Canadian girl who's throat was cut by Muslim, sues UBC

No but if this girl was in on campus housing, funded by tax payer money at a public institution and the public institution didn't take reasonable steps to ensure a safe housing area? Yeah, the Uni should be forced to pay out and unfortunately a lot of that will come from the tuition and tax payer money.
What distinguishes public roads from public university campus housing in terms of culpability for misfortunes happening to their users?
 
What distinguishes public roads from public university campus housing in terms of culpability for misfortunes happening to their users?
That a public road is simply a road... black ice is a risk everyone takes when driving and unless you want steam pipes running under all roads it's a risk that is known.

You're living in ON CAMPUS housing there is an assumption that it's a safe place. Not having a simple peephole is I would argue negligence on the part of the person running the apartments and as such the University should be forced to pay out.

@Trotsky I know this isn't your area of expertise in law but what say you?
 
You made a comment earlier that the girl should have taken steps to protect herself... well, without even a simple peephole what could she do?

This isn't Texas where kids can have their firearms with them in their dorm rooms and have that aspect. The student was a female so GENERALLY males can overpower them unless the girl is some fitness competitor that is always lifting weights and shit so what could she have done? Just never answer the door until the pizza guy shoves the pizza under the door?
I'm quoting you again to respond to the edit.

I've lived in campus housing. She could ask, "Who is it?" when people knock on her door.
 
That a public road is simply a road... black ice is a risk everyone takes when driving and unless you want steam pipes running under all roads it's a risk that is known.

You're living in ON CAMPUS housing there is an assumption that it's a safe place. Not having a simple peephole is I would argue negligence on the part of the person running the apartments and as such the University should be forced to pay out.

@Trotsky I know this isn't your area of expertise in law but what say you?

You're right about the assumption of the risk portion.

However, the absence of a peephole would not be deemed negligence.
 
I'm quoting you again to respond to the edit.

I've lived in campus housing. She could ask, "Who is it?" when people knock on her door.
I have too and all the campus housing I ever used had a peephole. Peephole's seriously aren't expensive to install so if she was in on-campus housing then this college was dumb as shit.
 
That a public road is simply a road... black ice is a risk everyone takes when driving and unless you want steam pipes running under all roads it's a risk that is known.

You're living in ON CAMPUS housing there is an assumption that it's a safe place. Not having a simple peephole is I would argue negligence on the part of the person running the apartments and as such the University should be forced to pay out.

@Trotsky I know this isn't your area of expertise in law but what say you?
I thought I was going to have to be the one to bring up your desire for safe places.

"That a public road is simply a road... black ice is a risk everyone takes when driving and unless you want steam pipes running under all roads it's a risk that is known."

The university residence is simply a room ... getting killed by insane people is a risk everyone takes when venturing outside of nanny's embrace. Why are steam pipes needed? Just as with the peephole, why not have a system of warning signals that indicates unsafe conditions on roads? People have been homicided in dorm rooms before as reported on public media; it's a risk that is known.
 
I thought I was going to have to be the one to bring up your desire for safe places.

"That a public road is simply a road... black ice is a risk everyone takes when driving and unless you want steam pipes running under all roads it's a risk that is known."

The university residence is simply a room ... getting killed by insane people is a risk everyone takes when venturing outside of nanny's embrace. Why are steam pipes needed? Just as with the peephole, why not have a system of warning signals that indicates unsafe conditions on roads? People have been homicided in dorm rooms before as reported on public media; it's a risk that is known.
When you're at school/a place of residence you are believed to be in an area where you are safe. It's why simply breaking into a person's house/apartment/dorm room and stealing a slice of ham becomes a Class B felony called Residential Burglary. Going into the place where a person sleeps is a huge violation of personal space going way back to the time of the Romans and shit. That thing in GoT about sharing bread and salt with guests and why Walder Frey's conducting of the Red Wedding is such a big deal is he brought people into an area where they were believed to have been safe from harm because of the food and wine and he violated that.

