Imp posting
(media.scored.co)
Comments (57)
sorted by:
So if someone gets drunk and hits someone with their car, can they use the same defense? Clearly their judgement was impaired so how can they be held responsible?
It worked for celebrities and Ted Kennedy.
Except him killing that girl he went to fuck canceled out the Kennedy family worship and he didn't get to be prez
No, having a car and driving yourself places are "right wing" activities. Therefor anything bad that comes out of those will be prosecuted to the fullest possible extent.
Only if they're a woman or brown and aren't openly conservative
Honestly, no. If you take some bong hits and kill someone driving and the police have evidence of that they will charge you with murder. IDK what this is.
If she had no control of her actions, lock her up in a mental asylum.
Weed usually, by the majority accounts of it's users, makes you lethargic and hungry. Unless it was meth or bath salts, weed was an excuse and she's actually a dangerous psychopath that needs to be quarantined from society.
There are, unfortunately, not enough asylums to lock up every woman, all of whom will pretend to not have control of their actions in order to avoid accountability.
You'd only have to lock up a few for them to get the message that that excuse doesn't work anymore though. That pretense will evaporate if they'll still have to face consequences regardless.
Like most "insanity" defenses, its also so rarely able to be actually used successfully in court because if you show even the slightest hint of self-preservation or attempting to protect yourself, you prove you aren't insane enough. The only times it is successful is on people who are clearly not even in our reality and make no attempts to really hide it, like Ed Gein.
So its only being accepted as a legal defense here because its woman.
A lot of legal precedent winds up getting based on "OH it's a woman who brought this case," and then suddenly everything else gets thrown out from the old rules.
An important lesson everyone can learn from "true crime" cases.
Women can and will testify against you for things they did just to get out of any legal trouble. And the courts will accept that, even if you are completely innocent her testimony will be treated as gospel.
This image alone has enough info. She has enough of her mind about her to hide her face, meaning she lacks any insanity.
You don't recover from a "psychotic break" anywhere near that quickly, if at all. Drug induced or not, your mind doesn't ever snap back from such a degeneration.
And with that level of meds, you'll be too zonked out to be able to focus on something as smart as hiding your face. Anti-psychotics are infamous for zombifying people, its why even the deepest schizos quit them even while they are working.
Regardless, the point isn't that she didn't experience some amount of psychosis (which I still doubt), its that she has absolutely no legal standing to use it as a defense as she is clearly either not psychotic or has returned to normal function enough to be legally required to turn herself in. Her attempting to hide her face tells me she absolutely did try to avoid being associated with the event and is capable of being ashamed of it at the least, which is the biggest reason all insanity type defenses fall apart.
So even if I believe her, and you, at your word about how it went down she still has no legs to stand on regarding her defense other than "am woman."
It has the opposite effect on me, which is why I never use it. Any time I've used weed, it just makes me even more anxious and neurotic than I already am.
I've had strains that cause that, I try to stay away from them. But if you get it from all, I'm sorry.
In the past, the only thing weed ever made me want to kill was a bag of Doritos.
You can tell someone's position on smoking by asking about what he thinks about marijuana. Almost always (and I know there's gonna be a few libertarians here who are the exception), if someone is very pro-marijuana, he's very anti-smoking.
Who exactly is responsible if you decide to ingest substances or inhale fumes, and then you have a 'psychotic break' and murder someone else? If marijuana causes psychosis in some people, as it does, then maybe that risk should be on the person taking it and not on innocent bystanders.
Also, why does this have -4 downvotes? Potheads, trolls or are there actually legitimate reasons? I'd say the title isn't great for not being descriptive, but not enough to merit a downvote.
Michael Knowles was talking today about how tobacco/nicotine was right-coded and mj was left-coded.
The high level, and probably backwards rationalizing, explanation is that nicotine makes people more active and productive and thin, while marijuana makes people passive and lazy and fat. The left-leaning technocrats want a passive and submissive population while the right-leaning individuals (there are no right-leaning elites) want an energized and engaged population.
Look at he people who are for and against each and it mostly tracks.
I'm a right wing pothead. I know lots of people like myself.
I don't think your thought process is wrong. I think your data set is too narrow and its causing you to come to that conclusion. The majority of users are from the realm of "I do what the tv tells me" and those people aren't left or right. We would have to boil down who exists outside of that group and why they think the way they do.
This is not a rant against you. I just wanted to comment on the subject you brought up.
Feel free to rant against me.
I don't have a data set, I'm just theorycrafting. Generalizations don't rule out exceptions.
For the downvotes there's at least a handful that are militantly against screenshot posts of headlines/tweets instead of proper archive links. That might account for a couple.
The downvotes and castigation will continue until the behavior improves, but I only just got home so those were from someone else.
Perhaps, but there's a lot of screenshotting, and I don't see a ratio as bad as 5/-4 a lot. This one had a suspiciously large number of downvotes, coinciding with the increased presence of some trolls (real trolls, not people who disagree with someone).
I didn't downvote, but half the time I do if the title specifically mentions a user here.
Did Imp get banned again? I haven't heard, I just assumed that he went on sabbatical after the heat got turned up on Israel
It doesn't look like he has a ban in the log. I'm guessing he finally gave up (or changed to a different account when posting/commenting here).
Nah he's banned till summer, it was just a decently long time ago so you have to go back a bunch to find it. He's still posting in other communities, I saw him make agressively unfunny posts in c/funny the other day.
Apparently I didn't go back quite far enough then. CTRL+F imp got me a whole bunch of approved comments ~25 days ago, so I assumed that meant he was still good. Took a few more pages to find the ban. Apparently he was banned and THEN all his comments were approved. Kind of weird, but whatever.
It's called the 'pussy pass', where women get ludicrously lenient sentences for the most horrific stuff. There was a sub on Reddit that documented these cases, but it got taken over by the proglodytes. And now it needs to burn to the ground, together with the rest of Reddit.
What are the odds she was on hormonal birth control and let it lapse and then realized she'd selected a mate she found utterly vile and repulsive?
Sentencing is too light. Hang this bitch by the neck until dead, set an example to other women.
You cannot have "no responsibility" without "no agency", hence why the judge went with that ruling. To certain men it will not be applied, since only proper adults have agency over their actions.
Pussy pass engaged.
So people can use this court case as reference for their own case, right??
Is 'Imp Posting' gonna be a thing now? Because I'm all for it.
I have no problem carrying the burden occasionally since I was accused of being an imp alt by unamed entities
This shit makes me so angry that sometimes after reading something like it I have to spend a week or so away from the site.
The Acapulco Gold defense is just as stupid and irresponsible as the Wild Turkey defense--"Honest, your honor,I wouldnt'a done it if Id'a been sober! I'm not responsible for my actions!"
FU--everyone is responsible for every action she takes, bitch.
Post hijab
It's almond koolaid day, get chugging newbie.
Tits or GTFO.