Animal killer Kayla Bourque wants 'unescorted time' in community

[Master 112]

19 minutes ago, AppleJack said:

I am sitting here with my cat reading this whole debacle and I am disgusted some have taken this so off topic. Should animals slaughtered for food be treated better, yes probably. Is this important yes it but this isn't the place for this topic.

 This is about a disturbed women who should be locked up for the rest of her life. She is a danger to society and I will be shocked if she did not re-offend. 

What some people are forgetting is that Pets are part of your family, you love and care for them.  You worry about them, they bring you comfort and joy and you grieve them when they go over the rainbow bridge. So for this girl to not only kill but torture her own pets is very disturbing. It shows a coldness, an evilness, it shows disregard for life. It shows that she is capable of really anything.
 
she took the life of an animal she should have been emotionally tied to, something she should have loved. Why this doesn't bother anyone else and scares the crap out of them I do not know.

 Do you really want this chick walking around alone in your neighbour hood?

she is disturbed and will hurt someone. It may be just killing someone's pet, but that pet is a valued member of someone's family. Not to mention she wants to kill a human being. Why is she out? Do you think given a chance she won't? Then what? She stops just at that? No, it's not Very likely.

 

Absolutely she should not be locked up for the rest of her life. Cat-killer or not, she deserves a quality of life and has no offenses serious enough to warrant keeping her confined somewhere. Obviously her doctors think she is okay in her current situation.

She is severely restricted in her movements and actions inside of her community. I don't think these restrictions should be taken away, but trying to argue that Bourque should be in irons for her last fifty years is just silly.

[AppleJack]

29 minutes ago, One one two said:

Absolutely she should not be locked up for the rest of her life. Cat-killer or not, she deserves a quality of life and has no offenses serious enough to warrant keeping her confined somewhere. Obviously her doctors think she is okay in her current situation.

She is severely restricted in her movements and actions inside of her community. I don't think these restrictions should be taken away, but trying to argue that Bourque should be in irons for her last fifty years is just silly.

So you would feel compeltly safe with her living right next door to you with no restrictions knowing the 'fantasies' she has had. Knowing she killed her own pets, knowing she had video clips of said killings. She has admitted she wanted to kill her drunk roomate, she wanted to kill a homeless person, she wanted to kill a human being.  She had a kill kit in her home when she was arrested. 

she is classified as a psychopath I am sorry but I do not see why she should be allowed out. Why she should be give un-restricted access to the community.

She will kill if given the chance so why take the chance?

It's not that she hasn't shown warning signs, that she is a danger to society, she was taking classes to get away with it for heaven sakes.

a little off topic, but my uncle was murdered by someone who had shown tendieces for violence but he hadn't committed a 'serious' crime so was not in jail when he should have been.  The bleeding hearts ignored the warning signs and he killed someone. Then he got 5 years in jail because he had a psychotic break. Really justice system, really?
 

So anyways just like her he's out now with a ton of restrictions but how do we know he won't have another 'psychotic' break.

and she is  someone who is even more sick, someone more psychotic then he is, so she won't do it?

why take the risk? Why allow someone who wants to take life the option to do so?

she should be in a mental hospital not out roaming the streets. 

The article even said she wasn't making progress like they hoped and she wasn't getting all the psychological help she wants. Was that not disturbing to everyone?

maybe I am allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment here but I fail to see why someone with such little disregard for life should be given so many changes. 

[Dral]

4 minutes ago, AppleJack said:

why take the risk? Why allow someone who wants to take life the option to do so?

 

 

Because wanting to commit a crime is not a crime... I don't necessarily disagree with you, however locking someone up for saying they want to kill another person isn't right and most of us would probably be in jail.

[AppleJack]

Just now, Dral said:

 

Because wanting to commit a crime is not a crime... I don't necessarily disagree with you, however locking someone up for saying they want to kill another person isn't right and most of us would probably be in jail.

Then they probably should put more value on a pets life, to get around this. At the very least she is a danger to someone else's pet.
like I said previously I am most likely allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment but personally I don't feel safe with her in my neighborhood and don't think she is 'cured'.

