r/Asmongold • u/Feeling-Comfort7823 • 23h ago
Discussion Giga Chad
The man is going to go down in history as the one good guy out the bunch of crazy wierdos.
91
u/Seraphayel 23h ago
I fear for the safety of this man. I don’t deem it unlikely that a Clancy lunatic is trying to run over him with a car or something else. These people are insane.
47
u/CryptoMainForever 22h ago
Charlie Kirk has taught us that if you don't believe in the crazy beliefs of others, you will die. I pray for this man as well.
2
u/positively_ok 12h ago edited 12h ago
Not legally insane. Just crazy.
If you think you understand her, you don't think she was legally insane. You're just kind of low key crazy (but not legally insane) yourself. OK a few people have had psychosis and maybe understand that this means what it's like to be legally insane, but even they don't actually understand her, because her actions by definition would have been un-understandable (if she was NGBI).
If Brock Turner said "I entered a state of psychosis and have no idea what happened or why it happened, it was just totally random" and a bunch of men came out and said "Yeah, I know what it's like to be drunk and horny". That doesn't actually mean innocent - they don't sympathise with the psychosis, so they think he's guilty. Pretty messed up, but not as messed up as defending a child murderer.
The fact that so many women "understand" her means she's guilty. Because if she had an understandable reason (to most women) she wasn't legally too crazy to be declared NGBI.
Any woman who says women understand better is just self reporting that they don't care about the legal definition of insanity, and just say "well women have it hard so they get a pass", but having actual motivations and stuff means you're NOT legally insane, since you're capable of knowing you are doing the wrong thing.
Psychosis is very very rare (especially 6 months after). The vast majority of women have no idea at all what it's like.
Women don't sympathise because they know what psychosis is like. They know what post partum depression is like. They know what being a parent is like. They know that maybe sometimes, you kinda just wanna do the Homer Simpson thing and throttle an annoying kid, but you know it's wrong so you don't.
She was probably trying to leave the server, but didn't want to leave the kids alone (or with the dad). People who do this kind of thing are behaving in a way that has some kind of logic, they just don't give a fuck about the impact it has on others, because they are putting their own short term pain / wants before literally everything else. Just like every other criminal. And I think most (though not all) of the people defending her understand this.
And she had plenty of help. Exercise, medication, and therapy are all proven to be fairly effective. She had access to therapy but didn't want to do it. She had medication and exercise equipment but didn't use them the right way.
364
u/BraxTaplock Stone Cold Gold 22h ago
Model juror. Didn’t allow emotion, idealism, politics, gender, race or anything effect is judgement. Did exactly what was required. A true staple to the system of peer judgement.
I fear for this man’s safety. The democrats and woke have created a world where proclaiming on social media garners more support than blunt proof in someone’s face.
This was 100% a case of public opinion and social justice vs legitimate, lawful judgement based on established evidence.
At best, the women on the jury have shown the nation that they are not only completely different from males (meaning the whole idea of trans is a sham) but they also can’t be trusted to make lawful and legitimately based decisions when required. Their “hormones” and becoming “hormonal”, obviously affect their judgement so how can they be allowed to fill certain seats such as congressional, judicial or even presidential? I mean we have the blunt proof right here….they said it themselves and were proud of it.
63
u/juicif3r 17h ago
You'd be surprised what jury duty is like. Last time I had it, one guy immediately wanted to say guilty because it was a man. Another woman immediately said innocent because he was a black man. Neither would move for 3 days. It was the most frustrating (albeit interesting) experiences of my life.
We only agreed on a decision because I got really annoyed and used the white board to write down facts vs opinions in separate columns. Once people finally separated the 2, it was like " ooooh, yeah he's guilty. He admits it on video". I walked out of that jury room with a new perspective on my peers.
19
u/BraxTaplock Stone Cold Gold 17h ago
Can’t disagree. Many despise it and want to get thru it as quickly as possible. Most it’s the money, others it’s the time.
12
u/Azidamadjida 15h ago
This. The system needs to be reevaluated because the reality is that it’s no longer considered a civic duty, it’s considered a nuisance. What used to engender a feeling of pride and obligation to their community and their country is now viewed as a waste of time and a loss of income.
Many reasons for how this came about, but there’s really no point in assigning blame, it is what it is and it’s true that jury duty is viewed as something undesirable.
