Family of bus-slaying victim sues Greyhound and RCMP

Post Reply New Topic

Eat Americanization biyatches!

Why are they suing RCMP? From what I remember of this incident, the guy was dead long before any cops showed up. I think they were trying to end the situation without further bloodshed, which is why the killer was allowed to remain on the bus with the body as long as he was. They could have gone in sooner, but the question is do you value preventing abuse of a corpse above someone else being hurt? As for bus companies tightening security, I'm not sure of what they expect them to do, short of adopting full scale airport style measures that would be impractical and expensive. Riding on a bus is still just as safe as walking down the street, if not safer, there just isn't a private entity to sue if someone attacks you on the street.

Canada appears to be turning into another "Lawsuit Hungry America" in which people can sue for the STUPIDEST and most UNPREDICTABLE things!! !
(BTW to you WP'ers in the USA, this is an over-generalized/highly sarcastic statement, so no need to jump down my throat!)

What MORE could the poor driver do??? Exactly.
I think he should be highly commended for his quick thinking in pulling over and then disabling the engine, not to mention holding that lunatic at bay alongside the trucker and one of his passengers...
Oh and to the people who say they will "never ride a Greyhound/other Coach bus again" thanks to this ISOLATED incident, it should be pointed out that these type of scenarios are, once again, ISOLATED, meaning that they are RELATIVELY RARE. Another pointer that should be mentioned is that, believe it or not, a lot of Coach bus travelers do have common sense and thus know that it's not okay to go around stabbing/shooting/threatening/beating up people whilst on board! Not to mention that the Drivers are highly trained in dealing with those kind of people...
In saying this, I am stating my belief that the scanners and overly beefed up security measures used at Airports are not necessary.

Also, suing the RCMP??? Give me a break. As previously mentioned, poor Tim was already long gone BEFORE they even showed up! It would not have mattered whether or not there was a stand off.

To conclude, I hereby state that the only defendant that needs to watch their life savings in the near future is none other than Mr. Vince Li himself!! !

Latest Vince Li news topic

He is in a mental health facility. Below is the latest info I could find.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki ... 14694.html

This murder is news from 2.5 years ago. I think the family has moved on, in the best way possible, under the circumstances.

Pure bullsh!t.
A bus company cannot be held accountable for something like that.
Are they supposed to do a criminal background check on all of their passengers????
I have a feeling that Greyhound will end up shelling out some money just because they have "deep pockets".

I have not lost any respect for the family. I think they should sue.

As others have pointed out, $150K is not a lot of money. And, quite frankly, we have no idea what kind of impact this event has had on the family. Stress does awful things to people sometimes. Illness, inability to work, etc. Also, I imagine they have dedicated a lot of their time to pursuing changes to Greyhound's policies, and explanations from the RCMP.

Is Greyhound strictly to blame? No. And a lawsuit doesn't mean that the family thinks the bus driver was in the wrong. Could Greyhound possibly implement some policies that could reduce the chance of something like this happening again? I don't know, but maybe.

Also, the RCMP allowed that boy's body to be mutilated. ALL of the passengers were off the bus. The only live person on the bus was the crazy guy. And the police stood around for HOURS while he mutilated the body. He ate Tim McLean's eyes. And they let him. They watched him. I imagine you would be angry if someone did that to the body of your son, your brother, your father. I think some questions need to be answered.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about the family's motive. I think it is only fair to consider that they may just be doing this to keep the investigation into their son's death going. They may have hit a brick wall, and are doing what they feel they need to to have their questions answered and concerns addressed.

People want to think that someone will be held accountable, and in this case as this was an insane person who was declared to not be responsible, this creates a difficult situation.

Huh. I'm taking a Greyhound from Laramie to Denver then back up to Casper this Friday. I'm debating whether or not to bring my knife, for my own protection. If someone tries to pull something with me, I'll want to be able to fight back on equal terms. And if they manage to smuggle a knife onboard thanks to the sh***y security, I want to be able to counter that with my own. And if the security really is that bad then I should have no trouble bringing it aboard. It's a tiny flip-blade utility knife, but it could still hurt someone.

I dunno. I'll probably just keep it in my pocket JIC.

Wow, we are presumptuous bunch in here today. Stop and think a minute.

The perpetrator is a no brainer--but as has already been pointed out, his is also an empty pocket.

I think there is a legitimate question about the degree to which a common carrier is liable for the safety of the passengers it carries. To what extent can an operator of a public conveyance wipe their hands and say, "travel at your own risk." Clearly, if the vehicle is unsafe, that is a matter well within the carriers control. But what if the vehicle is involved in a collision for which the operator is not responsible? What if the driver of the responsible vehicle is uninsured or under-insured?

Greyhound controls who gets aboard their buses, and it is Greyhound and Greyhound alone that has the authority to stop a person boarding a bus. It is also Greyhound that sets the conditions of carriage that formed part of the contract.

If Greyhound has a rule that prohibits weapons aboard its buses, then Greyhound must answer for the steps taken to enforce that rule. Alternatively, if the contract of carriage does not prohibit weapons aboard its buses, Greyhound must be accountable for why such a rule is not in place. Until the creation of CATSA, security screening of passengers at Canadian airports was entirely the responsibility of airlines, discharging an obligation imposed upon them by Parliament. While Parliament has not imposed such a responsibility directly on other common carriers, I do think that there may be an implicit warranty in the contract of purchase and sale that the carrier will take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of passengers while on board the conveyance.

It is, at the very least, a litigible issue and a perfectly proper matter to raise before the courts.

As for the government, I am not persuaded that liability properly attaches. Unless the plaintiffs can demonstrate that the police failed to respond in a timely and effective manner, I think there is little liability that can properly attach. But that being said, I do not know the fact situation that they have alleged in their statement of claim, so there may well be a litigible issue here, as well, but I do not yet see it.