UPDATE - Mistrial declared! Lindsay Clancy Killed her Kids - I’m having second thoughts. (Page 33 of 36)
|
Originally Posted By Coati: The question is, why would NBC choose to reveal everything needed to uncover his name in minutes? "Journalists" haven't had to meet consequences of their actions for peddling lies, disinformation and outright incitement to the mobs that engage with them. |
|
Originally Posted By TripleC: Fucking disgraceful
If the Left keeps this up the Far Right (normal people) will Gofundme this guy to millionaire status. |
You see that head come apart?
Member
Joined:
Oct 2025
Posts:
130
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By glklvr: This is false. Insanity is an affirmative defense. You'd be surprised! In Massachusetts it appears to be some sort of burden shifting thing where once raised by defense the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Surprised me too! Seems backwards. The Old Dominion has a more sensible treatment of it where it is an affirmative defense. |
|
Picture of the jury and holdout juror Attached File |
"The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"
|
Originally Posted By Naamah: I do not believe in giving the government enough power to execute citizens. It sucks, because there are no truly good answers, only bad or worse answers. But I do believe that housing and caring for the insane is one of the few tax expenses that are worth it*. Military, insane, and orphans. *I don’t think she was insane in a way other murderers aren’t insane. Originally Posted By Naamah: Originally Posted By brass: Originally Posted By Naamah: I don’t believe you can cure that level of crazy. Only confine, treat, and mitigate what damage can be mitigated. @Naamah Who should pay the $1500+/day of a secured psychiatric facility? They're no longer allowed to not be even more country club than prisons thanks to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. So, Say she lives another 40 years. That's $2 Million+ to support just one person who's first question was "Do I have a lawyer?" rather than "Where am I". Add in all the "Me Too" kids that have recently died because mom is mentally ill. Pretty quick were talking about Real Money for these blatant murders that apparently only females, the natural protectors of children, cannot be guilty of. The end goal is clearly in view thanks to the Oprah gang bang. What is wrong with death penalty? Life in prison is only around $100/day. That difference of $1400/day could actually build more prisons to house these and add in more lethal injection chambers to make the namby pamby types who are against hanging another option. I do not believe in giving the government enough power to execute citizens. It sucks, because there are no truly good answers, only bad or worse answers. But I do believe that housing and caring for the insane is one of the few tax expenses that are worth it*. Military, insane, and orphans. *I don’t think she was insane in a way other murderers aren’t insane. I'm walking down a cause/effect/result chain here. At the end, ask yourself if the end goal at the beginning was at the end? No more nightsticks after crappy VHS home video of police subduing one and they didn't give a time window but it changed quick. Tasers were issued. Many people were killed from grabbing wrong weapon in the rush. People moving with intent to kill in order to escape the situation can only be spoken at and it's police violence to hit them with baton or taser when they didn't have a weapon pointed at them. Jail is too harsh and not a place people should be. (kind of the whole point), all the jails and prisons get living room furniture, TVS and gaming consoles. Going from dropping a bomb on environmental extremists to Demotion man "don't go making the criminal feeling bad now..." in like 3 decades. I feel the movie and some books inform us an inability to police was the outcome. The result now is people are shot and killed before their trial, at the arrest point because so much evidence is needed to prove any search is justified but can't search because feels and so assume any movement of hand is drawing a gun since they can't be searched so they die. But using a baton on them is more evil. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By BillyBauer: This whole thing was a cluster. Listening to the jurors talk about reasonable doubt. Since when does not guilty by reason of insanity only require a reasonable doubt? In that case, every murder that the prosecution may not show a rational motive for. Could get off by reason of insanity. Killing without rational motive ie money, hate, revenge or political goals Is irrational to the average person therefore if this defense is used, the prosecution has a hell of a time overcoming the fact that someone who kills without rational motive might just be bat shit crazy at the time. There is always a reasonable doubt of that. I believe that when they didn't get a "not guilty by reason of insanity" on day Three, they just decided to poison the case. They're practically bragging