Goddd damn I think this is the chick that was roommates with my Ex's friend..
Posted via RS Mobile

Bat man? :suspicious:

^-was thinking the exact same thing

stories?

what the eff...

she shouldn't get released right into the city... maybe into a rehab/asylum or something, at least for starters.

Yikes... Sucks to be the probation officer assigned to monitor this person.

This is a running joke with my sister all the time. She's a federal parole officer(kind of...there are a bunch of grades of PO) but I ask her all the time if she's released anyone interesting into my 'hood.

The answer is always yes. :okay:

We also have a large halfway house about 5 minutes drive away that doesn't help.

This doesn't make sense to me.. Not sure if I'm just mis-understanding what you wrote, but I've read it 3 or 4 times now.. Still don't get it.

If you look back at serial killers, homicidal maniacs, etc.. they all start killing with smaller targets. (Animals being #1) and they move up to bigger targets. (Humans or groups of people)
She seems to be following the same trend, as she has been confirmed of killing her family pets, and now has thoughts/fantasy's of killing people. With this material alone, I would say she must have some type of mental disorder and grounds should be strong enough to hold her atleast temporarily and diagnose her further.

The bolded to me SCREAMS mentally unstable. I'm sure Robert Pickton enjoyed killing all those women.. And he CLEARLY didn't care about the impact on others.

You're instilled with the premise - a person who has the desire to do direct harm to others is subject to a mental disorder, which is not correct.

Bourque fits the classical definition of a psychopath; shallow emotions, lacking empathy, egocentric, highly intelligent, sexual. The term psychopath is often interchanged with 'crazy' in the English vernacular, but the clinical definition does not imply anything beyond a certain type of personality; like, the term narcissism. A person cannot be institutionalized for a personality type, because we cannot objectively say there is something wrong with it. A person who has a mental disorder has a clear, anatomical defect; a chemical imbalance, a developmental issue. Objectively, we can say a person with a mental disorder does not have a brain functioning properly. A mental disorder can be treated through medication, but there's not a pill capable of provoking empathy.

Some serial killers are naturally sadistic..

ted bundy was deemed not psychotic in any circumstances, he was well aware of what he was doing and was just full filling his desire.

Watch the documentary on Richard Kuklinski. He was deemed a serial killer because he liked the thrill of hunting his targets, he gets more joy out of stalking than killing.. he killed many random people in new york from homeless people to someone simply out and about walking a dog... He disliked being called a serial killer because he thinks its an absurd name reserved for "psychotics"

He eventually became a Hitman for the mafia. He was completely stable and articulate to his killings. He told a story of how he wanted to use a crossbow to kill a target he was assigned for but have never use one before. So he looked for a random test subject in the street, pretend he was asking for directions then just shot a guy in the head with a bow

Some Criminal Minds stuff, right here. What I learned from the show is that people that have a fascination and start off with killing animals very likely will graduate to killing humans at some point.

just because one kills animals doesnt mean they will all go on to kill people.

the justice/rehab system is messed up, but sadly, there might not ever be a better system unless we find precogs (Minority Report). at the end of the day, human behavior is impossible to predict, and yet, people who work the system have to do their best to guess without infringing on someone's rights. innocent until proven guilty

at what lengths are you willing to take away a person's freedom? and if you start taking one person's freedom's away, where does the system draw the line? It's a very slippery slope.

^^ Agreed.

Yet lets not forget about this woman talking about her fantasies openly to others.

But hey it's okay, lets wait until she kills afew homeless people. THEN we will lock her up for 3 months. :facepalm:

I see what you're saying, but what do you suggest is the alternative? What would you exactly do and for how long? Under what conditions?

The only trace of positive hope I have is that they've assigned someone to always watch her from the shadows. Surveillance, etc. and not just her checking into an office every 6 weeks.

How is a 130lb woman 'petite'?

How fucking small do you want her to be?

The average woman in canada is around 145lbs. She's in the average(ish) category. Regardless, pointless question, pointless answer, pointless reason to get mad. Someone mentioned "just because someone kills animals, doesn't mean they will go on to kill people" I think thats fairly obvious to everyone, however, the fact she has mentioned looking forward to killing people is enough reason for some very serious concern. As you said though. What the fuck can we really do? We can't punish people based on their thoughts, and it certainly is a slippery slope. Its scary to think the taxpayer money we are going to need to spend to keep tabs on this person, and still have the possibility of them being a large threat, when if animal cruelty laws were anywhere near what they should be, she would still be in jail.

As small as a splinter, apparently

:joy:

We're blessed in Vancouver by having so many women who do yoga, work out, bike, and other shit to keep those tummies tiny and those buns tight!

Let me guess - your definition of petite is 95 lb Asian chicks that are 5'0 while wearing heels.