Vince Weiguang Li, Cananian Bus Cannibal

According to this story in CNN, the Canadian bus cannibal is asking to be killed himself. In my last posting about this case, we engaged in a great discussion about gun control, whether an armed passenger might not have been able to save the day. I guess today we could discuss the death penalty again, one of our favorites.  I personally don’t condone the death penalty in any case, but when there’s obvious mental illness, to me it’s a no-brainer.

A Chinese immigrant accused of stabbing, beheading and cannibalizing a man on a Greyhound bus in Canada pleaded in court Tuesday for someone to “please kill me,” and was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

I wonder what the evaluation will show.

Explore posts in the same categories: american culture, American politics, gun control, the bizarre

Tags: , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

19 Comments on “Vince Weiguang Li, Cananian Bus Cannibal”

  1. Weer'd Beard Says:

    “I wonder what the evaluation will show.”

    Probably that he’s fucking nuts, and very dangerous….much like the same prognosis of a rabid dog.

    I recomend the same treatment. Put him out of his misery for the sake of the rest of us.

  2. Bob S. Says:

    Okay, I’ll jump in here with something that I’ve wondered about for a long time.

    First part, since murder is an anti-social act, arrest and conviction in this case was pretty much assured as in many case; couldn’t the case be made that any murderer is mentally ill?

    This is especially easy to see when a woman kills her child or children; what sane mother would do that is the first thing most people say; so if a mom did that then she must be insane.

    At what part does any action that goes against society become a mental illness?

    Second part, does it matter if there is a underlying mental illness if the person can meet the basic standards for functioning in society?

    What I mean by this, let’s say someone is schizophrenic or bi-polar. Most people are aware of their condition, much like a diabetic or someone with hypertension, and control it with changes in behavior, diet and medication, right?
    So if a person makes a decision to stop doing those things that allow them to stay in control, shouldn’t they be held liable for that decision?

    When an alcoholic relapses and gets drunks, drives home and kills someone; we clearly recognize the guilt of that person. I don’t see this as being any difference. A person is responsible for their actions, if they can’t be responsible for their actions they shouldn’t be allowed loose in society.

    I think we need to change the not guilty by reason of insanity into one of guilty due to mental illness. Determine if that person was aware of their actions and if so, apply the death penalty. If they weren’t aware of their actions, life without parole in a mental hospital prison ward.

    Just my 2 cents worth.

  3. Weer'd Beard Says:

    Great points, Bob!

  4. mikeb302000 Says:

    Bob, I agree with Weer’d, great points. My idea is that the mentally ill guys need help, not punishment. And as you pointed out, many of these awful crimes, by their very nature, prove mental illness. For them it’s treatment, not punishment. Same goes for alcoholics and drug addicts. A man committing a crime under the influence should have diminished culpability. That leaves the contract killers and the pre-meditating revenge killers. These guys get life in prison.

    An over simplification, but that more or less covers it.

  5. Bob S. Says:


    I think that I wasn’t as clear as I had hoped to be. Some people are under diminished capacity due to reasons beyond their control. For those folks, I fully support treatment.

    For the people that are under diminished capacity that they can control, it should be jail not treatment. Drug addicts make a choice, each and every time they pick up their drug and use it, it’s a choice. That choice puts them in the category of knowingly endangering others. Drinking and driving is the prime example, If I kill someone by driving after drinking all night, did I have diminished capacity at the start of the evening? After the 2nd drink, 5th? I made my choices each and every time I picked up a drink. I made it before I started drinking; I could have arranged other transportation.

    I realize that addictions are slightly different, but they are controllable. To me that makes a world of difference.

    To another extent the people with known mental illnesses that can be treated with medicines is harder to pin down but at some point there is still responsibility. Here in Texas a couple years ago, a woman named Andrea Yates killed her 4 kids. She suffered from post-partum depression each time after her first 3 children. Her meds helped control the illness, but she, in my opinion, recklessly had a 4th child. After that child she went off her meds, was left alone with all 4 children and then she drowned them.

    A what point does it become diminished capacity? This is an extreme case, there are many were the person is completely functional in society when on meds. Doesn’t a person accept responsibility for what might happen when they stop taking the meds?