about it and Law Abiding Citizen comes too mind. |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: This is all being pushed with the national feminist/ultra-liberals that kicked off the "Woke" thing a decade ago with mansplaining and "ME Too" and all the other crap. This defense lawyer and Clancy should receive the death penalty because of the extreme issues their antics have caused nationwide. They are responsible for the murder of at least 2 more families of children who then say "Mentally lIll, let me go, I don't need to e in jail or punished". All of them should get capital punishment. If the state is too weak to do it, the judge can ask for volunteers or mention her peers may have a different sentencing. In almost any other nation on Earth, she'd be killed, especially any islam nation, or oriental nation (China Korea Vietnam etc) or Russia and Eastern European nations, lots of African nations, but not the US, I don't even think the UK would let her go now that Islam has taken solid root there. World is full of fuck right now, what is the end go of these ultra liberals who get what they want (37 sexes, sex changes promoted, killing children promoted... What will they demand NEXT?) Stop them now and find everybody that donated to her and pushed for her to be set free and put them through psych evaluations and let the system make sure they're safe to be around children based on their recent behavior. That would be the logical response, so of course that won't happen. The one in Boston appears to have killed her 6 and 7 year old kids because she got the mansion but judge saw the crazy and didn't give her custody, so she wanted to be with them forever by killing and suicide, but messed that up (or more likely, just didn't want the kids with the husband).  |
|
What happens to the admitted perp now? Will the state retry the case while the perp remains incarcerated? Will defense seek a guilty plea in exchange for a mental institution stint? A retrial is what the media clearly wants. Can the state seek a change in venue at least? |
Scratch And Sniff
|
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast: What happens to the admitted perp now? Will the state retry the case while the perp remains incarcerated? Will defense seek a guilty plea in exchange for a mental institution stint? A retrial is what the media clearly wants. Can the state seek a change in venue at least? mistrial makes it like no trial ever happened. charges stand, given the fucked up outcome from the first trial the confidence the prosecution had going in is probably shaken. maybe they offer a plea deal? they haven't said yet. Hearing is scheduled for the end of September. |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: shes back in the looney bin where she has been since she killed her kids. mistrial makes it like no trial ever happened. charges stand, given the fucked up outcome from the first trial the confidence the prosecution had going in is probably shaken. maybe they offer a plea deal? they haven't said yet. Hearing is scheduled for the end of September. Thanks- like most I am sick of hearing about this disaster. It has revealed some craven attitudes and a sea of mental illness. |
Scratch And Sniff
|
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast: Thanks- like most I am sick of hearing about this disaster. It has revealed some craven attitudes and a sea of mental illness. |
 The holdout juror |
Incredible how they're giving this juror the "Joe the Plumber" treatment.  It's a horrible precedent, finding out that you are not anonymous in the jury box, not your vote nor your identity afterward if leftoids get mad at you  It's how the two tier justice system of leftie identity politics works: - Your identity group and your adherence to woke religious views (feminism, race hustling, etc), determine your guilt, not your actions.  Meanwhile: Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Geralt55: Incredible how they're giving this juror the "Joe the Plumber" treatment. It's a horrible precedent, finding out that you are not anonymous in the jury box, not your vote nor your identity afterward if leftoids get mad at you It's how the two tier justice system of leftie identity politics works: - Your identity group and your adherence to woke religious views (feminism, race hustling, etc), determine your guilt, not your actions. Meanwhile: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/144599/1000185831_jpg-3826710.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/144599/1000185755_jpg-3826711.JPG  ETA: important to note, there is no evidence the record is for this person, people can share similar names, and it's charges not a conviction. |
|