Also lol at you thinking I'm some painted haired person that wants a safe space from mean words. Fuck that shit. But when you're on a school campus where a lot of your rights to protect yourself or have the tools to protect yourself like firearms are seriously curtailed the university is supposed to be the one that does the protecting for you and take steps to aid in that.

No peephole, no chain, no deadbolt, no bar version of the chain so the door can't be forced open as easily? Yeah, that might not be negligence like Trotsky said but those are still steps, and CHEAP steps, the university could take. I would wager the money to put peepholes and chains in say a 300 room dormitory is cheaper than a single lawsuit from this girl is going to be.
 
When you're at school/a place of residence you are believed to be in an area where you are safe. It's why simply breaking into a person's house/apartment/dorm room and stealing a slice of ham becomes a Class B felony called Residential Burglary. Going into the place where a person sleeps is a huge violation of personal space going way back to the time of the Romans and shit. That thing in GoT about sharing bread and salt with guests and why Walder Frey's conducting of the Red Wedding is such a big deal is he brought people into an area where they were believed to have been safe from harm because of the food and wine and he violated that.

Also lol at you thinking I'm some painted haired person that wants a safe space from mean words. Fuck that shit. But when you're on a school campus where a lot of your rights to protect yourself or have the tools to protect yourself like firearms are seriously curtailed the university is supposed to be the one that does the protecting for you and take steps to aid in that.

No peephole, no chain, no deadbolt, no bar version of the chain so the door can't be forced open as easily? Yeah, that might not be negligence like Trotsky said but those are still steps, and CHEAP steps, the university could take. I would wager the money to put peepholes and chains in say a 300 room dormitory is cheaper than a single lawsuit from this girl is going to be.
I have no objections to university staff freely choosing to install peepholes and chains on dorm room doors.

"But when you're on a school campus where a lot of your rights to protect yourself or have the tools to protect yourself like firearms are seriously curtailed ..." In Canada, your rights to protect yourself are equally curtailed on- and off-campus. I have mixed feelings about this curtailment.
 
Last edited:
You have it exactly right. If a medical professional determines that religious delusion causes him to cut throat then he can be released from an institution once it is determined by a medical professional that the causal agent (the delusion of a religious command for violence) is gone. This system does not guarantee error-free performance by medical professionals, but it is for you to show cases of this system failing more than the alternative (sending crazy people to prison to serve a sentence based on sane culpability).

It seems to me that once upon a time people were sentenced and then sent to mental health facilities - then if "cured" were transferred to prison to serve sentence.

Perhaps that isn't correct and is more of a myth from movies, but it seems to me to be a more fair system for the aggrieved.
 
I'm sorry but if you don't have a peephole or a fucking chain/bar security device on an apartment in this day and age the fuck is the landlord doing? Getting high on meth and not caring?

I stayed in the most jacked up looking Motel 6 ever where I saw a The Wire esque fucking drug deal happen RIGHT OUTSIDE my window at night and even THAT place had peepholes and latches.


And for less that $10 she could have installed her own latch.
https://www.build.com/first-watch-1875/s99772?displayPLA=true

That isn't to say that the school couldn't have done it for the same price, but people seriously need to realize that the govt isn't able to protect you 24/7.


Btw- do colleges in Canada have limited immunity from lawsuits like in the US?
 
And for less that $10 she could have installed her own latch.
https://www.build.com/first-watch-1875/s99772?displayPLA=true

That isn't to say that the school couldn't have done it for the same price, but people seriously need to realize that the govt isn't able to protect you 24/7.


Btw- do colleges in Canada have limited immunity from lawsuits like in the US?
If she was in a school ran residence I doubt they'd allow her drilling holes into the door and frame to install that herself.
 
It seems to me that once upon a time people were sentenced and then sent to mental health facilities - then if "cured" were transferred to prison to serve sentence.

Perhaps that isn't correct and is more of a myth from movies, but it seems to me to be a more fair system for the aggrieved.
Suppose you have an epileptic fit on a cruise ship and knock a child overboard. You are not culpable for the child's death because it was the epilepsy that caused this tragedy.

