Vessel said:
I agree and if I were charged with a crime, I would not have a jury of my peers. There might be one net taxpayer, white Christian male, with above average intelligence on my jury, if I'm lucky.
The only way the jury is my peers is that they aren't politicians. But somehow several of them would have low IQ jobs in the government.
Hardcore Greg said:BadMoonRisin said:How depraved has @CBC become?
— Pro-life Canadian Man (@PeteBaklinski) September 2, 2026
Canada’s state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.
CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks… pic.twitter.com/DwgTyagyLJ
Wow. This is disgusting.Quote:
How depraved has
@CBC
become?
Canada's state broadcaster has a new article on Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother accused of strangling her three children, ages 5, 3, and 8 months.
CBC does not ask how a just and humane society should treat the killing of children. It asks how much easier the case would have been in Canada.
Canada already has an infanticide law: if a mother kills her own child under the age of one while her mind is "disturbed" from birth, the charge can drop to a lesser offence with a maximum of five years.
CBC's expert then names what, in her view, is the real problem: Clancy's two older children were past their first birthday, so the lesser charge of infanticide would not apply.
"That is a shortcoming in the Canadian law."
This is so twisted. It is almost diabolical.
Three children are dead. And what does the state broadcaster do? It platforms the idea that the defect is not the killings: it is that Canadian law would not reduce the charge for the mother killing her two children older than one.
Friends, this is how the ground gets prepared for horrific injustices against young human lives.
First, the child in the womb is dehumanized as a "blob of tissue," a "fetus," or a "product of conception," so abortion becomes acceptable.
Then, for children who are inconvenient after birth, they become a special legal category through infanticide laws that do not recognize their full humanity.
And, as CBC ruthlessly highlighted, the "shortcoming" is that toddlers are still treated as victims of murder.
CBC did not say "post-birth abortion." It did not have to. It treated more leniency after birth as the civilized positionand the age limit as the thing that needs fixing.
When a state broadcaster speaks this way, it is not just covering a trial. It is softening the public for what comes next.
I know there are some good people in the countryside, but hear me out...tactical nukes in the urban environments. Look at the turnaround Japan was able to make after we b*tch slapped em a couple times. Just think about it...
Infection_Ag11 said:
I've pointed out over the years how increasingly problematic the jury system is becoming in our modern society, and I cant help but feel like this is another in an alarming number of recent cases reinforcing my points.
Between the jury statistics surrounding gender/ethnicity and bias, the complete abandonment of legislatively enforced juror standards over the last 50 years and the worsening political divide jury trials for at least high profile, charged criminal cases are becoming harder to justify. Too many Americans are simply too stupid, too biased and/or too indifferent to justice, and because we no longer have any checks against those people ending up on juries it's just a recipe for repeated disasters.
I will no longer be debating Lindsay Clancy supporters. I will just be posting this video in reply to any of them. pic.twitter.com/TmtrRZqmRi
— Carl Benjamin 🏴 (@Sargon_of_Akkad) September 3, 2026
Martin Cash said:Infection_Ag11 said:
I've pointed out over the years how increasingly problematic the jury system is becoming in our modern society, and I cant help but feel like this is another in an alarming number of recent cases reinforcing my points.
Between the jury statistics surrounding gender/ethnicity and bias, the complete abandonment of legislatively enforced juror standards over the last 50 years and the worsening political divide jury trials for at least high profile, charged criminal cases are becoming harder to justify. Too many Americans are simply too stupid, too biased and/or too indifferent to justice, and because we no longer have any checks against those people ending up on juries it's just a recipe for repeated disasters.
In Texas, most counties constituted their jury wheel from voter registration roles because the requirements are almost identical. 30 to 35 years ago that changed. Minorities groups complained that they weren't being represented on juries. I can't remember if it was a legislative change or case law, but counties were required to use the driver's license rolls for jury panels. The difference was night and day.
Serious Lee said:
so eloquentI will no longer be debating Lindsay Clancy supporters. I will just be posting this video in reply to any of them. pic.twitter.com/TmtrRZqmRi
— Carl Benjamin 🏴 (@Sargon_of_Akkad) September 3, 2026
Serious Lee said:
the asian dude, tony LC signs, is downright hilarious. check him out if you havent already
Quote:
In June 2026, Parkinson was at home in Williamsburg (James City County), 8 months pregnant and studying for the bar exam. Her 5-year-old son, Sam, asked to walk about a half-mile along a sidewalk in their gated community to collect goose feathers near a pond they had just visited together earlier that day. A passerby saw the boy alone and called community security. Security escorted the boy home and contacted local police. Three police vehicles and Child Protective Services (CPS) workers responded to the house.
Serious Lee said:
so eloquentI will no longer be debating Lindsay Clancy supporters. I will just be posting this video in reply to any of them. pic.twitter.com/TmtrRZqmRi
— Carl Benjamin 🏴 (@Sargon_of_Akkad) September 3, 2026
Serious Lee said:
the asian dude, tony LC signs, is downright hilarious. check him out if you havent already
TrumpsBarber said:
Reddington must believe the jurors are voting 11-1 for NG by insanity and they are evidently pissed at the hold out. That is my guess.
Vessel said:
So they're saying one juror appears to have reasonable doubt, but still wants to convict?
Otherwise the claim makes no sense.
Twice an Aggie said:
We will see. It sure seems that the judge explained passing reasonable dount but not having to be completely certain first. That would lean towards 11 guilty and 1 holdout who is on the NG side. Judge speech pointe out the state must pass the reasonable doubt threshold but not establish complete certainty. Maybe the juror is playing a what-if type game angering other jurors with the social media conspiracy theories. We will see.
Aggie95 said:Vessel said:
So they're saying one juror appears to have reasonable doubt, but still wants to convict?
Otherwise the claim makes no sense.
I view it as they have 11 ready to acquit and one that is adamant that he/she THINKS she's guilty and is holding out and not following the reasonable doubt "rule"