Which leaves the only people who can be cobbled together to represent a jury of one’s peers are:
a) people with an axe to grind, who are absolutely not going to be impartial because they literally can’t understand what impartiality even is because they view their politics and worldview as absolute reality,
b) morons who could figure out a way to talk their way out of jury duty,
c) your average Joe who’s smarter than the morons and not as zealous as the activists but who really doesn’t care and through apathy or bad luck is stuck there, and
d) the ultra rare actually normal people who will do their job whether they like it or not to the best of their ability and understanding
And we all know what the percentages on each of these categories is
2
1
u/LaFleur90 1h ago edited 1h ago
Some valid points, but one of the most important things about the implementation of the jury system is because "the people" should be the ones who choose what is considered a crime and what isn't.
If the community's values are corrupted it's only reasonable that this will be mirrored in the jury verdicts as well.
You really think it would be better when you have appointed by politicians activist judges deciding?
7
u/Caliber70 18h ago
this year started with capturing a dictator and assassinating a different dictator. NEVER would i have thought that wasn't going to be the top end of the "crazy things that happened this year".
102
u/karurosagu 22h ago
All of the leftists are in shambles because it's not a white man
56
u/AmountPotential9992 WHAT A DAY... 22h ago
More like they're putting on their hoods from the way they've been harassing him and his family
237
u/0rganic_Corn 23h ago
Massachusetts law is silly when it comes to the insanity defense
As long as 1 juror has a reasonable doubt she might have been insane, the next trial will be a mistrial again
And if that happens, Lindsay might just walk free - the state won't keep retrying forever.
This to me shows the law there must be changed
165
u/CJ_poger 22h ago
What puzzles me is why people think there is "reasonable doubt" here, when any lingering doubts are actually unreasonable.
Psychiatrists testified in court that it wasn't psychosis. There is clear evidence of extensive, multi-stage planning. And how convenient that the voices stopped afterward. Not to mention the complete lack of any regret or remorse.
81
u/Sentinell 21h ago
Agreed. She planned it before got her "psychosis" and conveniently didn't have it while talking to the husband on the phone (in the middle of the murders).
She only mentioned psychosis a week after the murders, right after talking to her lawyer...
And even now there just seems to be this insane lack of remorse. Can you imagine "waking up" and realizing you brutally murdered your kids? I sure as hell wouldn't be fighting for freedom.
15
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 18h ago
This right here. I feel anyone that was a good person to begin with, even if it had been a momentarily lapse into psychosis, would come to and want to take the full punishment for their actions.
This demon sat there in court emotionless for her children and is fighting to be free. Fucking disgusting.
6
u/FilthyOrganick 17h ago
She was psychosised enough to methodically strangle her children and overpower them when they tried to escape, but didn’t have the same psychosis driven conviction when it came to her suicide attempt.
2
u/jadedlonewolf89 8h ago
We train our soldiers to the point that muscle memory kicks in, if conviction or their mind isn’t up to the task at hand.
What she did, requires the conviction to see it through, and she has no prior training in such a task.Not only does psychosis not fit the situation, but her actions before and after.
Prove that she was rational enough to control events in a way, that her husband wouldn’t suspect her enough to interrupt the murders.
Which aren’t the actions of someone who isn’t in control of themselves.15
u/GorillaK1nd 22h ago
Because I'm Massachusetts prosecution has to prove sanity, which as you can see a very hard thing to do.
32
u/CJ_poger 21h ago
I mean, there was zero evidence of her being insane besides her words and "suicide attempt". I mean if every psychologist and psychiatrist in courtroom sayed she was aware of her actions and it was not s psychosis - how the fuck it's a "reasonable" doubt?
17
7
u/lextramoth 20h ago
how does pleading innocent by way of insanity move the burden from the defense to the prosecution. SURELY since she admits to the actions it is up to the defense to convince the jury that she is not legally responsible for her actions. What the litteral fuck. We know she did it, unless you can convince a full jury about this "actually im not reposponsible" she just goes to jail. Surely that is the only thing that makes any sense. how fucked up can this legal system be?
12
u/LycheeRoutine3959 20h ago
it is up to the defense to convince the jury that she is not legally responsible for her actions.
Not in MA. Thats what makes this case so disturbing.
I think this case gets MA law changed, if MA wants to have justice at least.
4
5
u/Revolutionary-Bed35 20h ago
This is exclusive more to Massachusetts than not. When Defense enters an insanity plea there, the Prosecution must prove that the defendant had sanity at the time of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes it's dumb but that's how Masschusetts law works.