[Dral]

Just now, AppleJack said:

Then they probably should put more value on a pets life, to get around this. At the very least she is a danger to someone else's pet.
like I said previously I am most likely allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment but personally I don't feel safe with her in my neighborhood and don't think she is 'cured'.

Again, I don't disagree with you...100% and yeah, you are allowing your personal experiences to influence you judgement (we all are, thats how we come to our judgmental conclusions), but I'm really happy we don't live in a society where potential is a crime... every now and then you'll have a case like this, but I think the danger for abuse or wrongful imprisonment is much greater...

 

What kind of punishment do you think is fair for killing a pet cat? 10 years in jail? 20?

[Master 112]

18 minutes ago, AppleJack said:

So you would feel compeltly safe with her living right next door to you with no restrictions knowing the 'fantasies' she has had. Knowing she killed her own pets, knowing she had video clips of said killings. She has admitted she wanted to kill her drunk roomate, she wanted to kill a homeless person, she wanted to kill a human being.  She had a kill kit in her home when she was arrested. 

she is classified as a psychopath I am sorry but I do not see why she should be allowed out. Why she should be give un-restricted access to the community.

She will kill if given the chance so why take the chance?

It's not that she hasn't shown warning signs, that she is a danger to society, she was taking classes to get away with it for heaven sakes.

a little off topic, but my uncle was murdered by someone who had shown tendieces for violence but he hadn't committed a 'serious' crime so was not in jail when he should have been.  The bleeding hearts ignored the warning signs and he killed someone. Then he got 5 years in jail because he had a psychotic break. Really justice system, really?
 

So anyways just like her he's out now with a ton of restrictions but how do we know he won't have another 'psychotic' break.

and she is  someone who is even more sick, someone more psychotic then he is, so she won't do it?

why take the risk? Why allow someone who wants to take life the option to do so?

she should be in a mental hospital not out roaming the streets. 

The article even said she wasn't making progress like they hoped and she wasn't getting all the psychological help she wants. Was that not disturbing to everyone?

maybe I am allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment here but I fail to see why someone with such little disregard for life should be given so many changes. 

I said she should have restrictions. And yeah, I would be fine with her living in my community given that these restrictions are in place.

From what I've read I don't think she should have unrestricted access to the community right now. But I also don't think she should be locked up with the key thrown away like you're advocating. Just that someone has an ASPD diagnosis is not enough reason to jail them.

You don't know that.

Yes, she's shown alarming tendencies and thought patterns. No one has denied that.

I can't speak on your uncle's case, but if you've ever experienced psychosis you would know that it can 100% remove or diminish a person's respnsibility for their actions. That ****'s crazy.

You're comparing unrelated conditions in the middle here.

Clearly the experts managing her case disagree that she requires inpatient treatment at this time.

It goes both ways. She hasn't been making progress but the restrictions in place make it difficult for her to access help. Perhaps some changes would benefit her.

[\/ijay]

21 hours ago, Aladeen said:

Well that's sort of the pinnacle isn't it? I mean Homeless people are Humans... so what next step could she move on to? Richer humans? 

Children, mass murder, etc. theres lots of steps beyond killing someone.

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, \/ijay said:

Children, mass murder, etc. theres lots of steps beyond killing someone.

I get what you're saying but Children can be homeless too you know  

Though it's pointless to argue semantics really and that's my fault for posting it.

I was really just kidding about it.

[AppleJack]

24 minutes ago, Dral said:

Again, I don't disagree with you...100% and yeah, you are allowing your personal experiences to influence you judgement (we all are, thats how we come to our judgmental conclusions), but I'm really happy we don't live in a society where potential is a crime... every now and then you'll have a case like this, but I think the danger for abuse or wrongful imprisonment is much greater...

 

What kind of punishment do you think is fair for killing a pet cat? 10 years in jail? 20?

