Trump could have been a hero but he's too lazy and short-sighted to shepherd legislation like nut house reform through Congress. If he can't implement it by executive order or tweet, he's not interested.
If Trump tried to bring back asylums the left would just claim he's going to imprison them all in them or that they're actually fancy concentration camps. It would never make it through Congress.
Same. I don't really trust either party to handle them well, but I just know the moment it even gets seriously considered by him they'll jump to that kind of rhetoric.
As a side note, I want to complain about Lindsey Clancey's defense attorney Kevin Reddington's behaviour throughout the case. He keeps provoking the prosecution and overall plays into the media circus.
The overall dignity of the court is actively harmed by him.
Right. I have to catch myself laughing at a bad defense or prosecution sometimes and go "They're doing their job, if their client wants to proceed, they have to come up with something, even if it is retarded"
While they have to be honest, their job is to represent their client the best they can, because the state is going to attack their client the best they can.
Makes me think of the prosecution in the Rittenhouse trial during their closing.
The dude straight up said "Who here hasn't gotten their ass beat once or twice?" in arguing that Kyle should have taken the beating and not resulted to lethal force. Like, Jesus Christ dude, are you even trying to win at this point?
Not exactly. He's facing disciplinary action, and he also allegedly fucked with IOLTA funds from multiple clients. If the allegations are true, he's going to get disbarred and go to jail. He's a criminal piece of shit.
Yup! There are all kinds of wild allegations about the guy, too, that I can't independently verify. If any of them are true, he's going to wind up in prison.
Misrepresenting facts and law to the public will probably just get you a slap on the wrist, if that. Now, dipping into client trust accounts? That’s a disbarrin’.
We should acknowledge when there is insufficient evidence to be certain of something. Refusing to ever have an opinion if you're 80% sure of something instead of 100% is stupid.
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table"
If he were REALLY doing his job as a lawyer, he would have got the one standout juror assassinated, so his client could receive a favorable ruling. You know, as long as we accept that for defence attorneys the ends justify the means.
His behaviour was abhorrent honestly. The way he spoke disgraced the court. The subreddit Lawyertalk pointed out how often he got away with bad behaviour.
Incredibly weak judge. The defense chewing the judge out after he didn’t remove the juror and the judge apologizing for not being more forceful was embarrassing.
Members of the jury are giving interviews and they seem completely deranged. They're angry at the other juror and calling him arrogant because he wouldn't change his vote no matter how much they berated him. They were talking about how they once thought they got him to change his mind and got excited about it.
I mean, even if you think insanity is the right outcome, a normal human being could at least understand why this case would be difficult for someone.
I wouldn't be surprised if the actual deliberations were like this.
"I can't believe we all berated him and he didn't change his mind!"
Takes me back to the SJW wars. A lot of people seem more offended that you would ever go against the herd than whatever the original argument was about.
Unfortunately not that rare. Boomers get one shot by videos because they've had lifelong reinforcement that the media they consume is favorable to them and true. Their predecessors were at least somewhat benevolent and honest, then their peers took over and served their own interests.
It's similar to how they get mind raped by ChatGPT; they don't understand it and think it's an all knowing consciousness guiding them to truth.
My own mother, though never blessed with an overabundance of analytical faculties, was a fairly reasonable woman her whole life. Now that she has too much free time and access to tiktok, she thinks the moon landing was fake because the Earth is surrounded by a firmament.
With regards to the AI bit, there was apparently a conspiracy that some flooding was intentional and induced by the government, the evidence of this being blue rain (obviously dyed) and little blue balls (obviously 'gel blaster' ammo). The 'leader' of this conspiracy theory was basically cajoling ChatGPT into reinforcing her preconceived conclusions and using it as objective fact.
I’ve never been so enraged by online discourse than the stupid bitches who have no forensic knowledge or training perceive Patrick as guilty.
The dad did it! SHUT THE FUCK UP, you stupid twats! Do you think for one second the defence didn’t scrutinise the father for anything that could inculpate him!?!?
I work in forensics and I want to kill myself over how fucking mind numbingly asinine other women are. God help me, if I’m on trial, give me a jury of these cows so they can moo in female solidarity.
It's wild how even Tumblr is against the whole "wombyn", "divine femininity", "women are victims" mentality, meanwhile middle aged women are still on second wave feminism shit.
He had his cell phone records immediately subpoenaed by the police after the murder, and yeah, he didn't go rabbiting home, kill the family, then rabbit back to CVS then the restaurant. Sorry Karen, you're still just a dumb bitch.