    I also think you missed part of my point. Just because you or I could never see doing it, doesn’t it’s either a contract or revenge killing. Most moms couldn’t see killing their kids, but too many do kill them as a way out of having to deal with them. That doesn’t make them mentally ill, we just have a hard time seeing how anyone could do that without being mentally ill.

  6. Weer'd Beard Says:

    Those of us who commit no crimes and endanger nobody deserve help before people who cause harm and commit crimes do.

    I’m starting to see this as a theme with you Mike, you have so much compassion for those who are the worst in this world that you loose sight of those who are the best and making things the way they are.

  7. mikeb302000 Says:

    Good comments, Bob, about diminished capacity. I think if we were studying morality at the university level philosophy course, it’s really difficult to draw this line. When it comes to legislation, it’s also difficult. Compassion is required if justice is to be served. It’s too easy to take the hard line and sweep all these people onto the guilty bus, non-stop to death row. In many cases there is no answer. That’s what many people can’t stand to live with; they want black and white categories. But, life’s not like that. What Weer’d said about my losing “sight of those who are the best” because of my compassion, I don’t know. I think I have to plead not guilty.

  8. Bob S. Says:


    What I have seen about those who want to ban guns treat everyone as if they are the worst possible person, not the average or the best. I think that is where Weer’d was going with it.

    Think about it, we know that people are going to drive drunk, we know that people will die because of it but do we treat everyone as a drunk driver? When it comes to firearms that is often the case.

    All of the “reason” regulations or restrictions that gun banners want to enact assume that everyone is a crook or potential crook. Every purchase from a licensed dealer has to go through a criminal/mental background check, is that required on every car purchase?

    Limits on how many firearms can be purchased, “one gun a month” because a very small part of the population illegally re-sell firearms.

    Safe storage laws, trigger lock requirements, etc all assume that owners will be criminally negligent in using common sense.

    This is what upsets a sizeable majority of gun owners, we are being treated as criminal for having a legal product.

    For me, this trend is especially apparent in carry laws, the 2nd Amendment clearly states that we can keep and bear arms. I’m in the process of getting my concealed carry license. In order to do that, I have to pay a $140 fee, submit a long questionnaire, undergo a background check, submit 2 photos, fingerprints, affidavits testifying that I’m not a criminal, mentally ill, have an addiction, not late on child support, then take a 10-15 hour class that also costs anywhere from $50 to $150 dollars.

    Shouldn’t it be the other way around, assume that people should be allowed to carry until they’ve proven themselves irresponsible. Criminal, the mentally ill, the addicts when they come into contact with the law would be check, if they are carrying when they shouldn’t, then they are in trouble.

  9. mikeb302000 Says:

    Bob, You keep talking about guns like they’re just another tool. I think the difference is that a handgun is made to kill humans. Knives and other gardening tools aren’t, unless we’re talking about one of those Rambo commando knives. Cars aren’t made to kill people. All those things can kill if misused, but guns have this a their purpose. Although I’ve refrained from advocating gun elimination and have kept my comments in the theoretical realm, I certainly think licensing of gun owners is appropriate, don’t you?

  10. Bob S. Says:


    Let’s address this in a couple of points.

    First, a firearm is just a tool. It can be used to poke holes in paper (what I attempt to do with mine) or it can be used to put holes in a person. A screw driver can put a screw into a wall or a hole in a person, doesn’t it matter what it’s made to do? Same with a shovel or a car. A firearm is just a more effective tool at stopping a person then the others.

    A firearm isn’t made to kill people, it’s made to expel a projectile out of a barrel at a high rate of speed. How it’s used determines its intent.

    If I pull a gun on a rapist in my house and the rapist stops, waits for the police to come; does that mean the gun is defective or did it serve it’s purpose?


    A right that requires government approval isn’t a right, it’s a privilege that the government can control. Do we have to license reporters, bloggers, or even political speakers (1st amendment right)?
    Do we have to have a license to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? I can see it now, “Everyone pull out your No Search licenses, those without out strip completely and put your clothing on the counter at the front of the McDonalds!”

    Willing to have to have a license for a blog? Consider that your information is semi-confidential (I’m not knocking it, just using it as an example) can’t that be considered the equivalent of concealed carry? Willing to provide your fingerprints, background check, 3 affidavits, take a class, pay a fee to the government just to post in confidentiality?

