Well we got lucky this time on the violent young fellow pictured below:
Richard David Barker went on a dangerous and violent rampage in Calgary only a year ago. The other day, his handlers thought it would be wise to take the poor boy out to the museum.Well the nut (predictably for most) took off in the van from the hospital and roamed free in Calgary until yesterday. Thankfully he did not harm anybody this time. Maybe when they give him a day-pass to Callaway park next year we may not have such luck.
Recently Vincent Li was being considered for release. Only massive public outcry made what was supposed to be a secret hearing public. Due to the scrutiny, Li was determined to still be dangerous and will be kept in a facility. Li decapitated and ate a passenger on a bus only a year ago. He is not that old and we can rest assured that he will be walking the streets soon. The liberal fools just tried to let him out when the wounds were too fresh this time.
I wrote not long ago about how Steven Gaeten Lee was quietly released within a year of his committing murder.
This trend of releasing violent lunatics into the public must stop!!
Look, I understand that these people have been touched by the Gods and really have no idea what they are doing. There is even a tiny bit of empathy in me for their situations. That being said, they are still dangerous as hell and must be kept from the public. These early releases and this lapse security on those incarcerated has to stop.
There is no cure for insanity. The best that can be hoped for is that medication and therapy may keep these people under control. One week away from their pills and these people can and will harm people again. I don’t care if these people live in four-star accomodations as long as they are securely locked into them.
When will our justice system consider the protection of the innocent public as a priority?
That is sadly how the Canadian court system views men.
We have seen some insane rulings where men have lived for as little as a few months with a woman who has a child only to find themselves on the hook for child support well into the adulthood of a child that they did not sire. The shaky basis of that is that the man acted in the role of father to the child if even for a short period. In the most notable case of that (I believe it was Saskatchewan) the judge did recognize that the man had not really been acting as a father but since the biological father was incarcerated and unable to pay, the new man was therefore on the hook. Reality in circumstances has no bearing on these rulings. The goal is simply to make sure that some man, any man pays the bills.
The Canadian courts have hit yet another low now. In two courts in Ontario, it was ruled that Rod Refcio is obligated to support the twin-children of his ex-wife who were sired well after the couple had divorced and by another man!!
This could be written off as the judgment of one l0ony judge one would think. Sadly, this insane decision has held up in two courts now.
The judges did realize that if these payments were actually defined as child support that the man may have a defense. Instead they stated that the man had an obligation to his ex-wife’s twins that must be paid through spousal support. The alimony that should have been $180-300 per month has been jacked up to $1500 per month with the rational that she needs the support to raise the children sired from another man.
I don’t see anywhere why the judges did not pursue support from the actual father of the children. In light of other rulings, it can be pretty safely assumed that the real father simply has no money thus they pursued the next nearest wallet.
To any divorced man this ruling is terrifying. This literally means we may be on the fiscal hook for any kids that our exes may produce by any man over the course of the rest of her life. This will doubtless apply to common law relationships as well.
Our courts can’t seem to keep a repeat pedophile behind bars for more than a few days at a time yet they are incredibly effective at drawing money from innocent men who simply bedded the wrong woman at some time.
Where will this end? How low will the bar required for support be? I fear I may let my dog play with a neighborhood kid for an hour and suddenly be on the hook for support as I had acted as a father to the kid if only for an hour. That sounds insane, but in light of these kinds of court rulings is it really beyond the realm of possibility any more?
How do these people get on the bench?