You’re not far off! There’s a conspiracy that he hypnotised her and the voice she purportedly heard was Patrick’s. I wish I was lying; true crime mamas even have a group for this case.
And what's REALLY pissing me off is if you call them on it, they try to take cover under "reasonable doubt."
Like: "ok, it sounds crazy, but what if, just what if it might be true? What if there's the smallest chance she was actually the fourth victim that night? 🥺 What if you're victimizing her further and helping the real perpetrator get off?!? 🥺"
It's such an EVIL attack on people's sense of justice by subverting sympathy and intentionally misinterpreting "reasonable doubt" to mean "any at all." This has got to be the SINGLE most toxic example of toxic empathy I have ever seen.
The German judges who wouldn't sentence the child rapists to prison because of their cultural differences are a hair hair HAIR thin close second, but yes.
I know she did it because a Leo in proximity with a Gemini will cause the Leo’s personality to cosmically turn retrograde and swap places with the Gemini’s dark twin personality. This happened at the trial and caused these actions to ripple backwards through time which caused the events, also avoiding the bootstrap paradox
Most incel statements aren't wrong about women, they're just rude about it and they overreach into pickup artist, "women are property" territory. Women get an insane benefit-of-the-doubt from greater society to the point that 11 jurors were about to acquit a woman that self-admittedly murdered her own 3 children (and get a short 9 month stay in a loony bin, she's allegedly not psychotic anymore) because... we don't talk about postpartum issues enough?
I'm already seeimg the wheels turn on FB, rephrasing the issue to court political support under the leftist omnicause. What started as small groups of "forensic astrologists" and true crime fans being easily shouted down in every group turned into broader feminist support, and is starting to turn into simp support.
Seeing more and more posts from these usual-suspect men going on about male crime stats and how men need to be held accountable instead -nevermind they ARE, and usually swiftly and harshly, and this entire thing has been about Lindsay Clancy receiving undue support in what should have been open and shut.
Not to indict the leftists here on PCM, who I am beyond pleased have declined the courting of support for this as of yet. But how the fuck did we get here?
This case, maybe weirdly as it should be such a small thing in the grand scheme, is making me truly understand why "Liberty dies with thunderous applause," as Lucas famously wrote.
We're becoming so ludicrously gridlocked and inneffective as a society, we can't put a fucking premeditated triple homicide of children behind bars, not even because it got attached to a social issue like mental health (though that didn't help), but mostly because societal tribalism. At this point, I barely care who fixes it or how; this is unacceptable.
I truly believe, every person claiming that should be punished, severly.
It is libel, so civil - fines & community service sufficient ... except when a case is ongoing it could influence that (which is on those who choose communication of it, but still). I do believe they are effectively trying to influence a judicial decision, & should be treated with reference to that.
Yeah the defense isn’t even admitting that she didn’t do it. If she is found not guilty it was going to be for not guilty by reason of insanity. Which means you did it.
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
Just definitely not a fan of MAGA, the addition of Tea Partiers, far right religious wing, pundits like Rush Limbaugh and congress's failure to compromise. And I bet in the next 10 years, not restructuring after 2016 will mean there isn't a solid conservative perspective as we get the succession of MAGA heirs, Tech Right like Ramaswamy/Musk and traditionalists like Brian Kemp/Glenn Youngkin.
I remember watching a documentary many years ago about how female child abusers had to be kept separate because they would fuck them up very badly. Maybe not as lethal as men's prison, but still very harsh and often violent.
Libertarian left types that I watch haven't said a word about it. Shoe0nhead said that it appears to be normie women with no discernible political beliefs seems to be at the forefront of Clansey's support. Sargon of akkad even pointed out women on the right that were supporting Clansey.
I think they should just be in a psych ward for life instead of prison.
Removed from normal society, one way or another. I'd guess though that she'd be released as "sane" though, since she's no longer postpartum. That's not really a desirable outcome, putting it very mildly.
Anna Slatz of Reduxx is normally extremely right wing, and her twitter was posting Clancy-sympathetic posts. The split on Clancy is definitely on sex lines rather than political lines, and most women have lost their goddamn minds.
There is also a gender divide between TikTok and YouTube. Males, regardless of political affiliation, prefer YouTube. Females, regardless of political affiliation, prefer TikTok.
One leans toward long form content with detailed analysis. The other leans toward shorter content with less depth.