Originally Posted By Geralt55: Incredible how they're giving this juror the "Joe the Plumber" treatment. It's a horrible precedent, finding out that you are not anonymous in the jury box, not your vote nor your identity afterward if leftoids get mad at you It's how the two tier justice system of leftie identity politics works: - Your identity group and your adherence to woke religious views (feminism, race hustling, etc), determine your guilt, not your actions. Meanwhile: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/144599/1000185831_jpg-3826710.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/144599/1000185755_jpg-3826711.JPG It's amazing how quickly they went from zero to Ku Klux Klancies so quickly when they found out the guy was black. |
|
Having watched a bit more testimony, defense counsel is constantly putting words in the mouths of experts without foundation ... - at every opportunity, he'd say the evaluating psychiatrists had noted psychosis, when they had not, and the witness aren't correcting that when he's asking this on cross, and I don't know if the prosecution made a point of this on redirect. Seems like the prosecution should have objected to the form of the questioning up front and in the first place. - "[Clancy] was worried that her mind was broken", the prosecution's witness corrected him in this point, stating that Clancy had asked if it was her legs that were broken, not her mind. - and defense counsel follows this pattern over and over. And if called out on it, I bet he'd shrug it off as his absentmindedness/confusion/whatever of him being an old man/this being a long trial/and so forth ... but he can be amazing precise when it suits him - the prosecution was up against an expert manipulator, and lost out to a lot of his inserted editorializations - I'm wondering if anyone in the jury room ever pointed out the pattern |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Having watched a bit more testimony, defense counsel is constantly putting words in the mouths of experts without foundation ... - at every opportunity, he'd say the evaluating psychiatrists had noted psychosis, when they had not, and the witness aren't correcting that when he's asking this on cross, and I don't know if the prosecution made a point of this on redirect. Seems like the prosecution should have objected to the form of the questioning up front and in the first place. - "[Clancy] was worried that her mind was broken", the prosecution's witness corrected him in this point, stating that Clancy had asked if it was her legs that were broken, not her mind. - and defense counsel follows this pattern over and over. And if called out on it, I bet he'd shrug it off as his absentmindedness/confusion/whatever of him being an old man/this being a long trial/and so forth ... but he can be amazing precise when it suits him - the prosecution was up against an expert manipulator, and lost out to a lot of his inserted editorializations - I'm wondering if anyone in the jury room ever pointed out the pattern If any jurors noticed it certainly wasn't the majority, they had a goal. |
|
Originally Posted By Cheesebeast: What happens to the admitted perp now? Will the state retry the case while the perp remains incarcerated? Will defense seek a guilty plea in exchange for a mental institution stint? A retrial is what the media clearly wants. Can the state seek a change in venue at least? If state law allows it, which it should after an intentional jury poisoning incident, the trial needs to be held sealed and the jurors 100% sequestered from media and especially internet. Select different location and get equal male/female jurors and do a retrial without the media circus. Lawyer knew she didn't stand a chance in a truly fair trial of equal people/sexes/races, so a lot of lawyer/upset jurors over a stupid man nudge "social justice this thing" going on and when it was looking dark, some people might have tweeted some info to jurors about where to twit their frustration. That solves both his inability to get her to walk, and the ability for a fair trial to happen in the future. I'd completely ask the NSA to rape all of his emails and social media in the event there's proof of something like that, the whole "Terrorists don't have rights" but you don't know if they are a terrorist or not until you look defense.... |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By PeoplesRepublicOfIL: If anyone ever wondered how the founding fathers created the greatest country in history and best form of government but somehow forgot to give women equal rights... well now you know  Originally Posted By PeoplesRepublicOfIL: Originally Posted By victorgonzales: It's weird watching these dumb bitches online like "you are going to side with someone accused of domestic violence?" Then act surprised when the respnse is " over a child murderer yes, every single time" They had trials against witches until 1878 and there's no way to tell until they do something like this. Of course they wouldn't give them rights. From the first settlements to the last Witch trial 200+ years, a great nation built, then torn down in less than a century after some curious sudden changes in governmental decisions. (Women were just the last bit to ensure lunacy kept the feel good programs like Federal Reserve, several of the post Civil War Amendments went a bit wide, Social Security "We'll never use SS# As ID!!" alive, not the entire cause) "Never should have put shoes on em." -- Jubil Harshaw in Stranger From A Strange Land |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