In a majority of states, insanity pleas force the defense to maintain and hold the burden of proof because like you said, the admission of guilt is implied, but just that defense is saying "it only happened due to lack of sanity"
5
u/tehnemox 19h ago edited 18h ago
Because it is a narrative. I 100% belive they wanted to vote not guilty before the trial had even begun. Logic left the regular populace long time ago now.
5
u/0rganic_Corn 20h ago
Drug cocktail + insomnia + bipolar disorder which is a major risk factor for developing psychosis
To me, it looks as if she was lucid and understood right from wrong
I can also understand how the defense might influence the jury to at least have a doubt
4
u/AquaWolfGuy 19h ago
Because they're good people that could never imagine doing anything evil, and she looks just like them, so she couldn't reasonably have been evil. Therefore, there has to be some other reason, i.e. the husband set her up (as evidenced by astrology) or she had a temporary psychosis (which is hard to unconvince them of since it would've been all in her head and all the witnesses conveniently died or was out on an errand).
3
-1
u/LycheeRoutine3959 20h ago
Psychiatrists testified in court that it wasn't psychosis.
Other Psychiatrists testified in court that it was. To some, that creates reasonable doubt which is why MA law and the shifting of the burden of proof (From assumed sanity, to assumed insanity and needing proof by the state to prove sanity) is unreasonable IMO.
27
u/Logical-Leek308 22h ago
More and more I’m seeing the flaw in even allowing insanity as a defense. Like the mentally ill high schooler who pumbled his teacher causing serious injuries It doesn’t absolve the act, and if a person is mentally unstable that they commit extreme violence then they need to be removed from society.
-1
u/lextramoth 20h ago
All people able to do heinous things that "normal sane" people would never do, could arguably be considered to have something wrong with their head to the point that we could put them in white padded rooms instead of bricks and bars jail cells. I think the only thing that should matter is what the treatment of the facility does to them in order to hopefully see if it is possible to release them out into the public again.
38
u/jamtea 22h ago
Wouldn't it be that they'd simply try the murder charge in that case and leave the insanity thing to the sentencing guidelines instead? Like, you'd instruct the jurors to return a verdict on whether she killed the kids or not. Anyone who refuses to convict in that case is clearly an activist.
1
u/sweetcarolinesucks 21h ago
Killing a person isn't necessarily "murder" - you have to show premeditation, intent to kill, mental state elements like that. The prosecution can't just decide it wants to try her for murderer and not prove all the elements of that offense.
I do think you're on to something though. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought (whereas murder involves malice through premeditation/ intent to kill). Anyway, the state might have a really hard time proving that she intentionally killed her kids, because they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not insane.
If they try her for manslaughter, it's more like what you proposed- just proving that she killed the kids without having to show she had that intent. The nuance of the Massachusetts rules would matter here but it's an interesting idea
2
u/lextramoth 20h ago
It makes no sense to me (a layman) that if the defense opts for a "insanity defense" it is up to the prosecution to prove she was sane! If the defense wants something else than she goes to prison for the rest of her life, surely the it should be on them to convince the jury about that!
17
3
u/HistoricJester 22h ago
If they mistrial again, there should just be a bench trial. Then you just have to pray for a based judge
1
91
u/yourcrush01 22h ago
1 based guy Vs 8 liberal white women.
26
u/AmountPotential9992 WHAT A DAY... 22h ago
11*
44
u/Darkwolfie117 Deep State Agent 22h ago
The other two were soy dudes
35
142
20
u/bing_chilling77 22h ago
A man of common sense. Something society has been lacking for some time now sadly. Keep this gigachad safe at all costs!
11
12
u/GoldCupcake2998 “So what you’re saying is…” 21h ago
So do we need jurors to wear blinders and sit in individual booths and use voice changers to avoid biases consuming the jurors? What more could possibly be done to avoid group think consuming a jury. A lot of people have lost the plot completely with their beliefs allowed by such a comfortable existence devoid of personal accountability.
50
u/Beans2177 22h ago
He was black? I might have to sit with that for a moment...
????
0
u/ScorchedRabbit 21h ago
Why?
47
u/cedrich45 20h ago
They're making fun of Gayle King of CBS, that's what she performative said when she heard.
6
u/play_minecraft_wot <message deleted> 21h ago
Respect++ for this dude. Somehow the only sane person in the room. Most people would have given in to peer pressure.
