just say "trouble". That is a tall order under the best of circumstances. Add to that the assailant, from the sound of things, was near the back of the bus: no way to get him from behind or surprise him. Add too the fact that this was in a bus. That's a very confined and awkward space in which to fight.

I hope that we don't start seeing debates about bus security popping up. I think we should take this for what it is; a terrible and unfortunate random event. We, as a society, need to remember that there is just no way to protect everyone from everything. Can't do it. Can't be done. Yes, the stabbing and beheading are sensational, but the victim is just as dead as if he were strangled to death. And if that was the case what do we do? Start taping people's hand closed for the duration of the bus ride? Perhaps handcuff people's hands to their belts, like prisoners??

Let's not all lose our minds just because some guy on a bus in Manitoba lost his.

But having said that I would like to start seeing realistic sentences for violent and/or repeat offenders handed out. We need to start having a mindset of, and sentencing to prove it, that the average citizen's rights and life are worth more than the bad guys'.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

With regards to security on Greyhound Buses:

I find it interesting that when you want to travel by air from Toronto to Vancouver, your luggage must go through an X-Ray machine. You yourself must go through a metal detector, your carry on luggage goes through a X-Ray machine. There are all kinds of laws on what you're aloud to carry on board the aircraft, but when it comes to traveling on a Greyhound Bus across this country, none of the above exists. Why?

I have traveled many times across this country to and from Vancouver to Toronto. I can't tell you how many times I witnessed Marijuana being smuggled into Ontario in huge hockey bags or bags onto a Greyhound bus. These bags were never checked, never scanned, not even questioned. In fact neither was any of my luggage, nor my carry on, or never was I ever personally checked or asked. 

So, can anyone tell me what the difference is between traveling across Canada in an aircraft or a bus with regards to security of the passenger and its luggage? Right now, you can bring anything onto a Greyhound bus, no luggage checked, no luggage scanned, no personal checks ever done, you could bring a bomb on board, knives, guns, any sort of weapons, you name it, it can be brought onto the bus, period! Drugs are a major factor and this happens weekly, surprised the police haven't caught onto this yet. It's been going on for many many years.

At least we know you will be a lot safer on an airline flying from Toronto to Vancouver then getting on a Greyhound Bus from now on.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That doesn't fit anybody's definition of "smuggling."

Also, it isn't against the law in Canada to use marijuana. Just to possess it or provide it to someone else.



MacGYVER said:


> I have traveled many times across this country to and from Vancouver to Toronto. I can't tell you how many times I witnessed Marijuana being smuggled into Ontario in huge hockey bags or bags onto a Greyhound bus. These bags were never checked, never scanned, not even questioned. In fact neither was any of my luggage, nor my carry on, or never was I ever personally checked or asked.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It certainly is a lopsided world, isn't it? You have to jump through all these hoops these days just to board a plane, but a bus just takes a ticket.... but still, I'm hardly inclined to believe that this is the precursor to a rash of vicious bus murders in our nation.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

HowEver said:


> That doesn't fit anybody's definition of "smuggling."
> 
> Also, it isn't against the law in Canada to use marijuana. Just to possess it or provide it to someone else.


Well perhaps then you could tell my local police force to QUIT wasting my tax dollars on fighting this war against using marijuana in my area of Canada?


----------



## nice&easy mac&cheesey (Apr 10, 2008)

Not to split hairs HowEver, but how exactly can you "use" marijuana without "possessing" it? Rather difficult.

And, as for the difference between bus and airline security, I would think that the difference stems from the fact that the level of devastation potentially caused by a hijacked airplane is considerably more than that which can be caused by a bus.

The level of security is directly proportional to the level of threat. The threat level includes "potential" threat.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Max said:


> It certainly is a lopsided world, isn't it? You have to jump through all these hoops these days just to board a plane, but a bus just takes a ticket.... but still, I'm hardly inclined to believe that this is the precursor to a rash of vicious bus murders in our nation.


Maybe, maybe not? The problem is this, right now ANYTHING can be done on a long haul bus trip in Canada. There is absolutely NO SECURITY in place to stop anyone from doing anything. It will probably take a few more killings and or problems before we see any small changes to the bus system in Canada.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

nice&easy said:


> Not to split hairs HowEver, but how exactly can you "use" marijuana without "possessing" it? Rather difficult.


I think HowEver knows this. He's just trying to be comically smart.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Lars said:


> I think HowEver knows this. He's just trying to be comically smart.


Um, no. The Criminal Code has penalties for possession and distribution, not use. As in, when the police witness you smoking a joint, and the joint gets used up, there is nothing to charge you with. Using it is legal.