    These aren’t rights given by the Constitution in America, just protected against government interference. Why should the millions of bloggers have to register with the government because a few post inappropriate images or words?

    Sure, let’s license gun owners but only if we do it like a driver’s license, okay?

    Here is a great read on the subject; Law dog says it better then I could.

    If the license requirements were reasonable it might make sense to say “Register once and you’re done” but look at D.C.’s requirements just to have a firearm in the home. It’s ridiculously cumbersome and time wasting and that isn’t even to carry a firearm, just have it in your own home.

    Let’s go back to the purpose of the 2nd amendment, which are multiple. One is self defense, another is protection against foreign invaders. The “doomsday” provision is against the federal government. How does it make sense to let the federal government know exactly who can be expected to own a firearm?

    Never think that firearm confiscation can happen in America? Research what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, how many gun owners were search illegally their property seized illegally?

    This issue isn’t one that is thereotical ideas and suggestions, it is one that is happening every day in America. That is why guys like Weer’d and I are so passionate; we are aware of the abuses in our freedoms.

  11. Bob S. Says:


    I have a response that isn’t appearing and I don’t want to double post.

    Is it possible to pull it out of the filters or should I re-write the response?

  12. mikeb302000 Says:

    It seems like we keep getting back to talking about the good guys and guns. What about the bad guys? Is there some way to keep guns from them, other than severely diminishing the total number of guns in the society at large? See, my original idea was not about taking your guns away. It was about diminishing the total number, and thereby cutting the number of bad acts way down. If we can’t find a way to do that, I’m afraid I might have to join the other side and start talking legislation. I never thought it would come to that, but show me another way.

  13. Bob S. Says:


    What you seem to be asking is to put the genie back in the bottle.

    Show me any law, anywhere ever, that absolutely stopped the behavior it was proscribing? Prohibition? War on Drugs? Speeding

    It simply can’t be done. People want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys but there is no way to do that. The only thing that legislation will do is keep the guns out of the hands of the good guys. Check out Washington D.C. since 1976 there has been a handgun ban in place. Has it reduced the number of firearm crimes? Nope, only 1 year out of that 30 year history did the firearm murder rate drop & that echoed a drop nation wide.

    Let’s turn it around. If banning guns, trying to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys isn’t working; why not try to put more in the hands of the good guys?

    To me, that is common sense. If I want less crime involving firearms make them available to more people. When people get tired of being robbed, they fight back. Check out the results of every state, county or city that has liberalized their concealed carry laws…..result is crime goes down.

    If only the bad guys have guns, only bad things can happen with them, right?

    What happens when good people have the guns?

  14. mikeb302000 Says:

    I was only kidding about crossing over to the other side and starting to talk gun control laws. I don’t think that’ll happen. What you just said caught my attention, “why not try to put more in the hands of the good guys?” This could make me flip over to your side if, and that’s a big if, I could become convinced that only an insignificant percentage of the legal guns eventually end up in the hands of criminals. I’m afraid the pawn shops, the home and car break-ins, the teenagers who go bad and steal the family guns, I’m afraid these things do add up to significant numbers.

  15. Bob S. Says:


    I wish I could say that getting firearms into the hands of the good guys wouldn’t result in more thefts but I can’t….not completely.

    I think there would be an upsurge in the number of thefts initially. I think many criminals would have law abiding family and friends buy them and then the guns get ‘stolen’ even more then it happens now. Also some folks wouldn’t secure their firearms properly if they leave them at home, allowing more crooks to steal them for a while.

    Then would come the next round as the criminals start running into those properly armed and taking the proper precautions. This would result in a temporary rise in the number of crooks assuming room temperature. The smarter criminals would learn from this and switch to crimes that involve less interaction with possible gun owners.
    This can be seen in the huge difference in the rates of “hot robberies” between England and America. Very few criminals are brazen enough in America to rob a house when the home owner is there, but in England this is a big problem.

    I think the trend to remove the restrictions to carrying firearms would also need to be accelerated….more people carrying firearms mean less at home for them to be stolen.

