Your take is what, mental illness sufficient to cause someone to kill their kids is possible, and when it occurs it…is always also powerful and far-reaching enough to always degrade the ability to accomplish it? And/or being able to plan and accomplish it means they couldn’t have been fucked up heavily enough for mental illness to cause it?
I understand feeling strongly about the case, but that position is shallow and doesn’t add up. I’ve seen people undergoing psychotic breaks and heard about many more than I’ve seen. They can obviously plan and accomplish things, that’s kinda the whole problem for everyone else, where their internal wtf becomes external. And unlike merely drug-induced psychotic states, it doesn’t just fade with the dose, it dwells and lingers and festers and can become inescapable without help.
The things folks in that state can accomplish make no sense outside of their head, and shouldn’t be accomplished, but they don’t magically turn into a mush that can’t keep an idea coherent and “pull it off”. (Bad) Ideas remaining too coherent and consistent is kinda the whole problem? Your insistence of otherwise kinda reveals your lack of experience with the whole shebang, just being honest.
I’d lived myself with psychotic breaks all my life (I’m ADHD, autistic and bipolar, these three things cause strong problems with emotional regulation), I know what I’m talking about because I have to live with 6 fucking chronical meds because of that.
I can tell you that one can’t do a plan that complex in that state. And when one’s calm, obviously that’s something that won’t be even thought if you’re a good person.
One can still act and do terrible things, yeah, but it’s more sort of instinctive and primal, reactive I’d say.
I certainly don’t want to minimize your own experiences and learning from them. But, it’s a huge stretch to then claim that what you’ve learned necessarily and reliably generalizes to all other experiences. It doesn’t follow.
We know that sometimes people can lose touch with reality and yet still make plans and carry them out. Stated that way it seems too abundantly true (to me) to bicker much about. Sounds like we just aren’t going to see it the same way probably.
I didn’t know a medical condition can cause you to wait till your husband is out of the house to kill your 3 children
Yeaaa, like, the level of premeditation and reasoning is incompatible with a mental illness like that.
But hey, she’s a woman, and women can’t be bad nor commit any crimes, they’re always victims and men are always criminals, yk, totally common sense.
I’d love to see the reactions if she were a male and not a female.
Your take is what, mental illness sufficient to cause someone to kill their kids is possible, and when it occurs it…is always also powerful and far-reaching enough to always degrade the ability to accomplish it? And/or being able to plan and accomplish it means they couldn’t have been fucked up heavily enough for mental illness to cause it?
I understand feeling strongly about the case, but that position is shallow and doesn’t add up. I’ve seen people undergoing psychotic breaks and heard about many more than I’ve seen. They can obviously plan and accomplish things, that’s kinda the whole problem for everyone else, where their internal wtf becomes external. And unlike merely drug-induced psychotic states, it doesn’t just fade with the dose, it dwells and lingers and festers and can become inescapable without help.
The things folks in that state can accomplish make no sense outside of their head, and shouldn’t be accomplished, but they don’t magically turn into a mush that can’t keep an idea coherent and “pull it off”. (Bad) Ideas remaining too coherent and consistent is kinda the whole problem? Your insistence of otherwise kinda reveals your lack of experience with the whole shebang, just being honest.
I’d lived myself with psychotic breaks all my life (I’m ADHD, autistic and bipolar, these three things cause strong problems with emotional regulation), I know what I’m talking about because I have to live with 6 fucking chronical meds because of that.
I can tell you that one can’t do a plan that complex in that state. And when one’s calm, obviously that’s something that won’t be even thought if you’re a good person.
One can still act and do terrible things, yeah, but it’s more sort of instinctive and primal, reactive I’d say.
I certainly don’t want to minimize your own experiences and learning from them. But, it’s a huge stretch to then claim that what you’ve learned necessarily and reliably generalizes to all other experiences. It doesn’t follow.
We know that sometimes people can lose touch with reality and yet still make plans and carry them out. Stated that way it seems too abundantly true (to me) to bicker much about. Sounds like we just aren’t going to see it the same way probably.
Now you know
Well, apparently that’s what a jury overwhelmingly found. So it seems many people can fathom such a medical condition.
A very biased jury, save for one dude.
Biased and corrupt, for sure
Biased by what?
What was the jury m/f ratio?
For clarity, you’re saying it’s not possible for women to be unbiased in the trial of a woman? Why is a man inherently unbiased?
He’s not saying that. He’s saying that both are biased and because of that the ratio has to be fifty-fifty.
Why does it need to be 50/50 on this case when that’s not a requirement for other cases?
I personally do think that in any case should be 50/50, so the fact that’s not a requirement for any case it’s what I’m critisizing.