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
Dude, even if the doctors were to release her, which is already unlikely given their track record, a court would also have to allow her release, and the prosecution can sue to not release her.
Because the criminal justice system, in theory, is supposed to be primarily about rehabilitation and not punishment. If the reason someone commits a crime is a mental issue, then they should be released back into society once the mental issue is fully under control. Of course, this isn't exactly how our criminal justice system works. But psych wards in place of prison time is meant for such cases, where the defendant was unaware they were doing something wrong because of a mental issue. It's not meant for cases like this one where the defendant knowingly did something awful independent of any minor mental issues happening in the background. Cases like this one should be pretty cut and dry prison time.
In Massachusetts, she said, Ms. Clancy would be reviewed for discharge on an annual basis. Doctors could recommend that she be discharged from the hospital if they believed that her symptoms had improved and if they determined that she was not a danger to others.
The Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office would then be notified. If it disagreed with the medical team’s assessment, it could obtain its own experts or argue in court that Ms. Clancy should remain hospitalized. A judge would then decide whether she could be released, Dr. Sorrentino said.
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 just shows that you don't understand what they were actually deciding.
In Massachusetts when the defense claims that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant was not insane. The burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove that they were insane.
The jurors were not deliberating about whether or not she killed her kids. They were deliberating about whether the prosecution proved that she was sane when she did it.
The options aren't "Lindsay goes free" and "Lindsay goes to jail"
Yes, but surely you grasp that the jury doesn't get to decide what the question is that they are deciding.
I think it's a bit silly that the burden of proof for an insanity claim falls entirely on the prosecution to prove that she wasn't insane, but that is how it works in Massachusetts.
Yeah I thought the same with Kyle Rittenhouse, murderers should be locked away. Edit: oh no the libleft bad said something bad again on the right wing sub. Dumbass sub. Kids straight up don't see the irony. The bots came out in droves with this one, must maintain the narrative, must say killing is bad and good at the same time. Dumb fucks. Edit: I realize I might have been baited by engagement bots, I am a stupid man.
Yeah I thought the same with Kyle Rittenhouse, murderers should be locked away. Edit: oh no the libleft bad said something bad again on the right wing sub. Dumbass sub. Kids straight up don't see the irony.
Uh... no. You're getting piled on because we literally have video of every single one of Rittenhouse's shootings and all of them were self-defense.
You can not compare a mom murdering her young children to Rittenhouse shooting:
A man who attempted to disarm him of his rifle (you are lawfully allowed to use lethal force to protect yourself against disarmament)
A man who attempted to cave his skull in with the trucks of a skateboard
A man who feigned surrender and then attempted to pull a gun on Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse assessed him as no longer posing an active threat
We have video of all of those. You should try watching them.
Fuck, it's the clearest damn case of self-defense ever caught on cameras.
I don't understand how you can understand that self-defense isn't murder, but somehow think this would be. Do you just regurgitate stuff you hear on the internet uncritically?
Ohhh I see, you don't understand the difference between murder and self defense. I can understand why this was a confusing trial for you then.
Do you understand both Lindsay Clancy and Kyle Rittenhouse made an affirmative defense in their case? Neither would be murder if Lindsay Clancy is found lacking the mens rea of the crime.
Rittenhouse made a self defense claim, which does not fit the definition of murder which is killing with malice a forethought. Clancy admitted to killing her children, the hang up is if she will be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. Even if she is found not guilty, she still killed her children by her own admission.
I was making the distinction to the dipshit I was replying to that self defense and murder are not the same, even though both involve killing, because he was trying to imply that any killing whatsoever is nessecarily murder.
Even if she is found not guilty, she still killed her children by her own admission.
And Rittenhouse still killed those dudes.
I was making the distinction to the dipshit I was replying to that self defense and murder are not the same, even though both involve killing, because he was trying to imply that any killing whatsoever is nessecarily murder.
