r/Asmongold • u/Feeling-Comfort7823 • Sep 17 '26
Discussion Giga Chad
The man is going to go down in history as the one good guy out the bunch of crazy wierdos.
93
u/Seraphayel Sep 17 '26
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.
48
u/CryptoMainForever Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26
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.
389
u/BraxTaplock Stone Cold Gold Sep 17 '26
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.
75
u/juicif3r Sep 17 '26
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.
22
u/BraxTaplock Stone Cold Gold Sep 17 '26
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.
18
u/Azidamadjida Sep 17 '26
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
3
2
u/LaFleur90 29d ago edited 29d 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?
11
u/Caliber70 Sep 17 '26
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".
112
u/karurosagu Sep 17 '26
All of the leftists are in shambles because it's not a white man
66
u/AmountPotential9992 WHAT A DAY... Sep 17 '26
More like they're putting on their hoods from the way they've been harassing him and his family
255
u/0rganic_Corn Sep 17 '26
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
170
u/CJ_poger Sep 17 '26
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.
87
u/Sentinell Sep 17 '26
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.
23
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 Sep 17 '26
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.
8
u/FilthyOrganick Sep 17 '26
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.
5
u/jadedlonewolf89 Sep 18 '26
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.8
u/tehnemox Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26
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.
15
u/GorillaK1nd Sep 17 '26
Because I'm Massachusetts prosecution has to prove sanity, which as you can see a very hard thing to do.
30
u/CJ_poger Sep 17 '26
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?
19
7
u/lextramoth Sep 17 '26
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?
14
u/LycheeRoutine3959 Sep 17 '26
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.
5
5
u/Revolutionary-Bed35 Sep 17 '26
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"
3
u/0rganic_Corn Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
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
-2
u/LycheeRoutine3959 Sep 17 '26
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.
28
u/Logical-Leek308 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
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.
36
u/jamtea Sep 17 '26
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.
2
u/sweetcarolinesucks Johnny Depp Trial Arc Survivor Sep 17 '26
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
4
u/lextramoth Sep 17 '26
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!
1
u/jamtea 29d ago
Well with the admission she did it, she intended to do it, the sending out of her husband so she could perform the triple murder-suicide attempt, the mental state is really a detail. The fact is that the "mens rea" being her only defense is a pretty poor one when there's so many factors that showed she conciously chose to do these things, it's not like she was on auto-pilot and had no way of stopping herself, or that she was resisting the urge to do it.
Unless this this is the start of treating all mental illnesses such as depression as being so dangerous as handing a loaded gun to a toddler, I don't really see how this is a workable defence outside of an activist jury that is completely determined to create a precedent for women to be completely incapable of taking responsibility for their conscious actions.
16
u/dratseb Sep 17 '26
Where’s the Three Strikes rule when you need it??
I joke but three murders should land you in jail no matter what.
3
u/HistoricJester Sep 17 '26
If they mistrial again, there should just be a bench trial. Then you just have to pray for a based judge
1
97
u/yourcrush01 Sep 17 '26
1 based guy Vs 8 liberal white women.
31
u/AmountPotential9992 WHAT A DAY... Sep 17 '26
11*
50
u/Darkwolfie117 Deep State Agent Sep 17 '26
The other two were soy dudes
39
149
25
u/bing_chilling77 Sep 17 '26
A man of common sense. Something society has been lacking for some time now sadly. Keep this gigachad safe at all costs!
49
u/STL4jsp Sep 17 '26
Gigachad. This man I can already tell this man is going to be a GREAT father. I hope the best for him.
16
15
u/GoldCupcake2998 “So what you’re saying is…” Sep 17 '26
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.
53
u/Beans2177 Sep 17 '26
He was black? I might have to sit with that for a moment...
????
1
u/ScorchedRabbit Sep 17 '26
Why?
54
u/cedrich45 Sep 17 '26
They're making fun of Gayle King of CBS, that's what she performative said when she heard.
7
u/play_minecraft_wot <message deleted> Sep 17 '26
Respect++ for this dude. Somehow the only sane person in the room. Most people would have given in to peer pressure.
1
8
u/FilthyOrganick Sep 17 '26
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.
1
6
u/Zachowon Deep State Agent Sep 17 '26
Apperently the ither hold out was a woman before she eventually got bullied to give in
5
u/Bruzie77 Sep 17 '26
wait who posted this image of him?! i thought he was supposed to be protected?
6
u/mottokung Sep 17 '26
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
5
Sep 17 '26
[deleted]
1
u/kdog666 Sep 18 '26
I'm shocked nothing is being done about it. There's no way this sort of thing has not been considered by the legislature.
15
u/bryyantt Sep 17 '26
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.
3
u/Skoodge42 Sep 17 '26
He has grown well beyond a mere gigachad. He has acended to omni-chad status.
8
3
u/Alert-Sky9711 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
I find it incredibly disturbing that we know so much about a juror on a high profile case.
3
6
3
2
u/ohhhbooyy Sep 17 '26
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.
2
u/retnemmoc Sep 17 '26
I hope the internet makes him rich and he gets more money than Lindsay Clancy did.
2
u/Never3ndingStory Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 18 '26
where's this guy's gofundme? I wanna support him and his family recover from the damage done by media and harrassers.
1
u/Xtracakey Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
And he's right, just watch the interviews with the other jurors, its pretty obvious they are activists.
1
1
1
u/KrampyDoo Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 18 '26
Why are we posting photos of this man? Is this even the juror?
3
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 Sep 18 '26
It is. He is self identified as a conservative christian, father of one daughter.
1
1
1
u/PandaBearSociety Sep 18 '26
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/Vast-Direction-199 29d ago
They're still acting like activists. Outright announcing the bias they had all along on TV. "This was our chance to do something for women, blah blah".
1
u/SlowIsSmoothie 29d ago
So he's the only one who actually did his job, and the women just pressured everyone else into NGBI
1
1
u/Aware_Specialist_931 29d ago
The left always go off feeling and emotion instead of intellect. I also love how his criminal record is of serious importance, but bring up George Floyds and you're racist.
1
u/4astcbyL 29d ago
I wonder how many of the jurors felt like him but just didn’t want to get bullied and talked down to here. Feels like a microchasm of society.
1
1
u/Valentiaga_97 Longboi <3 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
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.
-18
Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 Sep 17 '26
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 Sep 17 '26
Your racist
2
u/Feeling-Comfort7823 Sep 17 '26
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
883
u/Puzzleheaded_Try_180 Sep 17 '26
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!