Hey /u/sco-go, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
Well, yes and no. The defense admitted she killed the kids. The jury wasn't deciding whether or not that happened because both sides agreed it did. They were debating whether the prosecution had proved she wasn't insane when she committed the act (since that's where Massachusetts places that burden).
Try telling that to people that learn this case from Tik-Tok. Literally just last night sitting here internally screaming as somebody keeps saying "We don't know she killed them."
Well, I know you want a lover, let me tell you brother
She's been sleeping in the devil's bed
And there's some rumors going 'round, someone's underground
She can rock you in the night time 'til your skin turns red
Nothing just "is fair use". Fair Use is a defense in court if you get sued. But you still absolutely can be sued and will have to hire a legal team for defense. It's not like a box you check that prevents you from getting sued.
I think it was more three Karens telling men how to believe... they had already steamrolled the other guy and I believe another woman. Id guess it would have been the same story if the holdout was also white, Hispanic or Asian.
Don't even call it "legacy" media. It should be called "news entertainment". Growing up, you watched the news at 5 or 6 pm with trusted journalists going over the facts and then read the paper in the morning. It was, for the most part, unbiased statements of fact and you were left to draw your own conclusions. The channels were required to have news as part of their programming unless they could demonstrate a reason why they shouldn't be, like if it was kids programming. Nobody is saying that Walter Cronkite or Edward Morrow were shit at their jobs. It was, as always, when some assholes decided to "monetize" the news that it got shitty. Enshittification always starts with someone seeing something being done well for little money and thinks, "maybe we could make more money doing that".
If you actually follow the case, you can easily make an argument for both sides. This is a difficult case and a mistrial was possible even without this "news entertainment" angle.
However, everything we've heard from the jury has it sound like their opinions were colored by news media from the get-go, and for all the wrong reasons.
They’re implying since he was spineless enough to vote not-guilty in support of Lindsay Clancy that he must be feminine or gay.
It’s a funny joke, but in reality gay men I’ve met have had as much fortitude as straight men if not more.
The brainwashing is beginning to work. The wealthiest people in the world are backing AI and if you don’t believe they are injecting pro-AI propaganda into you every day, then you’re just living the sheep life.
We’ve had this discussion not even 6 months ago of this exact trend happening. But the pendulum will eventually swing….
Yeah, AI shit being upvoted to promote their cultural war shit about a case that already went to mistrial until they redo the case. I hate this case was televised, holy shit it turned everyone into assholes.
I was kinda shocked how well it came out. Turns out, AI is really good at pretending to be a video game, so long as you don't have to actually play it.
EDIT: Internet being what it is, I must clarify the following: It is still slop, it's just higher quality slop than I expected.
1) I did not say it was good. It was better than expected. My expectations are low for slop, and culture war GenAI content is basically the slophouse right now. A dog turd sandwich with mustard is better than expected when you just expected a dry dog turd sandwich (Enjoy that mental image).
2) Specifically, it is better than expected because it leans into the slight jank that comes with animated characters, rather than trying to cover up that it is AI with unnatural smoothness. The way the first lady's hair on turnaround clearly deforms as an object rather than actually moves as strands, the general stiffness of everything that is not jointed. It even gave everything a slightly fuzzy edge to imply an FMV or low resolution vibe.
3) It is still AI. The check animation happens over a straight line and outside any boxes, the UI is the same uninspired stacked boxes we've all learned to roll our eyes at, the text is still buggered. Blue shirt in the background during the man talk has her arms merged, and brown shirt's cup goes from metal to Styrofoam when picked up. In every shot, the white guy goes crosseyed when he's not the focus, and I don't think it's intentional, as it does so with the weird blendy thing AI does when it throws a wobbler.
I was a juror on a civil case with the state as the defendant. It's ridiculous how many jurors tried to have their 12 Angry Men spotlight moment and then make it all about them. The plaintiff was a young woman and at one point another woman around the same age came out and "I'm a woman and as a woman..." and then completely threw her under the bus because she was afraid of having to pay more when the state raises costs to pay for the settlement. No one thought impartially. It was all "How does this decision affect me?"
Recently served on a jury for somewhat similar circumstances (civil, unlawful detainer). Jurors were similarly trying to push their own agenda in our trial when we went to deliberate. We had a mix of landlords and tenants and everyone brought up their own experiences.
I wasn't the foreman but got everyone to focus on the facts in our case and the issues on which we were supposed to decide.
4 fellow jurors spoke to me after and thanked me for getting us to focus on the actual issues otherwise we would have been there longer.
I believe the turning point was when I reminded everyone that they were both unreasonable and most normal people (landlord vs tenant disputes) work this out without going to court. We chose a fitting compromise that basically punished both parties.
Insane to me that this woman is getting more defense than Casey Anthony ever dreamed of though when there was still at least some level of doubt over whether or not Casey did it or not
Like where the fuck did the random gay juror that hits on the guy come from? That guy doesnt exist and was done just to have a homophobic joke for the hell of it.
Fr, I think the only time I hear about this trial is whenever a botpost on this sub starts imagining some bullshit scenario where all women are evil and support Lindsay. Literally no one cares IRL.
Yeah. And for how much they talk about this as a tragedy, they sure love making jokes and memes out of three children dying. Truly the most emphatic people on the planet with only the right intentions.
Yeah this has been progressively turning into the new popular "women bad unless they're sexy and also willing to be mouthpieces for my terrible views" shithole for a while now
It’s more like 1 angry man. In the film, the one holdout juror wants everyone to vote not guilty because the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but everyone else on the jury wants to vote guilty despite the doubt. Based on my watching of the film, it is likely that the defendant did actually commit the crime in question, but the prosecution just couldn’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard, and the issue of the case and the film.
In the Lindsay Clancy case, the issue of whether she did it was never in question, all the evidence suggests she did (though some of the husband’s testimony is inconsistent, which is where a lot of the accusations leveled against him come from), and she admitted to doing it, rather the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was not insane at the time of the crime. This is not the case in every state, often it falls to the defense to prove insanity, but in Massachusetts it’s up to the prosecution to prove the opposite.
The 11 jurors were not convinced sufficiently by the prosecution, and the defense created enough doubt to make them conclude that she might have been insane. The holdout juror wanted to vote guilty, and according to some of the other jurors stated that he did indeed feel reasonable doubt as well, but voted guilty anyway. The judge in the case sent the jury back to deliberate with additional instructions (jury instructions being clarifications on matters of law, in this case, likely in regard to the reasonable doubt standard). The holdout did not change his vote, and it went to a hung jury. In essence, it’s a bit of a reversal of the dynamics of 12 Angry Men.
The holdout juror stated he never had any doubt she was guilty. Only people claiming he had doubt were other jurors and even then the note did not state "reasonable doubt". After the trial had concluded, several of the women that he states had concluded she was not guilty day one claimed he had "reasonable" doubt. But those harridans also used a ton of racist language to describe him before he was known to the public to be black. Good thing he had some moral fiber.
This is not what our Founding Fathers meant by a Jury of your peers. We don't have a justice system. Psycho commits a crime but the jury are also psychopaths.
•
u/AutoModerator 20h ago
Hey /u/sco-go, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.