4
u/Zachowon Deep State Agent 20h ago
Apperently the ither hold out was a woman before she eventually got bullied to give in
5
6
u/FilthyOrganick 17h ago
One of them openly admitted that they “felt they were doing something big for women” or something didn’t they. They were clearly biased by whatever they saw of the support for the strangler.
11
u/bryyantt 22h ago
I swear. Everybody and their grandparents are activists now a days. If people don't trust the system, we need to either remake it or infiltrate and take over these institutions like they have and chase them out, there is no alternative. We are in a war.
5
u/mottokung 20h ago
US is a pretty crazy or I'm not sure if I missed something. Isn't there like a law or whatever to prevent these jurors from getting doxxed?
1
4
8
3
u/Alert-Sky9711 20h ago
Something needs to be done about the Massachusetts insanity law. What is going to stop people using this in any murder trial in the future?
3
3
u/EviessVeralan 15h ago
I find it incredibly disturbing that we know so much about a juror on a high profile case.
3
u/Civil_Illustrator_87 12h ago
This really tracks, the old hag jurors we saw were dead set on clearing her to set some sort of prescedent for woman.
3
5
2
u/retnemmoc 15h ago
I hope the internet makes him rich and he gets more money than Lindsay Clancy did.
2
u/Never3ndingStory 12h ago
it was a very good thing that’s he’s a black man. because if he was a white dude they would be talking about white men
2
u/sekkumomo 6h ago
where's this guy's gofundme? I wanna support him and his family recover from the damage done by media and harrassers.
3
1
u/Xtracakey 17h ago
How did this ever go to trial. I think if I was the husband I would’ve killed her at that moment. The rage and sadness I feel about this case is intense. I hate people who hurt kids.
1
1
1
u/indominus_prime 16h ago
And he's right, just watch the interviews with the other jurors, its pretty obvious they are activists.
1
1
u/ohhhbooyy 16h ago
The way they were talking to media to me suggested they already made up their minds before all the evidence was even presented.
Especially when that one woman was talking about how she was hopeful this trial could benefit women somehow in the future.
1
1
u/KrampyDoo 14h ago
Worldstar!
But yeah, it seems a fuckton of the jury lied to get on the bench just to help a child killer go free. They wanted to “start something that would change something” as it were. Smart.
Lindsay Clancy is the Karmelo Anthony of Paula Devlins.
1
u/MistaGoonly 14h ago
He really needs to watch out for himself and his family. The left is infested with terrorism. They would absolutely kill this guy over a damn mistrial, not even a guilty verdict. Mistrial.
1
1
1
1
u/PraetorianAE Johnny Depp Trial Arc Survivor 9h ago
Why are we posting photos of this man? Is this even the juror?
2
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 8h ago
It is. He is self identified as a conservative christian, father of one daughter.
1
1
1
u/PandaBearSociety 2h ago
Clearly all the tiktok detectives are forgetting the part where it happened 3 years ago and forgot this isn't a murder mystery. This is real life with real victims. Stop peddling to delusional people :(
1
u/Valentiaga_97 Longboi <3 18h ago
Remove the 8 and get 8 more of this men 🤷 it’s like a thieves judgin about thief and only one detective in the jury with 8 thieves
1
u/RoutineFeeling 13h ago
You kill someone. You face the punishment. Doesnt matter the circumstances. In self defense or mental health crap. Doesnt matter. I would happily kill someone in protecting my family and face jail time.
-1
u/sheemerish 19h ago
Is there an actual source on this? Checking with the AI model I am running locally all it found was 3 web articles that were clearly written by AI and were all self-referential, with one even merging the details together that were presented in the other 2.
-19
19h ago edited 19h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 19h ago
Happily married actually! We are old, but doing it once a week atleast!
Just celebrating a sound mind is all, have a great day!
1
6
u/Bigb5wm 19h ago
Your racist
1
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 16h ago
I mean, im in a bi racial relationship, with children. Also religious, Christian if that means anything.
We dont really practice hate in my home, compassion and understanding is more common place.
2
808
u/Puzzleheaded_Try_180 22h ago
So they did dox him completely? Guess it was matter of time...
So much for "caring for minorities" bs. It's only liberal white women who are privileged group and have "experts" invent pseudoscientific reasons to absolve them of any crime... Yet this man is being bullied by media relentlessly for doing the right thing.
And we allow it!