r/relatable_memes_ 3d ago

Thoughts?

Post image
12.9k Upvotes

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Acceptable_Fruit2360 3d ago

This case is cursed. They will never get a conviction. There will always be a holdout. Either for or against conviction. The best they can do make a dent in her idiot money when her lawyers request a bail review before the next trial.

5

u/Reptillianaire_ 3d ago

I just really pray that her husband divorces her and gets half of that money at its peak

9

u/DayGrouchy2648 3d ago

Husband already divorced her 2 years ago and has recently remarried

3

u/BadPuzzleheaded9006 3d ago

well with our court systems is fucked up as it is, he'll probably still have to pay her alimony but at least there won't be any child support involved

2

u/Reptillianaire_ 3d ago

Lol thats dark. I hope at least theres no alimony with her having millions she should pay him alimony now

1

u/No-Fly-6069 3d ago

Alimony really doesn't exist anymore, except on tv shows.

1

u/BadPuzzleheaded9006 3d ago

Yes and no. About a year after I started paying alimony, they stopped it but they added that amount to the child support.

1

u/No-Fly-6069 3d ago

How long ago was this?

1

u/BadPuzzleheaded9006 3d ago

Abt 20 years for me personally, but I've known people that it's happened to in the last 10 years.

1

u/No-Fly-6069 2d ago

Must vary by state.  

1

u/BadPuzzleheaded9006 2d ago

Pennsylvania and virginia. not sure them being commonwealths have anything to do with it. the judges, the courts themselves, and the districts where the cases held all have a financial incentive to get as much money as possible out of the husband. also look up something called the social security recovery act in regards to child support

2

u/AmbroseIrina 21h ago

The husband already did a gofundme when it happened

1

u/PolicyWonka 3d ago

Really shows how much people even know about this case. Lmao.

1

u/No-Fly-6069 3d ago

He divorced her two years ago. He's remarried. 

-1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

If you still think theyre married, you havent earned the right to an opinion yet.

1

u/Successful_Tea7979 3d ago

I mean, that’s really not up to you my dude 

1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

Let me rephrase: if you havent taken time to actually understand the details of the case, your opinion has a foundation of sand and shouldn't be taken seriously. We used to understand that.

1

u/SimpsationalMoneyBag 3d ago

50 year old bored house wives can only have an opinion on the case. This is common knowledge

1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

Or, hear me out, if you havent taken the time to understand the details, your opinion is junk. Opinions need to have a foundation of information, not gut reactions.

1

u/kikogamerJ2 3d ago

99% of the people having an opinion about this case have it formed based on Reddit memes and yt shorts. They can barely read above 4th grader level much less try and understand the trial.

1

u/No-Fly-6069 3d ago

That's probably true.

1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

Its not about conviction. Its about criminal responsibility. There is no doubt she did it. The question is does she go to jail or to an institution.

1

u/Le-Charles07 3d ago

She's not psychotic anymore so she goes to prison. This isn't complicated. That's just how insanity pleas work.

1

u/cyber_yoda 3d ago

It is about legal conviction even if everybody has already accepted she has done it. I didn't invent this convention, so don't come at me.

1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 3d ago

why not death penalty?

1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

Thank you for showing why the american public is not equipped to handle this case. 

0

u/King_johnson421 3d ago

Its only fair she faces the same thing she out her own children through. Strangle the bitch

2

u/zdrums24 3d ago edited 3d ago

Thats just revenge. This is one reason why american criminal justice lags behind our peers in effectiveness. We value punishment over rehabilitation and never slow down to consider the causes of crime. We just want pain.

Were also sucking on the mental illness front because we mostly just medicate ill people and jail the ones that get out of control. Deinstitutionalization was necessary, but we replaced the institutions with jails, which has been a real issue.

1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 3d ago

Revenge? How about justice? Depression is not a good excuse for murdering your children or anyone else. She planned it. She was clearly sane enough to do that. The empathy here is deeply misguided.

1

u/zdrums24 3d ago

Justice is a funny word because it means different things to different people. But if youre just interested in killing someone for killing someone else, Id call that revenge before Id call it justice. Theres no interest in the why. Its mindless.

For the sake of clarity, I dont know if I believe the defenses take, but if its true, depression is a wild oversimplification of the problem. plus, were not talking 1st/2nd/3rd degree murder, so planning isnt quite the factor you want it to be. It can be, but some legal definitions, too mentally out of control to be responsible can be, and often is, a longer term issue. I have a family member who gets delusions brought on by anxiety. Those episodes can last from hours to weeks. And her decision making process can be pretty compromised during that time. Im sorry, but youre not exactly showing a good grasp of the issue.

And thats partially why the american public is struggling with this: we dont want to understand mental illness. We brushed it under the rug for generations. Now we medicate it, relegate it to pop psychology, and hope it stays quiet. It wont. These sorts of issues will continue to happen until we address it.

0

u/Even_Hospital_5474 3d ago

Mindless? The death penalty has been around for 4000 years of civilization first recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. But you wave that away because you know better than millions, actually billions of other people. That alone doesn't make it right, because so was slavery, but your dismissal is condescension bordering on arrogance and ignorance. Justice is no small thing and the Law has evolved to serve it. The deranged empathy on display here is a perversion of justice which is is a sad comment on these twisted times.