----------



## nice&easy mac&cheesey (Apr 10, 2008)

Wrong. The Criminal Code has no penalties for possession nor trafficking (distribution as you call it). The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the piece of legislation that governs marijuana.

Also, to imagine a scenario where the police witness someone smoking a joint, want to arrest that person for possession but allow them to smoke the whole joint is not only unlikely but also absurd. Given that it is not impossible, I will agree that if someone did manage to destroy all of the evidence of the offence then charges would be unlikely. But smoke the whole thing???... No roach left?? Not even any paper with residue?? So unlikely as to be nonsense. You'd have a better chance of eating it than "using it up".

Common sense dictates though that, especially in the case of marijuana, to use one must possess. To suggest otherwise ignores reality.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

nice&easy said:


> Wrong. The Criminal Code has no penalties for possession nor trafficking (distribution as you call it). The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the piece of legislation that governs marijuana.


Either way, it's grounds for arrest or a ticket, depending on the offender, prior history, and how much of the narcotic is present.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sitting Bull said:


> What I don;t understand amongst other things, is how can someone commit such a crime and only be charged with 2nd degree murder? What happened to 1st degree. It seems like we hardly ever use 1st degree in this country. All ready I have seen interviews with psychiatrists trying to explain away what rational may have caused this act.
> What's with that? It can't be any more plain than that. He did it, he was seen doing it, now pay the price. Oh wait a minute I am sure there will be some judge that will give him a soft sentence for some human rights violation thing or... parole after a minimal amount of time.
> Sorry about the rant, it just reminds me of a recent case here in Edmonton 'Nina Courtepatte'where several teen agers including girls and friends of the victim plotted and lured a teenage girl to a golf course, raped murdered with a hammer. They got diddli squat for the crime.
> Sorry again, but our whole justice system is a joke in my personal opinion. And yes it is just my personal opinion.


First degree murder is premeditated. Second degree is sudden and unexpected. A crime of passion would be second degree. Third degree is manslaughter—a death due to negligence for example, but death was not intended. While it would appear this individual wanted to kill _somebody_, it is not clear that he had this _particular_ person in mind. First degree murder is more difficult to prove, but second degree murder would be far easier to establish. When in doubt, they will go for the sure thing than take a chance on having the guy walk because they can't prove his intention was to kill this particular individual.


----------



## nice&easy mac&cheesey (Apr 10, 2008)

Lars said:


> Either way, it's grounds for arrest or a ticket, depending on the offender, prior history, and how much of the narcotic is present.


Arrest (Ontario), a ticket (most other provinces) or a high-five from the judge (British Columbia), depending upon which province you get caught in!


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Enforcement of pot laws in Canada is very much a mixed bag (no pun intended), not just between provinces but municipalities. Some police forces, and officers, are far more tolerant of possessing quantities of marijuana for personal use than others.

But nowhere in Canada will you get a ticket for possession of marijuana. If police proceed, they must arrest you. The Marijuana Reform Act, which would have made pot possession a ticketable offence for small amounts (but only in some provinces including Ontario), died with the Liberal govt.

And I suspect you're far more likely to get a high five from a judge (or even a Crown Attorney) in Ontario than elsewhere. Over the past eight years, more than a few judges in Ontario have found marijuana laws to be unconstitutional and in recent years those decisions haven't been appealed.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The Criminal Code is a collection of laws. One of those sets of laws is the drug act.

My example may have been unlikely, but the point remains that people don't get arrested in Canada for using drugs, they get arrested for possessing them or selling them or giving them to someone else.




nice&easy said:


> Wrong. The Criminal Code has no penalties for possession nor trafficking (distribution as you call it). The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the piece of legislation that governs marijuana.
> 
> Also, to imagine a scenario where the police witness someone smoking a joint, want to arrest that person for possession but allow them to smoke the whole joint is not only unlikely but also absurd. Given that it is not impossible, I will agree that if someone did manage to destroy all of the evidence of the offence then charges would be unlikely. But smoke the whole thing???... No roach left?? Not even any paper with residue?? So unlikely as to be nonsense. You'd have a better chance of eating it than "using it up".
> 
> Common sense dictates though that, especially in the case of marijuana, to use one must possess. To suggest otherwise ignores reality.


----------



## nice&easy mac&cheesey (Apr 10, 2008)

HowEver, you are correct; the Criminal Code of Canada is a collection of laws. As far as "the drug act" being one of those sets of laws; that is incorrect. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not included in the Criminal Code. They are sometimes, quite often actually, published together; that is, bound in the same volume. They are not part of each other though. They are two distinct entities.

I do agree though, that although your example is (extremely) unlikely, it is correct; people don't get arrested in Canada for using drugs, they get arrested for possessing or trafficking (selling and giving are both considered trafficking under the CDSA).


----------