I think that the justice system does not put enough weight on animal abuse and someone killing an animal for sport or for the thrill of it  well its really scary. If you take a animals life (especially in such a cold and evil way ) it shows that you are dangerous and then you should have to be punished for it. If you brutally murder a pet and then have fantasizes of hurting a human being then yeah the book should be thrown at you. So I guess it really depend on  the person's intent and why they committed that crime. The fact that she got a thrill out of it and that she had 'saved evidence/trophies (the videos) so she could revisit those kills is very alarming. This is not normal behavior and well as some have mentioned earlier in this thread, its shows homicidal, even serial killer tendencies.

I agree it could be a very grey area of law to develop and it could be abused so I totally see why people would be upset by the thought of locking someone away for something they could potentially do. I agree its something that shouldn't be used unless its like in serve cases like this one. I just think that some instances you have people who aren't wired right, who can't be saved or cured or whatever you want to call it. so yeah she should be locked away or at least in a mental hospital or something, so she doesn't hurt anyone else.

 

 

 

[\/ijay]

Just now, Aladeen said:

I get what you're saying but Children can be homeless too you know  

Though it's pointless to argue semantics really and that's my fault for posting it.

I was really just kidding about it.

My apologies, I thought it was a "OMG look at me! I'm so progressive! Caring about the homeless while you are morally bankrupt and consider them beneath you" kind of post.

[Aladeen]

1 minute ago, \/ijay said:

My apologies, I thought it was a "OMG look at me! I'm so progressive! Caring about the homeless while you are morally bankrupt and consider them beneath you" kind of post.

Yah I can come across as a jerk like that

Edit:

But know 95% of the time I am just kidding on here. So most of the time you can just assume that... 

[Angry Goose]

One person made the point that practices are probably not as bad in Canada as it is in the States as far as farming animals for food goes.  I used to think the same thing for a long time before I started getting updates from Mercy for Animals Canada.  It was an eye opener for sure.  

I thought Dr.Dirty Dangles made a really good point about how we take some of our most basic interests for granted, like sunlight, or freedom to move, socialize with others, etc. which animals in Concentrated Feed Operations are denied.  It really is a miserable life these some of these animals endure, and ones barely worth living.

One point about the difference between the serial killer and eating animals: logically speaking, if the point at issue is nutrition than eating animals for food is moot.  Yes, eating meat (assuming no antibiotics/etc.) is healthy, and in some remote places killing animals for sustenance is required, but nutritionally speaking meat is not required for a healthy diet.  Many power lifters and elite athletes thrive on plant based diets, so saying we eat animals for food as a justifying reason to kill that animal isn't really a strong argument, given the facts about nutrition.  That being said, I don't have to buy leather shoes and yet I have some so I'm no perfect angel either, but ethically speaking I know it is wrong.

the other day I was in line at a store and got into a conversation with the fella beside me.  Started talking about what we do for work and he told me he was a butcher.  Interestingly he said he was having reservations about what he did for work, but wasn't sure how much of a difference it would make if he did decide to stop eating meat.  I said the world needs more examples like him, and I think that got him stoked lol

[AppleJack]

1 hour ago, One one two said:

I said she should have restrictions. And yeah, I would be fine with her living in my community given that these restrictions are in place.

From what I've read I don't think she should have unrestricted access to the community right now. But I also don't think she should be locked up with the key thrown away like you're advocating. Just that someone has an ASPD diagnosis is not enough reason to jail them.

You don't know that.

Yes, she's shown alarming tendencies and thought patterns. No one has denied that.

I can't speak on your uncle's case, but if you've ever experienced psychosis you would know that it can 100% remove or diminish a person's respnsibility for their actions. That ****'s crazy.

You're comparing unrelated conditions in the middle here.

Clearly the experts managing her case disagree that she requires inpatient treatment at this time.

It goes both ways. She hasn't been making progress but the restrictions in place make it difficult for her to access help. Perhaps some changes would benefit her.

I am not saying every one should be locked away if they have a mental illness. I have anxiety and panic attacks and that can be incredibly scary and yeah paranoid at times. I thought someone was going to break in just to murder my cat, but I went straight to my psychiatrist and got help right away. I only bring this up to show the difference between a normal person suffering from a mental illness and who is safe to be in society and someone who is not safe to be in society. If a person is mentally healthy enough to live in the outside world without being a threat to themselves or others then I don't see a problem with them being outside.