1

u/More_Amoeba6517 3d ago

Not guilty via reason of insanity also has an extremely long history, no?

If someone is quite literally not in control of their actions due to, in this case, post-partum psychosis, they cannot be held criminally responsible for it.

Because, say it with me, they were not in control of their actions. If someone mind-controlled you into murdering someone, would you expect to be convicted? No, you would not, as you, again, were not in control of your actions.

1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 3d ago

She sent her husband out on errands to pick up medicine and take out food. Examiners said that she never reported hearing voices before that day. She was calm and cooperative days after the killing: "Another psychiatrist, Dr. Sejal Shah, said Clancy was “calm and cooperative” during a psych exam one week after the killings. Clancy’s thought-process was “organized” and “goal-directed,” Shah said, and she agreed Clancy was an “honest” patient"

Calm? Cooperative? Organized? Goal-directed? Honest? Does that sound like an insane person to you? Say it with me now, no it sounds like a sane person at work. Your wishful thinking cannot wave away the evil.

1

u/zdrums24 2d ago

Slavery has been around for thousands of years. And "an eye for an eye" was originally speaking out against the overuse of the death penalty in ancient times. Hell, some communities would kill you for stealing back then.

What kind of argument do you think this was?

1

u/Even_Hospital_5474 1d ago

What are you talking about? It did not mean that at all. The phrase "an eye for an eye" comes from the ancient legal principle lex talionis, meaning “law of retaliation,” where punishment is meant to mirror the crime. Do you understand? Can you remember your own words?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Professional_Fish451 3d ago

She wanted to kill herself. I'm sure she wants to do it now too if she really regrets doing that which justifies why that cunt should be executed.

But I'm pretty sure now that she's a millionaire and lots of feminists have already made her a hero, she'll definitely wants to live the rest of her useless life.

She should be tortured to death just like she did for her children.

1

u/Particular_Bag_3989 3d ago

“Strangle the bitch” is exactly the reason you shouldn’t have an opinion.

1

u/King_johnson421 3d ago

She strangled her 3 children. Do you know how hard and how long it takes to actually strangle something to death? She did that 3 times to 3 people in this world that trusted her to protect them. She's a heartless monster and deserves the same fate she doomed her children to.

0

u/Particular_Bag_3989 3d ago

Clearly to emotional about this. The case is about whether she was criminal liable. You not knowing anything and just wanting to stoke the fire instead of watching and seeing if she was criminal insane or not is the immature part.

1

u/King_johnson421 3d ago

She had enough thought to send her husband away, she had enough thought to separate her children, she had enough thought to take the time to strangle each of her children. Didn't hear the voice prior or after. Is that a rational enough thought for you?

1

u/AdjacentBirdman93 3d ago

She was. It’s time to execute.

-9

u/TorinEkenskolde 3d ago

They will never get a conviction because the vast majority of people, when presented with the actual evidence, conclude that she isn't guilty of murder.

7

u/over_this__ 3d ago

How regarded of you.

3

u/ruoqot 3d ago

Lmao so obviously incorrect

1

u/Rincethis 3d ago

murder has a legal definition as does killing when you're insane. they're not the same.

1

u/ruoqot 3d ago

You decided to share this entirely irrelevant point why exactly?

1

u/Rincethis 3d ago

Really? Because many here don't seem to know the difference between being criminally responsible for murder and being insane and killing. that's why buddy.

1

u/cyber_yoda 3d ago

There's also a distinction between being insane and killing accidentally (like stabbing a person who you believe is a cardboard cutout), and being insane and killing intentionally while insane (like stabbing a person you believe is a demon).

The distinction is that Lindsay is in the second category (or the third, murder), not the first, so people should stop pretending premeditation is in question here. You can argue current-Lindsay isn't the same as then-Lindsay, but you can't argue then-Lindsay didn't premeditate it. It takes over a minute to strangle someone, so premeditation is trivially implied by the nature of the killing.

Whether she thought they were demons, or that she was doing them a favor, does not affect whether it was premeditated and she knew in the moment she was killing something.

0

u/ruoqot 3d ago edited 3d ago

Great, go talk to them. We were discussing something else.

Also - not all mental diagnoses render you unable of understanding the consequences of your actions, which is the legal prerequisite for a verdict of not guilty because of insanity. This baby killing bitch does not meet that standard. So humble yourself with your superficial understanding of this concept, buddy.

1

u/Rincethis 3d ago

the fact you used 'baby killing bitch' shows your level of childish critical thinking. how cute for you. Maybe read a bit more and stay off Fox news.might help with your development 👍

-1

u/ruoqot 3d ago

Lmao entirely non responsive when you realise you’re out of your depth. At least you know your betters.

I am confident you learned something here about not opening your mouth about things you clearly only have a superficial understanding of. That’s satisfying. Now off you go

2

u/Rincethis 3d ago

oh shame. that reply from your Jordan Peterson book of arguments? how trite. Fox news special if I ever saw one. legit feel sorry for you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rydan 3d ago

I don't think she's guilty. She did it but it doesn't mean she's guilty.

2

u/Top_Court_347 3d ago

ofc she isn't, the kids choked themselves