Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Elliott]

She wouldn't be set free if she wins, she'll go to insane asylum and be on supervision indefinitely, probably the rest of her life because this would completely screw up anyone. She's likely to kill herself, she already tried.

[Never_give_up]

Maybe all the people that commit crimes are insane and have psychological and mental problems, but if society itself wasn't insane , it wouldn't use this as an excuse. It's an excuse only when women do it. 

People that support her women and men (but it's mostly women as far as I know) are dangerous and it's good when they do it publicly cause then you know who you have to avoid.

This world is so gynocentric that we will see many more incidents before something changes for the better if it ever does.

But of course in gynocentric society all you have to do is call somebody an incel, this ad hominem is funny cause it implies that there is something wrong with being an incel. It's like calling a woman cat lady but of course there is no shame in being a cat lady.

I won't be surprised if she wil be found innocent or she will get 6 years or something. I have heard worse outcomes than this.

Some people woke up after this incident but let's be honest, gynocentrism will be alive forever. 

@Elliott

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

 She's likely to kill herself, she already tried.

I hope she succeed this time.

 

[Elliott]

9 minutes ago, Never_give_up said:

Maybe all the people that commit crimes are insane and have psychological and mental problems, but if society itself wasn't insane , it wouldn't use this as an excuse. It's an excuse only when women do it. 

People that support her women

Most crimes are to gain something, crimes of passion or hate, insanity can't be used there. Not one person has proposed a motive behind her murder, that's all you have to do and you can't?she was mad at her kids her life? Nope,  money? Nope

 

Quote

@Elliott

I hope she succeed this time.

 

We know you do, because you're a purely evil person

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Never_give_up]

@Elliottsounds like an excuse. Have a nice day, bye. 

[Elliott]

Just now, Never_give_up said:

@Elliottsounds like an excuse. Have a nice day, bye. 

What's the motive then?

[Elliott]

Lets do a cursory google search that you cucks are too lazy to do because you're so excited to kill a woman

 

Springfield Arson Case: On Friday, August 21, 2026, a 30-year-old man was found "guilty except for insanity" for an arson fire that killed his grandmother and her son. He will bypass state prison and be placed under the jurisdiction of a psychiatric review board.

 

An Iowa judge handed down a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict. Schleier was charged with first-degree murder for the October 2024 strangling death of his 5-year-old son.

 

Ronald Exantus Release: In late July 2026, controversy erupted in Kentucky when Ronald Exantus was released from state custody. He had previously been found not guilty by reason of insanity for a 2015 child murder but "guilty but mentally ill" on lesser assault charges. He was released after serving the prison portion of his sentence for the lesser charges.

 

Richard Rojas Case (New York, June 2022): A New York City jury found Richard Rojas not responsible by reason of insanity after he intentionally plowed his car through a crowded Times Square sidewalk in 2017, killing a teenage tourist and injuring 22 others. Multiple psychiatric experts testified that Rojas was suffering from severe, untreated schizophrenia and was experiencing extreme hallucinations and delusions during the rampage. Instead of prison, he was committed indefinitely to a secure state psychiatric institution.

 

Raymond Weber Case (California, 2023): Weber was arrested for the double murder of two young women in Vacaville, California, which he live-streamed on social media. After rigorous mental health evaluations, California prosecutors ultimately conceded to the defense's findings. A judge ruled him not guilty by reason of insanity, finding that severe, chronic mental illness rendered him unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of his actions. He was placed under the custody of the California Department of State Hospitals.

 

John Hinckley Jr. Trial (Washington D.C., 1982): Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan outside a D.C. hotel, wounding the president and three others. A federal jury shocked the nation by finding Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity due to severe delusional schizophrenia. He was committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital for over 35 years before being granted conditional release, culminating in a full, unconditional release in June 2022. This specific verdict caused massive public backlash, prompting

 

Richard Rojas (New York — 2022): A Manhattan jury found Rojas not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect after he drove his vehicle through a densely packed Times Square sidewalk, killing a teenager and injuring 22 people. Multiple forensic psychologists verified that Rojas was suffering from severe, unmedicated schizophrenia, experiencing intense auditory hallucinations that commanded his actions. He was committed indefinitely to a secure psychiatric hospital.

 

Steven Steinberg (Arizona — 1981): In a highly unusual and controversial landmark case, Steinberg was put on trial for murdering his wife by stabbing her 26 times. Steinberg did not deny the killing but argued he was in a state of "somnambulism" (sleepwalking) and completely unconscious. The jury accepted the temporary insanity defense and found him not guilty by reason of insanity. Because experts deemed his "temporary" insanity had resolved by the time of the verdict, he walked away a free man, a result that

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Never_give_up]

@Elliott

3 babies are no longer alive, you really care about the motive? have you completely lost the plot?

anyway, if you support her and I don't, there really isn't any reason for us to have a conversation, cause we see things differently in fundumental matters. It's like one person believes 1+1=2 and another 1+1=5, you can't reason with such people. Of course from your point of view I am the one that believes 1+1=5 and from my point of view you are the one.