Originally Posted By brass: If state law allows it, which it should after an intentional jury poisoning incident, the trial needs to be held sealed and the jurors 100% sequestered from media and especially internet. Select different location and get equal male/female jurors and do a retrial without the media circus. Lawyer knew she didn't stand a chance in a truly fair trial of equal people/sexes/races, so a lot of lawyer/upset jurors over a stupid man nudge "social justice this thing" going on and when it was looking dark, some people might have tweeted some info to jurors about where to twit their frustration. That solves both his inability to get her to walk, and the ability for a fair trial to happen in the future. I'd completely ask the NSA to rape all of his emails and social media in the event there's proof of something like that, the whole "Terrorists don't have rights" but you don't know if they are a terrorist or not until you look defense.... |
|
That wasn't a jury- it was a coven. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.. Burn the witch! |
|
Originally Posted By xd341: Well well, what do we have here? Crazy bitch #3 actually caught charges for physical abuse? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Almost as if wanting to let a killer go free is a sign of questionable judgement and character. ETA: important to note, there is no evidence the record is for this person, people can share similar names, and it's charges not a conviction. Originally Posted By xd341: Well well, what do we have here? Crazy bitch #3 actually caught charges for physical abuse? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Almost as if wanting to let a killer go free is a sign of questionable judgement and character. ETA: important to note, there is no evidence the record is for this person, people can share similar names, and it's charges not a conviction. This is probably one of those ^ things the media suddenly won't want to get to the bottom of. Funny how the media has stories it won't cover, like the things google is "unable" to find. The newsroom feminists had a narrative they need to cry about: "hurr duurr a MAN didn't let Hoe J. Simpson walked!" before they quietly let out the part about his race. If that came out at the same time, the narrative would have been radiocative amongst the wokies and they would be reluctant to touch it. Originally Posted By Federov: It's amazing how quickly they went from zero to Ku Klux Klancies so quickly when they found out the guy was black. Black twitter noticed  And there are people who are a bit pissed about it. There's a photo that is supposedly the man in question circulating on social media. While it looks like he had some fuckups in his life, it also appears he was a bone marrow donor, in addition to being the guy who stopped a bunch of feminist crabs from letting a woman walk on identity politics feelz reasons. |
|
Originally Posted By RSG:
IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
3093
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By Geralt55: IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again. Women want their “reset button” badly. The irony of it all, is that even if a woman like Clancy did walk free, she and many of her vocal supporters wouldn’t be able to get “Chad Thundercock” with their age and looks working against them. The attractive ones might get pumped and dumped at best, because a long term relationship with a known a murderer isn’t the most appealing idea, even if said murderer has big tits and a nice ass. |
|
Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again. Women want their “reset button” badly. The irony of it all, is that even if a woman like Clancy did walk free, she and many of her vocal supporters wouldn’t be able to get “Chad Thundercock” with their age and looks working against them. The attractive ones might get pumped and dumped at best, because a long term relationship with a known a murderer isn’t the most appealing idea, even if said murderer has big tits and a nice ass. Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: Originally Posted By Geralt55: IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again. Women want their “reset button” badly. The irony of it all, is that even if a woman like Clancy did walk free, she and many of her vocal supporters wouldn’t be able to get “Chad Thundercock” with their age and looks working against them. The attractive ones might get pumped and dumped at best, because a long term relationship with a known a murderer isn’t the most appealing idea, even if said murderer has big tits and a nice ass. I have to admit - when I started reading your post I didn’t expect it to veer the way it did |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
3094