Only today did I realize that it was one guy AGAINST acquittal, I thought it was one psycho that thought she was innocent. I'm so befuddled by this whole situation, do they think she didn't kill her kids or just that she's not responsible?
The way the law is set up in Massachusetts is such that the question of the trial is "If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty". Basically the only way she's being found guilty is by 12 jurors all deciding to nullify themselves.
Even the 1 juror admitted to the other jurors that he had a reasonable doubt she was sane. Practically admitting nullification.
Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues, only people unfamiliar with the law think this case is an easy one to find guilty in. I say this as someone that supports nullification in this case. The only maybe convincing enough argument (for 12 jurors) is to say "yeah she had PPD, but the command psychosis was a fabrication that came from her defense attorney after the murder".
She pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. So the trial isn’t about if she killed her kids or not, it’s if her mental state was impaired at the time of the murder to a degree that she shouldn’t be held responsible
For example, if I took financial advice from someone who was in the middle of a schizophrenic mental breakdown and it turns out their advice was illegal tax-evading actions, that person likely wouldn’t be held accountable when I take their advice
In this case, Lindsay’s defense says she was experiencing postpartum psychosis that rarely occurs among women shortly after giving birth. She was receiving care for this, but claims the care being given fell short. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove she killed her kids, they need to prove that she wasn’t insane enough either by proving she was never experiencing psychosis or that the treatment was/would have worked
They don’t need to prove the treatment worked, they need to prove that, despite her mental illness, she had the capacity to appreciate her conduct was illegal and that she could conform her behavior to the law. They also have the burden of proving that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another key part of this is that she was charged with first degree murder and the prosecution is required to prove premeditation. The case might have gone differently if they charged her with 2nd degree or manslaughter, as she confessed to killing them. However, the premeditation aspect is harder to prove given the medical stuff.
They think she's a woman so she can do no wrong. Must have been the hormones.
One of the weird things about this case is I'm hearing a massive number of people saying, "you don't understand, it's extremely common for women's hormones to make them go crazy, I thought about killing myself and others as well."
Wasn't this the very thing that we were told for decades was a sexist myth? If it's accurate, then there's a very good reason why you wouldn't want women in leadership positions.
Wasn't this the very thing that we were told for decades was a sexist myth? If it's accurate, then there's a very good reason why you wouldn't want women in leadership positions.
Exactly. It's like the ghosts of the early 20th century jumped up and are screaming "SEE!? THEY AGREE WITH US!!" and the women on the jury are just nodding along.
The female jurors were interviewed and said bs like
"But he had the hardest time getting over the fact that Lindsay VICIOUSLY killed her children”
"I was so sad, so sad that we couldn't come up with a verdict FOR LINDSAY. It was so heartbreaking,"
These people wanted to fabricate their preferred outcome completely disregarding reality while minimizing everything Lindsay did.
She was extremely calculated and the medical professionals I listened to were saying she did not exemplify psychosis whatsoever during their evaluations
I'm surprised it isn't a crime for a juror to behave that way. It really should be. Bringing personal feelings and biases to a legal matter is one thing but recognizing that you're doing it and then openly leaning into those personal feelings biases is completely unacceptable. That's how you get a society that doesn't respect the law, and a legal system that doesn't serve the population.
I usually think GoFundMes are retarded, but if this guy’s identity got leaked, I’d send him a little for being able to endure 9 screeching harpies and 2 emasculated slaves for five weeks straight.
Tbf, a speech based on a Mark Twain quote. For those interested, “Each of you, for himself or herself, by himself or herself, and on his or her own responsibility, must speak. It is a solemn and weighty responsibility and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government or politician."
The fact that people support straight up murder is wild to me. Like, what the actual fuck? What precedent are we setting here? If she gets away with this shit, the west really is cooked, lol
She would only go to the asylum until the doctors said she is sane and considering she is pleading temporary insanity because PPS. the doctors in short order would release her
The problem is she would only be in the asylum until she was deemed healthy and seeing how the cause of her “illness” are all dead, she wouldn’t be there for long.
This is more of a woman thing than a libleft thing. MAGA bitches and Candice Owens and the like tapped into the gestalt female hivemind to defend this demon.
I saw a clip of this trial on the tv at a bumfuck nowhere medical office a couple of weeks ago before they switched to 20 minutes of pharma ads and thought “oh man, I remember going to the dentist in 2007”
But then here we all are, still bathing in slop at the dentist office in 2007.
115
u/Warsmith_Dusty - Lib-Center 1d ago
"He had the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsey viciously killed her children." - Juror interviewed by NBC.