Suppose a man with dementia does not recognize his daughter cutting meat in the kitchen and stabs her to death thinking she is an armed intruder. He is not culpable for this tragedy because the dementia caused this tragedy.

Suppose someone has a religious delusion that God has commanded him to cut throat. He is not culpable for the cut throat because it was the delusion that caused this tragedy. When the delusion is gone, he is no more dangerous than you without epilepsy on a cruise ship. He needs to be institutionalized until he is cured of violent delusions.

This is my understanding of how things work in Canada. I will link again the summary of prominent Canadian legal cases from my previous post #50: https://globalnews.ca/news/2718174/list-canadas-prominent-not-criminally-responsible-ncr-cases/
 
Suppose you have an epileptic fit on a cruise ship and knock a child overboard. You are not culpable for the child's death because it was the epilepsy that caused this tragedy.

Suppose a man with dementia does not recognize his daughter cutting meat in the kitchen and stabs her to death thinking she is an armed intruder. He is not culpable for this tragedy because the dementia caused this tragedy.

Suppose someone has a religious delusion that God has commanded him to cut throat. He is not culpable for the cut throat because it was the delusion that caused this tragedy. When the delusion is gone, he is no more dangerous than you without epilepsy on a cruise ship. He needs to be institutionalized until he is cured of violent delusions.

This is my understanding of how things work in Canada. I will link again the summary of prominent Canadian legal cases from my previous post #50: https://globalnews.ca/news/2718174/list-canadas-prominent-not-criminally-responsible-ncr-cases/

Interesting counter, but I'd assume the epileptic wouldn't have been charged in the first place and the dementia patient would be placed in a home where he could be monitored for the rest of his days; as opposed to someone like Bobbitt that went to the psych ward for 45 days for doctors to decide she wasn't crazy and released her.

But, let's take your position a step further. If a drunk driver hits a child with their car - couldn't we say the alcohol was responsible? Or a drug addict that is robbing someone to support his habit when he accidentally kills a person?

We don't send those people to AA/NA and call it a day when they are no longer addicted. They serve the full time of their sentence.
 
So, a grown man can't make his own choices and when a magic message from a book comes at him, it must be the right thing to do?

This really is pathetic. They must deport him.
 
Interesting counter, but I'd assume the epileptic wouldn't have been charged in the first place and the dementia patient would be placed in a home where he could be monitored for the rest of his days; as opposed to someone like Bobbitt that went to the psych ward for 45 days for doctors to decide she wasn't crazy and released her.

But, let's take your position a step further. If a drunk driver hits a child with their car - couldn't we say the alcohol was responsible? Or a drug addict that is robbing someone to support his habit when he accidentally kills a person?

We don't send those people to AA/NA and call it a day when they are no longer addicted. They serve the full time of their sentence.
The epileptic, the demented, and the delusional are all not guilty of a crime by reason of an illness. They are institutionalized or set free based on their present risk to commit harm to self or others. Even the epileptic will not be as free as he once was; his driving license will likely be suspended.

The drunk made a sober and sane decision to drink and have a vehicle available to drive. The delusional cannot predict when they will be in the grip of a delusion. A person could eventually drink himself into a permanent demented state, in which case he would be treated as any other demented person, but I don't think that is what you are describing here.

The drug addict overlaps with the drunk. There is sober and sane decision-making involved at some point. Substance use (addiction) can be a mental disorder, but this kind of disorder is separate from psychosis, which is characterized by loss of contact with reality. Both the demented and the psychotic are capable of the same psychotic symptoms, such as delusions and hallucinations. There are people who may try to plea insanity as a way to get free earlier, but picture a severely demented person and you will understand how fucked up a person needs to be to be correctly diagnosed as psychotic.

Drug addicts are culpable for their crimes, and an addict should not be successful if he pleas temporary insanity to cover a high or a craving episode. The addicts can be treated for their addiction in prison, which may actually have the most experienced staff for treating addiction. The delusional are also caged and treated, but they can be freed immediately after successful treatment because there was never any sane decision-making involved in their tragic acts, and so no criminal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top