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By GeneralDisaray: I have to admit - when I started reading your post I didn’t expect it to veer the way it did I worded it kind of wacky, but the main point is that the pro-choice movement for many has never really been about health or rape, it’s fueled by women’s desire to ride the cock carousel without consequence. Clancy being successful would provide the added option of “starting fresh” if a better man comes along. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
3801
EE: 100% (57)
UT, USA
|
Has the juror been doxed yet? Why do I have a feeling he absolutely got fucked by the courts, and this was his way of making sure a miscarriage of justice did not happen? Either way, I hope a gofundme is established, he becomes a respected reasonable voice as a commentator or some other type of successful endeavor. He did the country a great service and is a hero. |
|
Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: I worded it kind of wacky, but the main point is that the pro-choice movement for many has never really been about health or rape, it’s fueled by women’s desire to ride the cock carousel without consequence. Clancy being successful would provide the added option of “starting fresh” if a better man comes along. It’s more than that. It’s a get out of jail free card for everything that they want. Kill your kids, beat your kids, affair, speeding, drug use, etc. you name it everything would be able to be written off as my hormones if this precedent is set. They want this badly. They being middle class white women aka Karen’s. |
|
Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again. Women want their “reset button” badly. The irony of it all, is that even if a woman like Clancy did walk free, she and many of her vocal supporters wouldn’t be able to get “Chad Thundercock,” with their age and looks working against them. The attractive ones might get pumped and dumped at best, because a long term relationship with a known murderer isn’t the most appealing idea, even if said murderer has big tits and a nice ass. Originally Posted By CheemsK1500: Originally Posted By Geralt55: IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. I said it earlier in the thread and I’ll say it again. Women want their “reset button” badly. The irony of it all, is that even if a woman like Clancy did walk free, she and many of her vocal supporters wouldn’t be able to get “Chad Thundercock,” with their age and looks working against them. The attractive ones might get pumped and dumped at best, because a long term relationship with a known murderer isn’t the most appealing idea, even if said murderer has big tits and a nice ass. Many here would be OK with getting "involved" with one of them if they had a nice ass and big tits. Plenty here have announced their desire to have an up-close and personal encounter with AOC's tits it's not that big a jump to Clancy and her minions. I would expect just as many here are able to see the to-the-bone ugliness of AOC, Clancy's minions, and Clancy herself, so that's something. |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By Geralt55: IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. Originally Posted By Geralt55: Originally Posted By RSG:
https://pbs.twimg.com/amplify_video_thumb/2099232254719561728/img/Vcfave6diYVrLFbY?format=jpg&name=small IMHO the connection to gender politics was obviously what they were getting at (trying to let Hoe J Simpson walk), it's fucking-unbelievable to watch her admit it out loud. It's why they wanted to let her walk, and it's why the screeching tiktok 'tards wanted it too. Facts of the case be damned, implications for the criminal justice system be damned, they were in their feelings and they were going to yell louder and louder in that jury room until they got what they wanted. The truly nice thing about a liberal if you are unsure as to what a liberal's intentions are just let them rant; eventually, all their shitty agendas and the reasons for them will be revealed. |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Doxxing a juror on a sealed list is outside of the 1A and media outlets doing so should be liable for releasing that information imo. As a side note… Supposedly, Patrick’s ( the husband / father) lawyer has been sending out “cease and desist” letters to a few female social media influencers telling them to knock it off with the conspiracy theory bullcrap that Patrick did it. IMO, the doxxing the juror thing should be like when NBC doctored the George Zimmerman 9-1-1 tapes. Of course, Zimmerman didn’t get anywhere with his case against NBC.  |
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Doxxing a juror on a sealed list is outside of the 1A and media outlets doing so should be liable for releasing that information imo. They are obviously doing this because he’s a black man. Almost 20 years ago you were a racist for not voting for Obama regardless if you didn’t agree with his politics. Now a black man can be sacrificed to the mob like Chauvin? How quickly the unwritten rules of victimhood change! |
|
