zeke5123a
8hr ago
-
There are no true experts—the psych field is a mess scientifically and predisposed to view everything aberrant as mental illness.
-
The legal experts expected a hung jury in large part because of the support for Clancy.
-
It is really hard to look at the facts and not get to beyond reasonable doubt. To explicate:
A. The standard is that Clancy either didn’t know what she was doing was criminal or she was incapable of not engaging in the activity.
B. The evidence is:
I. Clancy had thoughts of harming her kid for awhile. II. Clancy planned out her murder if the kids including making sure the husband was out of the house. III. Clancy in the middle of the murder spree took a call from her husband and was not demonstrating any signs of craziness. IV. Clancy only heard a voice allegedly once and only once.
C. So here we see that she had desires to commit the crime previously and was able to not commit the crime.
D. The defense would have to make the argument that she had a mental break (instead of just fighting off the intrusive thoughts) that means she either no longer knew it was wrong or lacked the capacity to not commit the act.
E. But the defense has a problem. She acted with forethought before the murders. So she was able to deter the compulsion to murder for a time and was trying to hide it suggesting she knew it was wrong. Also the planning indicates she still retained some thinking (ie didn’t have a full break with reality). While there is an argument that in very abnormal situations crazy people can remain perfectly rational in their actions towards their crazy goals, the standard is beyond reasonable doubt; not beyond any doubt.
F. But to make it even worse, the phone call that interrupted the murders seems to again undercut that she was incapable.
G. So here the defense has to argue this wasn’t a continuation of her prior ideations AND that notwithstanding her tactical rationality both before and during the murders she didn’t know what she was doing or could not control her actions.
H. Add to that the oddity of hearing the voice once and only once (pretty convenient).
I. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The common example is better ten guilty go free than one innocent go to jail. That suggests about a 90% certainty.
J. Given these facts, it is really hard to say there is more than 10% doubt that Clancy could not control her actions or didn’t know they were wrong
zeke5123a
20hr ago
-
I give zero credence to what ChatGPT says as it is designed to result in a political neutral response regardless on what’s merited.
-
Saying “he is just talking about a partnership” is absurd when he is talking about a boot on a neck.
You are a troll
Typical—first you never explained what you think it meant (and never did in your OP).
Clearly Zohran is suggesting there is strong influence by IDF to encourage police brutality. You can quibble on the margins but the core of the claim is bs conspiratorial thinking.
And now you’ve trolled your way to numerous other posts instead of just being direct to start with.
zeke5123a
1d ago
And here is your shtick — Zohran says something crazy conspiratorial and you try to argue around it.
What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck? Don’t dance. Don’t pull a Darwin.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I think you are ignoring the costs of working, the marginal tax rate of working, and the quality of life differences for SAHM.
My wife was a teacher. When she ran the math with our first kid (and the quality of childcare she wanted) working only came out ahead by about 10k. She made the decision the 10k wasn’t worth it.
zeke5123a
1d ago
It goes beyond this. One societal problem wr have is atomization and the breakdown of community. If you encourage more SAHM naturally they will form more community. If you are the only SAHM in the neighborhood it will be a bit lonely. But if every third house is a SAHM you’ll probably start to build relationships with the other SAHMs. Timmy will play with Samantha and the moms will chat. Maybe Alice watches Samantha whilst Bianca has to run an errand. Bianca returns the favor. Over time, community is built.
zeke5123a
1d ago
A leech is someone who takes from others in a negative sum way.
The whole theory here is that SAHM creates positive sum outcomes (eg better kids, perhaps more kids, better communities, husbands who are more focused to earn more money). Thus not leeches.
zeke5123a
1d ago
I don’t think they can change the welfare cliff but the easy solution is simply to phase out the welfare so the marginal tax rate isn’t too bad.
zeke5123a
1d ago
It also freed up the non working spouse to do more non paid but valuable work (eg make meals, build community)
zeke5123a
1d ago
There is also a presumption that taking care of kids is the only output. A SAHM can help build a community especially if there is a critical mass
zeke5123a
1d ago
I think one reason SAHM is hard is it’s a minority choice. As a result, there is almost a prisoner’s dilemma where if both Alice and Susie stayed home, each would like it more but if only one stays home it’s isolating.
Arguably getting more women to stay home increases the happiness of each SAHM.
zeke5123a
3d ago
I don’t think the constitution is clear at all. As Thomas points out, the people near in time to the 14th seem to take a different view of what it meant.
zeke5123a
3d ago
Of course it is ethnic. The whole argument is that it is ethnic. And it is only radical if you start the clock forty to fifty years ago. It was the norm well before the.
zeke5123a
3d ago
For many on the right, demographics is existential. There comes a point (and maybe we’ve already past it) where the cake is baked and there is no way to reverse and as a result the country is gone.
Worrying about tit for tat makes sense in a somewhat stable democracy.
zeke5123a
3d ago
Well, can you change the legislation if talking about the problem is in fact a crime? Seems like an uphill battle.
But more to the point, I think you are not speaking the same language of the right. They see the granted citizenship as an entitlement; not a right. The position on the right is that these immigrants have no real right to be here and that it was government grace and diktat that permitted it. So now we are rescinding that right.
zeke5123a
3d ago
This is why Roberts should burn in hell. His faulty birthright decision likely doomed America. Hell BK even gave him an out from reaching the constitutional question (which Roberts generally loves) but if there is one thing Roberts wants to take a stand against it is the preservation of the U.S.
zeke5123a
3d ago
Everything you wrote could be affixed with the phrase “for now.” When Germans are a minority, do you still except a pan Muslim majority to allow you to be “German” in the same way today?
zeke5123a
3d ago
So when the left violates civil rights (eg restricts speech via hate speech laws, limits free association) does that make them far right?
zeke5123a
4d ago
To be clear, what was reported is that the juror had doubts. The law permits finding guilt even if you have some doubt; the standard is reasonable doubt. If you read the common example, it is better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent punished. That seems to imply an approx. 90% certain standard. So if you are 99% sure but leave some room for doubt (ie 1%), then you ought to vote to convict.
Ironically by stressing the existence of doubt (but not qualifying whether it is reasonable) the other jurors may be indicating they do not understand the law and are not apply it properly.
zeke5123a
4d ago
Can you provide a cite for the bartender claim? I googled and it wasn’t obvious.
zeke5123a
4d ago
I think her supporters support her out of a combination of wanting more status for motherhood (ie playing the victim) and wanting to eliminate accountability for women’s actions.
That’s a bit different. It is common knowledge that penises don’t shoot bullets. But toxicology reports and their implications are not common knowledge.
The one juror put herself up as an expert but one that was not able to be cross examined.
More options
Context Copy link