    Again, let’s keep this in perspective though, currently approximately only 10% of all violent crime involves a firearm. Think of the impact on those crimes as the “victims” are allowed an effective means of defense. I think it would be a balancing act to determine the cost benefit. Personally, I favor people being able to defend themselves. I think the reduction in the overall crime rate would be worth the rise in stolen firearms. The risk factor in all crimes would go up as more citizens are armed.

  16. mother Says:

    cannibal did not kill with a gun. he killed with a knife. even if that tool was intended for other uses. all here have very good opinions. do not take what i write next personally as i am not applying it to any one here. i am simply reminded of some observations i have made in the past and given much thought to. i would like to say this:compassion is a great and noble gift. please make sure that you are not waving it around like a flag to show how enlightened and politically correct you are while spending it all on killers who lack that very thing you hold dear, ie. compassion. i have noticed a tendency from people who have great feeling for the criminals among us do not usually hold those sentiments for the victims and other people these crimes impact. in fact, many times those espousing compassion will have a lot of detail of the criminal’s names and vital statistics, but will not know much about the victims’. the criminals names will be mentioned ad nauseum during the compassion speeches but the victim’s may only be mentioned at the insistence of other’s. this is a grave disservice. i have also noticed (this was not done here in any of the comments) that compassion is not extended to an opposing view of the stated purveyor of that grace. how many times have we all seen a bleeding heart liberal protect a violent sociopath to the public, and at the same time viciously attack any one who dares to question the judgement of that advocate? you will hear ‘do not judge’ no ‘casting the first stone’ until the defender is questioned. then those convenient parables and contextually inaccurate phrases go out the window. anyone witnessed what i have?
    as applied to these comments, you are all giving this horrendous, violent trend in our society great thought. one thing, though. that poor canadian boy was not safely in a university level philosophy course able to banter and discourse in an enlightened, well-fed intellectual forum. he was dealing with a real life psychopath and all the inherent danger that goes with it. he was helplessly asleep and much smaller than the cannibal. reality bites not just in theory. all of the sane and safe rationalizations on criminality, spectrum, psychoses and reaction/remedies for the good of the hegemenical ladder fly out the window when you are walking in the dust outside of the barrier of walls and locked doors. unfortunately, i know this up front and personal. born and raised in a violent dark hole with 2 very mentally ill individuals. no poor me, that is not what i am saying. i love life. i am able though to tell you about impact, effect and personal responsibility from a 1st hand experiential perspective. along with rights and compassion comes responsibility. and that is true of the criminals and society in their support and reactions to the victims.
    this was a ramble of my OHP. forgive misapplied generalizations and run on paragraphs. i am tired. i will leave with this thought. this is for america. do not kick the bodies of the victims laying on the floor as you step over them in your self aggrandizing dash to spout to the world how compassionate you are toward the aggressors. the victims just might be alive to feel that final kick to their rights and dignity.

  17. mikeb302000 Says:

    Dear Mother, This post continues to get hits, but you’re the first to comment on it in a couple months. I hear what you’re saying about the compassion for criminals not being extended to their victims in many cases. I guess that’s true, not in my case I honestly feel, but perhaps in some others. Yet, I wonder if it’s often just a simple question of what is it we’re talking about at the time. I mean, when I’m writing about the criminal whose rights are being ignored, I’m talking about the criminal. I’m not talking about the starving children in Africa, nor am I talking about the victim of this particular criminal’s crime. That doesn’t mean I don’t also have compassion for that victim any more than it means I don’t care about the starving children in Africa.

    I’ve noticed that instead of responding to my questions about rigged trials, unfair treatment in jail, about mitigating circumstances like childhood abuse, about capital punishment itself, some of my antagonists say I’m not compassionate towards the victims but only towards the killer. Whether I am or not is besides the point, if the point is about the criminal, and besides I say it’s just not true in my case.