There is a BIG difference between being mentally ill and seeking treatment and living a productive life and someone whose so psychotic that they have no regard for life and don't get help for it,  therefore they are a danger to society. In her case she is not getting the help she needs, so thus she is a danger to society.

Someone with a serious mental illness shouldn't automatically be locked away forever but there are instances where they should be. This girl didn't just want to kill she has killed. She didn't just kill her own pets, she brutally tortured them and video taped it, and then kept said videos so she could watch them. She then started talking about wanting to kill a bunch of people, and started to live her life in a way so not to be caught. It wasn't that she was just having fantasies she was acting on these fantasies and her behavior was escalating. This girl has already broken her restrictions once and now is asking for less restrictions. You all know she will eventually get what she wants because some bleeding heart politician will allow it then she will kill someone. she should be in a mental hospital or at the very least be an outpatient in one.

The article suggested that she wasn't where they want to be. Here's something that her lawyer said which was taken from the original article which I will replace here for you all. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/animal-killer-kayla-bourque-wants-unescorted-time-in-community-1.3410680

" Bonfield said the report says Bourque "doesn't seem to be engaging in the way they were hoping." But he said the unique nature of his client's situation made it difficult to get help."The system doesn't allow for a very easy treatment for someone like her," he said."

She obviously isn't responding to the treatment that she is getting nor is she getting the treatment that she needs and thus you can come to the conclusion that if she isn't getting treatment or if the treatment isn't working then she is still a danger to society and the last thing they should do is let her have free-reign access to the community.

Which brings me to another thing, according to the same article she is willing to be put back into custody if it means she gets access to a specific psychologist  so why isn't she having access to this psychologist to begin with. It makes zero sense to allow someone who has the background she has and who is at danger to re-offend and to actually kill someone, not to have this access.
""She really is willing to step up and do her bit," Bonfield said, noting that Bourque would be willing to be placed in custody if that's what it takes to see the psychologist."

She isn't getting the help she wants or needs, and she's asking for time to be out in the community alone. She' s like a ticking time bomb. Someone will get hurt, and then they will all act dumb about 'how this could have happened'. This girl should not be out in the general public.

As for the guy who murdered my uncle. His defense claimed it was a psychotic break but we are very skeptical and do not believe it. He had been jailed previously for domestic abuse, abuse he got away with because he had a 'psychotic break' when he beat her up. He was in jail for like two months or something like that. He got out, beat the crap out of her again, she left him and hooked up with my uncle.Mr psycho killer then went around for a month threatening to kill both the girl and my uncle. He told numerous people what he was going to do. The police were called, restraining orders were placed. The guy was not re-arrested. Even though he had a history of violence, even though he had a history of mental illiness. Even though he was threating to murder two people.  

A month after all this went down, he randomly showed up at the building my uncle lived at, went and told the landlord to call the cops cause he was going kill them both. The cops were not called, his threats were not taken seriously. The guy walked away, went to the parking lot,  He then waited for him in the parking lot, ambushed him , and then stabbed him to death. The guy got five years for pre-mediated murder because it was another case of  a 'psychotic' break.  If he really did have a psychotic break (which I highly doubt).

So yeah the cases maybe different but they have similarities. You have two people who have given warnings that they would kill someone, two people who had been previous arrested for violence and (in her case killing animals) two people who were thought to re-offend but because there crimes weren't serious they were allowed out. Maybe I am being unfair or whatever because I lost a loved one to such a violent act. But it just seems that if you have someone who is so dangerous and you know they are dangerous that you should do more to prevent them from killing someone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Master 112]

3 hours ago, AppleJack said:

I am not saying every one should be locked away if they have a mental illness. I have anxiety and panic attacks and that can be incredibly scary and yeah paranoid at times. I thought someone was going to break in just to murder my cat, but I went straight to my psychiatrist and got help right away. I only bring this up to show the difference between a normal person suffering from a mental illness and who is safe to be in society and someone who is not safe to be in society. If a person is mentally healthy enough to live in the outside world without being a threat to themselves or others then I don't see a problem with them being outside.

