[hurley_108]

RUEZ RUEZ:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Just like the first time?

This is the second time he decapitated and cannibalized someone?

Now who's being obtuse?

Still you. What did he do the first time that would have justified locking him up for an extended or indefinite period of time?

[Akhenaten]

He was a schizoprenic who showed signs he may be a danger to himself or others. As it stands that requires an assessment to answer that very question. Turns out now that he fled hospitalization when doctors thought his behaviour did warrant extended or indefinate period of being 'locked up'.

$1:

Despite being placed on a Form 3 certificate – an involuntary admission document that forces patients thought to pose a risk to themselves or others into a psychiatric facility for up to 14 days – Mr. Li defied doctors by leaving after just 10 days.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=42325


Akh

[RUEZ]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Still you. What did he do the first time that would have justified locking him up for an extended or indefinite period of time?

I guess you're just having a hard time reading then. Or perhaps it's because you didn't quote me in the proper context. That's ok I'll help you out here since you try so hard to be ignorant. This is what I was responding too:

DrJones DrJones:

I understand the fear that he will re-offend but that can be addressed through medication and a psychiatric hospital.

The part in bold is what I was refering to as the first time. Clearly there is no record of him killing anyone before, but I think you know that. There is a record of him being treated before. You understand now?

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Turns out now that he fled hospitalization when doctors thought his behaviour did warrent extended or indefinate period of being 'locked up'.

Where is that stated?

[Akhenaten]

Well if you'd read it Hurly you'd see.

[hurley_108]

RUEZ RUEZ:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Still you. What did he do the first time that would have justified locking him up for an extended or indefinite period of time?

I guess you're just having a hard time reading then. Or perhaps it's because you didn't quote me in the proper context. That's ok I'll help you out here since you try so hard to be ignorant. This is what I was responding too:

DrJones DrJones:

I understand the fear that he will re-offend but that can be addressed through medication and a psychiatric hospital.

The part in bold is what I was refering to as the first time. Clearly there is no record of him killing anyone before, but I think you know that. There is a record of him being treated before. You understand now?

There are plenty of schizophrenics out there who don't kill people, and who never will. That he has killed someone changes things, and could not have been foreseen, and as such he will be treated differently now than he was before, as his particular case of schizophrenia has now been shown to be a danger to others.

Every case of mental illness is different, even if the disease is the same.

So what I was saying is that just because he was picked up by police for odd behavior, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not grounds to lock him up indefinitely.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

Well if you'd read it Hurly you'd see.

You made the claim, you back it up.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

So what I was saying is that just because he was picked up by police for odd behavior, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not grounds to lock him up indefinitely.

No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....

...observation which he ran away from.

And not 'odd behaviour' (there's that obtuseness again) but rather behaviour which could have posed a risk to either himself or others.



Akh

[Akhenaten]

hurly just stop ok? You are being obtuse.

Every schizophrenic who gets brought in is examined an it is determined whether or not he is safe on his own and should be released on his own or be institutionalized. He left before that examination could be completed. That was the first time.

$1:

You made the claim, you back it up.

I did. If you can't or wont read I can't help you but that doesn't mean I didnt back it up. I did, right there, clear as day.



Akh

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....

...observation which he ran away from.



Akh

And which the doctors could have called the police to have him returned to, but apparently didn't:

$1:

“If he was still under certificate and it was thought that he might harm himself or others, the doctors can call the police,” Dr. Hucker said. “But there is always that tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of the rest of us.”

[Donny_Brasco]

Ya, lets spend a trillion dollars locking up every mental patient just in case the one in a million chance some ill person repeats this story.

I would say a thousand time a day someone who should be under the care of a mental health expert walks away from a hospital. You want to pay to track down all these people? I mean if we need to protect ourselves against all these ill people then ya, lets spend the money and keep everyone locked up. Might as well wear body armor to work and take a school bus to get there (safest form of travel).

We could live our lives in fear of guys like Li and freak out and spend billions trying to predict and prevent these things.

Or we could accept this for the tragic, isolated event that it is and try to enjoy life a little more because life is short enough already.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

hurly just stop ok? You are being obtuse.

Every schizophrenic who gets brought in is examined an it is determined whether or not he is safe on his own and should be released on his own or be institutionalized. He left before that examination could be completed. That was the first time.

The doctors could have called the police to have him returned, they apparently didn't.

$1:

$1:

You made the claim, you back it up.

I did. If you can't or wont read I can't help you but that doesn't mean I didnt back it up. I did, right there, clear as day.



Akh

You edited your post after the fact.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

And which the doctors could have called the police to have him returned to, but apparently didn't

Uh huh. And...?


lol. That you continually want to dance around the main issue here is pretty telling.

[hurley_108]

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

$1:

So what I was saying is that just because he was picked up by police for odd behavior, and diagnosed with schizophrenia, was not grounds to lock him up indefinitely.

No but it is grounds to keep him under observation to decern if he should be 'locked up' indefinitely....

...observation which he ran away from.

And not 'odd behaviour' (there's that obtuseness again) but rather behaviour which could have posed a risk to either himself or others.



Akh

In case you didn't realize, it's clear as day when you go back and put stuff in your posts you didn't write before:

Last edited by Akhenaten on 2009-03-05, 16:01:36, edited 1 time in total.

[Akhenaten]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Akhenaten Akhenaten:

hurly just stop ok? You are being obtuse.

Every schizophrenic who gets brought in is examined an it is determined whether or not he is safe on his own and should be released on his own or be institutionalized. He left before that examination could be completed. That was the first time.

The doctors could have called the police to have him returned, they apparently didn't.

$1:

$1:

You made the claim, you back it up.

I did. If you can't or wont read I can't help you but that doesn't mean I didnt back it up. I did, right there, clear as day.



Akh

You edited your post after the fact.

So? I edited a spelling error so what? I had the quote from the article and the link to the article. Are you suggesting I editted the article itself?

lol. C'mon face the issue instead of dancing around it.