  18. mother Says:

    to mikeb. you are correct. i was just browsing after a day on the swings shift keeping america safe. if you notice in my last post,i specifically stated that this was not directed at anyone on this blog. it really was not intended for you or anyne there. you guys simply prompted my own observations correlated to this subject. antagonist? good lord, no. not here. a blog is not something to get antagonistic about. you might have some antagonists as all opinion bloggers do. but, hey, that is an open forum. if i had been in opposition i simply would have left this site. disagreeing is not antagonizing. but you did not say i did, you were making an observation.
    as far as starving children in africa, of course you are compassionate towards them. most feeling humans are, and would be hard pressed not to be. i have no doubt you are not coldhearted. read the last stement of my last comment. it truly was intended for america.
    now, if we are comparing people’s comapssion meter in regards to starving children anywhere in the world and the many (but not all) sociopaths in prison, the criminals get lesser response. that is due to the nature of a sociopath and what they usually are and have been capable of to their victims. from reading your posts, i am sure you are well aware as to what a true sociopath is. if not, place sociopath in a google url and you will be surprised (although i doubt it, you study social science quite a bit, don’t you?)
    am i cognizant of slanted trials, the different standards of justice meted out to the wealthy and the poor or indigent, of the sociopaths and psychopaths wearing uniforms in charge of the keys to the cells that hold someone who may be unhardened and salvageable, locked up because, quite frankly, given the hell on earth they endured all of their lives what other choices could they have possibly made? you better believe it. but i am not willing to make them the focal point of my compassion or attention at the disrespect and cost of their victims, no matter how hard their life was. if you do not believe that criminals are way too often made cause celebs and their victims ignored, ridiculed or slapped in the face from people trying to show how enlightened and compassionate they are, well, then we will agree to disagree. it happens way too much. and again, i really never did think you did that. you have touched on too many points for me to dismiss you as a radical or as an antagonist.
    one point i read on one of your blogs, it was other than this one, was do not mention the name of the perpetrator too much. take away some of their notoriety. good idea. mention the names of the survivors and focus on them more. i agree. whoever said it, good point.\.
    the survivors should be the focus of compassion 1st and foremost. unfortunately, i have personally witnessed anger and contempt being flung at their faces, not to mention slander and blame the victim. this is from those screaming about compassion the loudest. if you have not seen this as much as i have, please, just give me one moment of the benefit of the doubt to ask you to maybe look again. perhaps you have not witnessed what i have. but i’m telling you, not preaching at you, that it is a valid phenomenon. i lived the terror and survived and i have a different perspective. that does not mean the criminals do not get any compassion and consideration from myself, it is as you said regarding what we are talking about at the time. i am now talking about the survivors more than the criminals at this moment.
    as far as having the compassion focused on the criminals negating the innocent, as you have stated, and i observed on this blog, no one here did that. i was making this point; if you were to narrow it down , no gerneralizing is needed. specific cases being discussed at a specific time, without the ramification of any other cases still yield a higher ratio of disregard for the victim, verbalized by none other than so called activists.
    like starving children in africa, you’d have to be hard pressed not to feel comapssion for some of these convicted men and women in our jails and prisons when you see just how undernourished they are in their bodies, spirits, and minds. on some, it is like seeing torture survivors, PTSD all the way. also, many of us come from similar backgrounds, some even worse. but many of us still have resisted psychopathy and sociopathy. so many times, it is a choice. just for me to clarify for posterity, shizoid spectrums, depression, bi-polar, etc. are not choices. they never will be choices. they are illnesses of the organic organ we call the brain. to any antagonists “I” may have, i do know that very well. i protected one such person all through my youth.
    as stated above, since i was born into it, i can internalize and process the consequences of poverty and the colorless, blurred alternate world known as the ghetto. you can probably discern, from what i have discussed, of to who and what i am referring when i speak of choosing socialization and lawfulness towards the rights of the abiding citizen, as opposed to those who choose to trample. this trend of ‘ no one is accountable for actions it is something or someone else’s fault’ is a dangerous thing and bespeaks the true exploitative agenda of the bleeding heart. it ihas gotten late, i am done in. and i have enjoyed reading all of you.
    thank you for allowing my rambling and processing of my own schemas. has anyone out there observed that to which i have referred? if anyone wants to reply, i’d love to talk to you.

  19. mikeb302000 Says:


    Thanks for your comment, which I must say really challenged my attention span. What you said though struck me as the best description yet of the dilemma we face when bewailing the plight of convicted murderers yet still wanting to be considerate of the victims and their families. After reading your comment, I honestly think I’ll be better at that.

    I tried to move the conversation over to

    the new blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: