5Amp said:ShaggySLC said:5Amp said:
Dude she had divorced her and took those kids, knew she was nuts.
Maybe he believed in vows. Pretty sure there's a part in there about in sickness and health. Nothing about after your wife or husband kills all your kids.
so he waited until after kids are dead to no longer believe in his marriage vows…got it.
She wasn't crazy. She waited until her husband left and methodically killed and relocated the bodies of her children. Her actions prove she knew what she was doing was wrong and in most jurisdictions that's enough to convict.Ducks4brkfast said:
I'm not going back and reading the last 200 replies but the ***** was crazy. Put her in a hospital for the rest of her life and yall go get some fresh air.
Quote:
U.S. New poll numbers released this week showed Lindsay Clancy surging into the frontrunner position in the race to become the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee.
Clancy garnered overwhelming support from Democratic women and continued to make gains among men who hate children and wish they were dead.
"Clancy 2028! Wooo!" shouted supporters outside the courthouse where Clancy was awaiting the verdict on her triple homicide case. "No one gets us better than Lindsay. Who better to fight for women's rights than a woman who stared down the system that wanted to punish her for murdering three children? She is like, so me! We love you, Lindsay!"
Democratic operatives warned that the issue of child murder could complicate Clancy's general election chances, but liberal voters have thus far brushed aside those concerns. "When I hear this sad story of a child being strangled to death, I think, 'Wow, that poor woman strangling her child. She's the victim here,'" explained longtime Democrat Stacy Marks. "Why on earth should someone not vote for Lindsay when she is the one who has been wronged here? That shouldn't keep a beautiful soul like her from serving as our next president."
At publishing time, Clancy's support among liberals had collapsed after revelations surfaced that she had also strangled a puppy.
lb3 said:
Crazy? Absolutely yes, insane no.
YokelRidesAgain said:P.H. Dexippus said:
Based on exit polling, if not for the female vote, there are no Presidents Clinton, Obama or Biden. Nevermind the impacts to Congressional elections and statewide. Oh, the carnage wrought.
Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008 received pluralities of the male vote (i.e., more votes than the Republican candidate).
But yeah, based on the female vote alone Democrats would have won every Presidential election since 1992.
P.H. Dexippus said:YokelRidesAgain said:P.H. Dexippus said:
Based on exit polling, if not for the female vote, there are no Presidents Clinton, Obama or Biden. Nevermind the impacts to Congressional elections and statewide. Oh, the carnage wrought.
Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008 received pluralities of the male vote (i.e., more votes than the Republican candidate).
But yeah, based on the female vote alone Democrats would have won every Presidential election since 1992.
Presidents aren't elected by the popular vote. HTH.
YokelRidesAgain said:P.H. Dexippus said:YokelRidesAgain said:P.H. Dexippus said:
Based on exit polling, if not for the female vote, there are no Presidents Clinton, Obama or Biden. Nevermind the impacts to Congressional elections and statewide. Oh, the carnage wrought.
Clinton in 1992 and Obama in 2008 received pluralities of the male vote (i.e., more votes than the Republican candidate).
But yeah, based on the female vote alone Democrats would have won every Presidential election since 1992.
Presidents aren't elected by the popular vote. HTH.
They are not elected by only members of one gender voting, either.
Regardless, the original statement was just wrong. Clinton won men over HW Bush approximately 42-38 and there is no way that would have translated to a GOP victory in this hypothetical men-only voting world.
Obama men over McCain more narrowly, 48-47. If you're aware of any state level exit polling data establishing that McCain would have squeaked out a win in the Electoral College with only male voters, go ahead and produce it. It's essentially a certainty that (at best) this would be within the margin of error of an exit poll.
Squadron7 said:
The new style of BSC Tik Tok posting: They don't talk in the clip. They display their nonsense in text on the screen while staring DeFIaNtLy!!! Into the camera.
Troy91 said:No Spin Ag said:
This is a question for the attorneys.
Where did the attorneys fail to convince the jury to get to guilty verdict.
pick 12 people at random from this thread and tell me what the verdict will be.
The prosecution can always put on a better case. They will gain a huge advantage in a retrial as they now know the defense strategy.
Defense is frustrated because he got close to the best verdict he could predict. Now, he has to recreate all of the same magic and prepare for a new prosecution.
This case is not about the attorneys. It is about the odd burden of proof and the failure to recuse the jury.
They really owe it to the kids to try again. May God bless.No Spin Ag said:Troy91 said:No Spin Ag said:
This is a question for the attorneys.
Where did the attorneys fail to convince the jury to get to guilty verdict.
pick 12 people at random from this thread and tell me what the verdict will be.
The prosecution can always put on a better case. They will gain a huge advantage in a retrial as they now know the defense strategy.
Defense is frustrated because he got close to the best verdict he could predict. Now, he has to recreate all of the same magic and prepare for a new prosecution.
This case is not about the attorneys. It is about the odd burden of proof and the failure to recuse the jury.
Good point about the defense attorney having to recreate magic.
And, yes, the prosecution will hopefully not make the same mistakes twice.
Now to see if the prosecution tries once more.
5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
WTF
5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
techno-ag said:5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
So, she's not responsible for her actions? He is?
BrazosDog02 said:techno-ag said:5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
So, she's not responsible for her actions? He is?
He didn't say that. She is responsible for her actions. She killed the kids. Her husband shirked his duties to his children and allowed them to remain in harms way. And they are dead because of that decision. I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger. Guess some dads are just built different. ***shrug***
Backyard Gator said:BrazosDog02 said:techno-ag said:5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
So, she's not responsible for her actions? He is?
He didn't say that. She is responsible for her actions. She killed the kids. Her husband shirked his duties to his children and allowed them to remain in harms way. And they are dead because of that decision. I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger. Guess some dads are just built different. ***shrug***
Way to make it about yourself
Yeah, we're all impressed with how rough and tough you think you are.
BrazosDog02 said:Backyard Gator said:BrazosDog02 said:techno-ag said:5Amp said:
She killed her kids and tried to kill herself because she was criminally insane.
During the trial and on the stand, he confirmed she told him she had thoughts of harming the kids. Told him that statement more than once and yet he still didn't get those kids out of harms way.
So, she's not responsible for her actions? He is?
He didn't say that. She is responsible for her actions. She killed the kids. Her husband shirked his duties to his children and allowed them to remain in harms way. And they are dead because of that decision. I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger. Guess some dads are just built different. ***shrug***
Way to make it about yourself
Yeah, we're all impressed with how rough and tough you think you are.
I don't think being a man willing to protect his family is "rough and tough" but your opinion explains a lot about society and the case at hand.
BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
BrazosDog02 said:Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
It means no one is going to take care of your children like you will.
Regardless of the "tough guy" call out, I certainly wish the dad in this case was a tough guy or at least a strong beta that didn't ignore all of the warning signs and direct instruction from professionals.
Maybe he wouldn't be sitting at home alone with three dead kids, a crazy wife that's going to get away with murder, and no shortage of online milksops trying to mentally absolve this guy of all wrongdoing.
Cowbird said:
What podcast is that? Just curious
BrazosDog02 said:Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
It means no one is going to take care of your children like you will.
Regardless of the "tough guy" call out, I certainly wish the dad in this case was a tough guy or at least a strong beta that didn't ignore all of the warning signs and direct instruction from professionals.
Maybe he wouldn't be sitting at home alone with three dead kids, a crazy wife that's going to get away with murder, and no shortage of online milksops trying to mentally absolve this guy of all wrongdoing.
Seven Costanza said:BrazosDog02 said:
I'd kill innocent people under the sheer assumption my kids were in danger.
What does this mean?