So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. You can test if someone is a witch if they float or sink when submerged in water, according to historical witch trials in the great state of Marxachusetts. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. |
|
Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. This entire Arf thread is supposition, and now the projection of the opinions of 3 or 4 jurors onto the other 6 who haven't come forward in any manner to say anything, excluding the holdout from that count. Because someone voting on your side of the aisle is biased and nuts, that means you now have to cast your vote counter to hers? Oh, and none of us watched the trial, let alone from the perspective of the jury. Minor detail, though. |
Member
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
13
EE: 100% (1)
MI, USA
|
My mother had schizoid affective disorder and heard voices and told us she saw angels flying out of the TV and that our Grandfather was chopping people up in the basement. This was in the 1980s before the big boom in SSRIs and modern medicine. To her credit, she never killed us. Psychologists declared in the case that she was not having a psychotic break. She's guilty and needs to be made an example of. |
|
Originally Posted By Justinandfreyja: Has the juror been doxed yet? Why do I have a feeling he absolutely got fucked by the courts, and this was his way of making sure a miscarriage of justice did not happen? Either way, I hope a gofundme is established, he becomes a respected reasonable voice as a commentator or some other type of successful endeavor. He did the country a great service and is a hero. Yes. A name and a photograph seems to now be out there. But, "a respectable reasonable voice?" We haven't heard anything from him. We have no idea what his thought process was. It's all supposition and projection. At this point. |
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: The legitimacy of a jury verdict? This entire Arf thread is supposition, and now the projection of the opinions of 3 or 4 jurors onto the other 6 who haven't come forward in any manner to say anything, excluding the holdout from that count. Because someone voting on your side of the aisle is biased and nuts, that means you now have to cast your vote counter to hers? Oh, and none of us watched the trial, let alone from the perspective of the jury. Minor detail, though. Originally Posted By L_JE: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. This entire Arf thread is supposition, and now the projection of the opinions of 3 or 4 jurors onto the other 6 who haven't come forward in any manner to say anything, excluding the holdout from that count. Because someone voting on your side of the aisle is biased and nuts, that means you now have to cast your vote counter to hers? Oh, and none of us watched the trial, let alone from the perspective of the jury. Minor detail, though. Did you hit your head? The issue is not the jury or the verdict. The issue is public doxxing and media shaming of the juror because he was "wrong". If all future jurors know from example that they will be publicly destroyed for not siding with a certain element of society, the entire purpose of a jury is circumvented. |
 One Legendary Woman Just Stunned Oprah's Pro-Lindsay Clancy Panel Crowder with the ARFCOM shoutout at 21:20 min in. |
|
Originally Posted By PeoplesRepublicOfIL: We revert to the Salem Witch Trials. You can test if someone is a witch if they float or sink when submerged in water, according to historical witch trials in the great state of Marxachusetts. Originally Posted By PeoplesRepublicOfIL: Originally Posted By M855Bukkake: So... What exactly do we do when a cultural cancer deliberately sets fire to the entire legitimacy of trials by jury? Jury trials are the core thing that differentiates a society of free men from an authoritarian state. You are either judged by peers, or you are ruled over. You can test if someone is a witch if they float or sink when submerged in water, according to historical witch trials in the great state of Marxachusetts. I prefer trying to build a bridge out of them. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
3815
EE: 100% (57)
UT, USA
|
Originally Posted By L_JE: Yes. A name and a photograph seems to now be out there. But, "a respectable reasonable voice?" We haven't heard anything from him. We have no idea what his thought process was. It's all supposition and projection. At this point. That’s why I said I hope  Got to remain positive in today’s world. |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
3095
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: Many here would be OK with getting "involved" with one of them if they had a nice ass and big tits. Plenty here have announced their desire to have an up-close and personal encounter with AOC's tits it's not that big a jump to Clancy and her minions. I would expect just as many here are able to see the to-the-bone ugliness of AOC, Clancy's minions, and Clancy herself, so that's something. You’re not exactly wrong, but do those women really want to sleep with the horndogs of GD? 
|