 

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, Never_give_up said:

@Elliott

3 babies are no longer alive, you really care about the motive? have you completely lost the plot?

anyway, if you support her and I don't, there really isn't any reason for us to have a conversation, cause we see things differently in fundumental matters. It's like one person believes 1+1=2 and another 1+1=5, you can't reason with such people. Of course from your point of view I am the one that believes 1+1=5 and from my point of view you are the one.

 

You writing her off as a scapegoat instead of seeking the truth is what will result in more kids being murdered instead of addressing the actual issue that can prevent more deaths, you fucking retard. She tried to kill herself, the idea of punishment would not have prevented her nor future hers. You people have a one brain cell step level of thinking, you can't think past your incel penis.

Edited 55 minutes ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Basman said:

I don't understand where this energy is coming from. What she wrote was correct. It's not like legalese lends itself to simplicity.

The energy is a knitpicking "well ackchyually" nerd.

If the description of the law contains the same double negative (which would really only make sense if it was part of a more general law; "disproving claims"), and if it was important to communicate this exact wording in this discussion (which I doubt), then it would be prudent to communicate using that exact wording. If you just want to communicate the basic differences of outcomes, then you would put it simply from the beginning.

In the second paragraph, we were given the double negative version and then the straightforward version as a clarifier; we could've just had the straightforward version from the beginning 🤔

I can do the rest:

"[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove her claim that she's not criminally responsible for her actions."

->

"[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that she's criminally responsible for her actions."

 

Adding the word "insane" (a negative) into the mix also screws things up:

"But in Massachusetts, it's the prosecution that must prove that she's NOT legally insane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart."

->

"But in Massachusetts, it's the prosecution that must prove that she's legally sane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart."

Edited 44 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Never_give_up]

we are incels, cucks, ''excited to kill a woman'' as you said, and now we are fucking retards. What else are we? enlighten us. 

 

 

 

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, Never_give_up said:

we are incels, cucks, ''excited to kill a woman'' as you said, and now we are fucking retards. What else are we? enlighten us. 

 

 

 

Not much

[Ulax]

@Never_give_up Ignore him bro. he just tries to get attention

[Never_give_up]

now we have one brain cell and incel penis. Nice, please continue, we need to have more self awareness and you help a lot. 

Not much you say? i see. Thank you for the productive conversation, it was really amazing to talking to you. Next time don't spent time to talk to people like us since we are all these stuff, spent your time more wisely and go support Clancy like mostly women do outside the court. 

[Never_give_up]

@Ulaxit's hard to ignore a troll but you are right. 

[Basman]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The energy is a knitpicking "well ackchyually" nerd.

If the description of the law contains the same double negative (which would really only make sense if it was part of a more general law; "disproving claims"), and if it was important to communicate this exact wording in this discussion (which I doubt), then it would be prudent to communicate using that exact wording. If you just want to communicate the basic differences of outcomes, then you would put it simply from the beginning.

In the second paragraph, we got the double negative version and then the straightforward version as a 'clarifier'; we could've just had the straightforward version from the beginning 🤔

I can do the rest:

"[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove her claim that she's not criminally responsible for her actions."

->

"[...] burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that she's criminally responsible for her actions."

 

Adding the word "insane" (a negative) into the mix also screws things up:

"But in Massachusetts, it's the prosecution that must prove that she's NOT legally insane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart."

->

"But in Massachusetts, it's the prosecution that must prove that she's legally sane in order for her "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea to fall apart."

I genuinely don't see what you are fuming about. It's important context to the case. Maybe she's bad at writing A level English, but who cares? No hate but you kinda have the energy of a sexually frustrated aunty teacher ngl. Speaking from personal experience btw.

@Never_give_up I can't remember a time when Elliot was not on my ignore list.

[Ulax]

@Never_give_up I get you. I read a comment of his where he said he tried to make out with a blowup doll of his sister. So, i would extra stay away

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@Never_give_up I get you. I read a comment of his where he said he tried to make out with a blowup doll of his sister. So, i would extra stay away

No you didn't, liar

[Ulax]

Just now, Elliott said:

No you didn't, liar

We all saw the comment bud

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Basman said:

I genuinely don't see what you are fuming about. It's important context to the case.

It's just a comment on what I perceive to be clarity of communication.

 

5 minutes ago, Basman said:

No hate but you kinda have the energy of a sexually frustrated aunty teacher ngl. Speaking from personal experience btw.

Damn it's as if you described what I just described myself in different words. Huh, funny how that works in the context of this discussion.

Edited 31 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Elliott]

Just now, Ulax said:

We all saw the comment bud

Link it, you lying weirdo