There is a BIG difference between being mentally ill and seeking treatment and living a productive life and someone whose so psychotic that they have no regard for life and don't get help for it,  therefore they are a danger to society. In her case she is not getting the help she needs, so thus she is a danger to society.

Someone with a serious mental illness shouldn't automatically be locked away forever but there are instances where they should be. This girl didn't just want to kill she has killed. She didn't just kill her own pets, she brutally tortured them and video taped it, and then kept said videos so she could watch them. She then started talking about wanting to kill a bunch of people, and started to live her life in a way so not to be caught. It wasn't that she was just having fantasies she was acting on these fantasies and her behavior was escalating. This girl has already broken her restrictions once and now is asking for less restrictions. You all know she will eventually get what she wants because some bleeding heart politician will allow it then she will kill someone. she should be in a mental hospital or at the very least be an outpatient in one.

The article suggested that she wasn't where they want to be. Here's something that her lawyer said which was taken from the original article which I will replace here for you all. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/animal-killer-kayla-bourque-wants-unescorted-time-in-community-1.3410680

" Bonfield said the report says Bourque "doesn't seem to be engaging in the way they were hoping." But he said the unique nature of his client's situation made it difficult to get help."The system doesn't allow for a very easy treatment for someone like her," he said."

She obviously isn't responding to the treatment that she is getting nor is she getting the treatment that she needs and thus you can come to the conclusion that if she isn't getting treatment or if the treatment isn't working then she is still a danger to society and the last thing they should do is let her have free-reign access to the community.

Which brings me to another thing, according to the same article she is willing to be put back into custody if it means she gets access to a specific psychologist  so why isn't she having access to this psychologist to begin with. It makes zero sense to allow someone who has the background she has and who is at danger to re-offend and to actually kill someone, not to have this access.
""She really is willing to step up and do her bit," Bonfield said, noting that Bourque would be willing to be placed in custody if that's what it takes to see the psychologist."

She isn't getting the help she wants or needs, and she's asking for time to be out in the community alone. She' s like a ticking time bomb. Someone will get hurt, and then they will all act dumb about 'how this could have happened'. This girl should not be out in the general public.

As for the guy who murdered my uncle. His defense claimed it was a psychotic break but we are very skeptical and do not believe it. He had been jailed previously for domestic abuse, abuse he got away with because he had a 'psychotic break' when he beat her up. He was in jail for like two months or something like that. He got out, beat the crap out of her again, she left him and hooked up with my uncle.Mr psycho killer then went around for a month threatening to kill both the girl and my uncle. He told numerous people what he was going to do. The police were called, restraining orders were placed. The guy was not re-arrested. Even though he had a history of violence, even though he had a history of mental illiness. Even though he was threating to murder two people.  

A month after all this went down, he randomly showed up at the building my uncle lived at, went and told the landlord to call the cops cause he was going kill them both. The cops were not called, his threats were not taken seriously. The guy walked away, went to the parking lot,  He then waited for him in the parking lot, ambushed him , and then stabbed him to death. The guy got five years for pre-mediated murder because it was another case of  a 'psychotic' break.  If he really did have a psychotic break (which I highly doubt).

So yeah the cases maybe different but they have similarities. You have two people who have given warnings that they would kill someone, two people who had been previous arrested for violence and (in her case killing animals) two people who were thought to re-offend but because there crimes weren't serious they were allowed out. Maybe I am being unfair or whatever because I lost a loved one to such a violent act. But it just seems that if you have someone who is so dangerous and you know they are dangerous that you should do more to prevent them from killing someone.

No, you didn't say someone should be locked up if they have a mental illness. You said that she is a psychopath (by psychiatric definition this is someone with ASPD) and that because of this she should not be allowed to live a life on the right side of prison bars, regardless of whether she re-offends. I take issue with this because she has not committed any crimes warranting long-term incarceration; because she has for the most part done well in adhering to her probation conditions with like one mild hiccup; because you're using shock terms to compare her to the cold psychopath killer you see in cinema; because she deserves a quality of life just as much as you and I do; and because clearly the psychiatric professionals and courts working on her case think she is fine to be in the community with her current restrictions. It is wrong to punish people for actions they have not committed, and that is exactly what you want done to this woman.