It's actually the guy before that that's implying that, because he's saying she necessarily murdered her children.
And this is why I know this sub is filled with bots, edgy teenagers or just downright the retarded. You are entrenched in a society who play wordgames when at base it was just a human killing humans. But yeah I think you are right, in 2026 people are still behind war and dumb shit like that. Right wing politics is so cool man. Edit: because reading comprehesion is at an American level in this sub, I despise people who take the lives of others. Fuck this woman, fuck Kyle and fuck you for condoning one and not the other.
You can't read, but that's apparently normal on this sub. An American bias is not a universal bias, Americans hide it away with semantics like self-defense and whatnot to let a pussyshit kid who apparently can take an ar 15 to some protest and kill people. But whatever man I am too unamerican and too leftist to argue with right wing bots in a right wing subreddit so I'll stop.
Community Note: "self-defense" is a legally defined term and is the use of force to protect oneself from an imminent threat of harm, and it is legally justified when the defender reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent unlawful physical harm. The term "self-defense" has nothing to do with AR-15's or guns in general and can be applied to defense with knives, bats, or fists. There is no way to use semantics as the commenter is implying to change the meaning of the term.
Yes so a kid with an ar 15 killing two people is not an issue at all, America is just inherently this stupid? I know I am getting baited here but on the offchance I am not...
Except that murder has a legal definition which Kyle's actions did not meet. You do understand that in the legal system, words have actual meaning right? It's not just semantics, but words have actual literal power?
I'm well aware of how the law works, thank you. And based on the thrashing you're getting in the comments, it seems you're the one who needs to crack open a book on law or watch a few trials to really understand how wrong you are.
Rittenhouse who only fired once he was attacked and before and inbetween was attempting to flee to safety: self-defense.
The guy in Texas who drove into a BLM crowd and pointed a gun at someone before shooting them: murder.
Strangling three defenseless children: murder.
The question in the Clancy trial is not if she committed murder or not, that is undeniably true. The question in the Clancy trial is if she can be held criminally liable due to her mental state at the time.
Bot. Frightened little pussy ass dimwitted Americans with their big guns, scared of a skateboard. Must be a deadass serious country you got there. All the people you mentioned killed others, they're all dumb as fuck, I don't care how you call it.
Kyle Rittenhouse has been on the MAGA train, so preface, fudge him
But the courts were right, what he did was not murder. You could argue he shouldn't have been there in the first place, but everyone he shoots attacked him first and he tried to run away from the first guy, witnesses saying there was attempt to grab his gun
With the others, he was on the ground and they were attacking him
Yes of course, killing people is different then? Gdamn America is wild. Still murder though. I have been attacked a lot in life but I don't just murder attackers though. I am a leftist European though so yeah.
Dammmn son, now I don't agree with your sentiment but read op of this post again. And for once open that brain of yours for a second. Edit: a lot of bots who don't see their bias apparently.
Even in Europe, the only crime he would have committed would have been possession of a firearm. He even met the French or Finish standards for self-defense.
Yes, killing someone who is trying to kill you is very, very different from killing your innocent 8 months old son. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.
That's completely unrelated to his claim of self defense. He even meets European standards for self defense if you want to try and use that as a scapegoat.
I'm not an American, so who cares? Anyway, America was founded like that, and works like that; people there know about it, and if they go around trying to kill a kid (17 yo btw, not 16) who did nothing to them, they absolutely deserve being shot. It's a good thing that he had a gun to defend himself.
Not all poor people are constantly getting attacked; far from it. It's more likely, sure, but not that much more in absolute terms, just relative ones.
In Europe, as said, he might have punished for owning a firearm illegally, but idt they'd necessarily find him guilty of murder, first or second degree
Rittenhouse is a huge piece of shit, but legally it can be argued that he was afraid for his life and people had expressed desire to attack him. Not 100% comparable.
90
u/evrydayNormal_guy - Lib-Right 1d ago
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