10 years after Greyhound beheading, family of victim and bystanders still suffering

This case pisses me off to no end.
He was of sound mind when HE decided to stop taking his meds.
I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how he is not responsible for what happened next.
What am I missing? Or is the prosecutor an effin moron?

You're not missing anything. It's our justice system that's to blame for things like this. Nobody who commits a crime is responsible for their actions anymore. It's now become judicial rote that there is always a "mitigating" factor that excuses the actions of the poor victim of society who committed the crime.

The whole thing is disgusting especially as you pointed out he was of sound enough mind to be allowed out in society where he made a conscious decision to return to insanity without even talking to someone about it.

Given past behaviour is usually a good indicator of future behaviour at some point it's likely he'll decide he doesn't need the meds again and go off the rails. Likely when they stop monitoring him because he's "doing so well".

The Liberal judge factor.

Oh noes, you gotta love the trigger warning at the top...WARNING: This story contains graphic details of violence

I hate NCR on so many levels.

It wouldn't be a justice system if it didn't have NCR.

Obviously he wasn't of sound mind then, was he? And you never will be a lawyer if you can't understand that concept.

I'm sorry NCR is a cop out, and because of this cop out "defense" a young man got his head cut off (and worse) and the monster that did it got essentially a slap on the wrist. Less than 10 years? for one of the most horrific murders I can remember? Thanks Canada!

10 years ago I read that he had stopped taking meds. Don't see a mention of that now but don't have time to go looking for it at the moment.

It is correct.
He was taking something, monitoring slipped, he
decided he didn't need them anymore, and then he got hungry.

Then he's responsible.

Good luck convincing me otherwise.

He wasn't diagnosed at the time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/vince-l ... -1.3979861



https://globalnews.ca/news/3243832/tim- ... discharge/



So he wouldn't have had meds to take.

Alright, well here's an article from 2009 that contradicts that: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e17940205/

Changing narrative, this isn't how I recall the story going either. But it at least shows he was diagnosed before the attack.

He might not have been criminally responsible for his actions on the bus but he was criminally responsible when he made the conscious decision not to take his meds. A fact which means he should still have been charged with criminal negligence for his actions leading up to the death.

Interesting that one source means it's confirmed he was diagnosed before the attack. Neither one can be trusted without further information. I'll see what else I can dig up. Cause that's extremely meaningful.