First of all: I'm sorry, but killing cats and dogs is not as serious a crime as you're making it out to be in your posts on this page. It's disturbing as hell and wrong to do, and people who do these things probably need help/to be monitored and restricted as Bourque is. But that help should not come in the form of very lengthy prison sentences or involuntary admissions to hospitals when there is no reason to believe the person is actively dangerous.

Second of all: You are not a psychiatrist. You are not the courts. You are not in the position to assess whether she poses a risk to her environment and whether she can act appropriately inside of it. These actions, yes, are alarming, but they are also from more than three years ago. While you can speculate that she was 'escalating' at the time, she has not done anything serious enough to warrant a long prison sentence. Further she has been accessing her psychiatric meetings as prescribed by the court and as set out in her probation conditions.

Thirdly: Assuming there is never a hope for rehabilitation is becoming an increasingly backwards position in Canada as we go further and further into the 21st century.

Like I said: it goes both ways. I think your last paragraph here is making too many assumptions based off of a limited amount of information available.

[AppleJack]

That's my point though, people don't put enough emphasis on how pets are treated. To me my cats are part of my family and if someone killed them I would want the book thrown at them. It's still taking a life is it not? The fact that she did it not for any real means, just to get some kind of sick thrill.. I am sorry but that's even worse. The fact she video taped the killings and kept them is scary. 

if that was just it okay it would be immoral and horrible and I think she should get more time for it, but fine. It wasn't it though she WANTS to kill a human being. I don't understand why everyone is overlooking this fact, why you'd be okay with her walking around our community? why you'd feel safe? Or feel your family is safe because I don't. 
 

[Master 112]

1 hour ago, AppleJack said:

That's my point though, people don't put enough emphasis on how pets are treated. To me my cats are part of my family and if someone killed them I would want the book thrown at them. It's still taking a life is it not? The fact that she did it not for any real means, just to get some kind of sick thrill.. I am sorry but that's even worse. The fact she video taped the killings and kept them is scary. 

if that was just it okay it would be immoral and horrible and I think she should get more time for it, but fine. It wasn't it though she WANTS to kill a human being. I don't understand why everyone is overlooking this fact, why you'd be okay with her walking around our community? why you'd feel safe? Or feel your family is safe because I don't. 
 

It is taking a much lesser life. It does not necessarily indicate that the individual is unable to live in a community with people.

She's expressed those feelings in the past, yeah, and never acted on them. It was more than three years ago; she may not feel that way any longer, and it's not right to keep her barred for old statements expressing feelings that are pretty common tbh.

She's already in the community and has been for years lol. I feel safe because I trust that the professionals working on her case are competent. Even if I felt unsafe, I would not think that a reason to imprison her because it is not.

once she's off probation we're all screwed though

[Jägermeister]

3 hours ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

One person made the point that practices are probably not as bad in Canada as it is in the States as far as farming animals for food goes.  I used to think the same thing for a long time before I started getting updates from Mercy for Animals Canada.  It was an eye opener for sure.  

I thought Dr.Dirty Dangles made a really good point about how we take some of our most basic interests for granted, like sunlight, or freedom to move, socialize with others, etc. which animals in Concentrated Feed Operations are denied.  It really is a miserable life these some of these animals endure, and ones barely worth living.

One point about the difference between the serial killer and eating animals: logically speaking, if the point at issue is nutrition than eating animals for food is moot.  Yes, eating meat (assuming no antibiotics/etc.) is healthy, and in some remote places killing animals for sustenance is required, but nutritionally speaking meat is not required for a healthy diet.  Many power lifters and elite athletes thrive on plant based diets, so saying we eat animals for food as a justifying reason to kill that animal isn't really a strong argument, given the facts about nutrition.  That being said, I don't have to buy leather shoes and yet I have some so I'm no perfect angel either, but ethically speaking I know it is wrong.

the other day I was in line at a store and got into a conversation with the fella beside me.  Started talking about what we do for work and he told me he was a butcher.  Interestingly he said he was having reservations about what he did for work, but wasn't sure how much of a difference it would make if he did decide to stop eating meat.  I said the world needs more examples like him, and I think that got him stoked lol

Plants are living creatures too.

[CBH1926]

9 hours ago, AppleJack said:

So you would feel compeltly safe with her living right next door to you with no restrictions knowing the 'fantasies' she has had. Knowing she killed her own pets, knowing she had video clips of said killings. She has admitted she wanted to kill her drunk roomate, she wanted to kill a homeless person, she wanted to kill a human being.  She had a kill kit in her home when she was arrested. 

she is classified as a psychopath I am sorry but I do not see why she should be allowed out. Why she should be give un-restricted access to the community.

She will kill if given the chance so why take the chance?

It's not that she hasn't shown warning signs, that she is a danger to society, she was taking classes to get away with it for heaven sakes.

a little off topic, but my uncle was murdered by someone who had shown tendieces for violence but he hadn't committed a 'serious' crime so was not in jail when he should have been.  The bleeding hearts ignored the warning signs and he killed someone. Then he got 5 years in jail because he had a psychotic break. Really justice system, really?
 

So anyways just like her he's out now with a ton of restrictions but how do we know he won't have another 'psychotic' break.

and she is  someone who is even more sick, someone more psychotic then he is, so she won't do it?

why take the risk? Why allow someone who wants to take life the option to do so?

she should be in a mental hospital not out roaming the streets. 

The article even said she wasn't making progress like they hoped and she wasn't getting all the psychological help she wants. Was that not disturbing to everyone?

maybe I am allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment here but I fail to see why someone with such little disregard for life should be given so many changes. 

Not sure if you remember this case, but psychiatrist felt that the killer does not pose any danger to society.

if someone is willing to vouch for this guy, I can't see her being locked up for a long time.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vince-li-who-beheaded-bus-passenger-should-go-to-group-home-psychiatrist-1.2249735

[riffraff]

2 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Not sure if you remember this case, but psychiatrist felt that the killer does not pose any danger to society.

if someone is willing to vouch for this guy, I can't see her being locked up for a long time.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vince-li-who-beheaded-bus-passenger-should-go-to-group-home-psychiatrist-1.2249735

[Toews]

11 hours ago, AppleJack said:

So you would feel compeltly safe with her living right next door to you with no restrictions knowing the 'fantasies' she has had. Knowing she killed her own pets, knowing she had video clips of said killings. She has admitted she wanted to kill her drunk roomate, she wanted to kill a homeless person, she wanted to kill a human being.  She had a kill kit in her home when she was arrested. 

she is classified as a psychopath I am sorry but I do not see why she should be allowed out. Why she should be give un-restricted access to the community.

She will kill if given the chance so why take the chance?

It's not that she hasn't shown warning signs, that she is a danger to society, she was taking classes to get away with it for heaven sakes.

a little off topic, but my uncle was murdered by someone who had shown tendieces for violence but he hadn't committed a 'serious' crime so was not in jail when he should have been.  The bleeding hearts ignored the warning signs and he killed someone. Then he got 5 years in jail because he had a psychotic break. Really justice system, really?
 

So anyways just like her he's out now with a ton of restrictions but how do we know he won't have another 'psychotic' break.

and she is  someone who is even more sick, someone more psychotic then he is, so she won't do it?

why take the risk? Why allow someone who wants to take life the option to do so?

she should be in a mental hospital not out roaming the streets. 

The article even said she wasn't making progress like they hoped and she wasn't getting all the psychological help she wants. Was that not disturbing to everyone?

maybe I am allowing my personal experiences cloud my judgment here but I fail to see why someone with such little disregard for life should be given so many changes. 

We should just lock up all the crazies. The first sign of deviant behavior and in you go. What guarantee is there that these people won't harm someone? Why are we talking the risk? 

I feel this is a reasonable course of action as it will assuage my concerns for my safety and the safety of my pet goldfish.