r/ufc 4h ago

Sean Strickland's latest post on twitter

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

1.9k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/kb2328 4h ago

Is he dumb enough to think that she's trying to get off? The trial is for if she gets life in prison or life in a psych facility. She's not arguing if she did it haha. Sean is legit dumb as rocks.

14

u/lost_boy505 3h ago

They don't even acknowledge that mentally ill people who commit crimes are regularly sentenced to psychiatric wards instead of prison and if rehabilitated at a later date they are moved to a regular prison.

This country is cooked. Low iq goons are the majority.

1

u/Fortestingporpoises 2h ago

They aren’t just moved to regular prison, they then stand trial.

4

u/Alternative_Plan_823 3h ago

That's not true. Not guilty by reason of insanity is on the line. Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her 5 kids and is often compared to this one, is free to go and only remains in a nice little facility because she chooses to. Look it up.

1

u/kb2328 3h ago

Brother did you guys even read up on the case? In mass the judge would have to release her from the psychiatric facility. Precedent in mass is they stay for life. I think there's been a few who have only done a few decades but that's unusual.

2

u/HealingSlvt 3h ago

Doesn't change the fact that there's always a possibility that she can be released early

3

u/kb2328 3h ago

Yates is in Texas. Just because she declined the hearing doesn't mean they wanted to release her. She knows there's no chance she's doing life in there.

1

u/HealingSlvt 3h ago

Yeah you know who else is in Texas? Kendrex White who got away with murdering a UT student. He was supposed to have been held for life; he was released after 8 years under monitoring

-1

u/kb2328 3h ago

Yeah because he's a man in Texas. You know what I mean brother

2

u/HealingSlvt 3h ago

Exactly, you know full well that a judge can decide years later to release her, regardless of the state

1

u/kb2328 3h ago

So we just don't care about precedent in legal situations anymore? And where were all you guys for the numerous cases that got this verdict for the same reason last year and the years before?

1

u/bananabastard 3h ago

The argument is about how responsible she is.

If she were male, there would be no question, there would no protesting outside, and no claims that natural things men experience can cause understandable psychosis.

So if the courts determine that ordinary, perfectly sane women can suddenly become insane or murderous after pregnancy, it's not creating a favorable legal precedent for women.

3

u/kb2328 3h ago

Bro you know guys get this ruling all the time right. Like there's too many examples for me to even start listing off.

-1

u/bananabastard 3h ago

A man would only get an insanity ruling if there was evidence of him having a history of insanity.

Not, "my natural male hormonal processes can lead to acute bouts of insanity."

This ruling would say that this is something that can happen to any woman, and it just happened to her. This amounts to a rule on women as a whole. And sets that as a legal precedent.

2

u/BOKUtoiuOnna 2h ago

You understand that human biology can differ between sexes? And that pregnancy is thing not everyone experiences but can effect your hormones in a way nothing else ever can? Plenty of women can't or choose to never give birth, so they could never make this defence. There is a documented mental health condition that is specifically caused by massive hormonal changes after birth. It is called post partum psychosis. And its not just feeling bad because of hormones - its literally psychosis - hearing voices and shit, having no grasp of reality. It frequently leads to women killing newborn babies and not knowong they did it afterwards. It has been documented for an extremely long time. She didn't claim it without medical precedent. It's not something she or any woman made up. Since medecine was mostly male at the time of its discovery, it was most likely first coded into medical understanding by a man. If a biological male claimed he killed someone because of his male hormone fluctuations, it wouldnt hold up in court because there's no medical situation where speficially male hormone fluctuations that can cause a mental health conditions that reaches the bar for actual insanity. He could however say he had another type of imbalance that caused insanity - which men do absolutely constantly and frequently get ruled not guilty by reason of insanity.

1

u/bananabastard 1h ago

I'm sorry, but it appears that you are too stupid to understand my point. And you don't realise that everything you just said supports my point.

3

u/kb2328 3h ago

Brother men get this ruling all the time. There's been a handful this year including a guy who strangled his 5 year old. He only had a history of depression. This chick at least gave a good attempt of killing herself unlike any of the guys.

-2

u/IndigoSeirra 3h ago

List a few. Since there are so many you can think of off the top of your head it shouldn't be difficult to provide some examples.

5

u/kb2328 3h ago

Mathew schleier this year strangled his 5 year old son and got it. Dobbins shot a dude in a hotel last year and got it. Harrouff killed a random couple in their garage and got it 2 years back. Hoetzlein killed his mom this year and got it. I mean why are you acting like this is a new thing.

3

u/yargotkd 3h ago

Google just gave me a list, one happened this year. Would that change your optinion though?

-1

u/Pure-KingOfSkill 3h ago

They just wanna act like Sean has no point cus he's Sean.

-1

u/ximstuckx 3h ago

What would you rather have? Life in prison with no chance in parole or spend 6 months in a psyche hospital before being assessed if you can be released.

2

u/Fortestingporpoises 2h ago

Dangerous psychiatric patients aren’t just let go.

5

u/kb2328 3h ago

That's not how that works brother haha.

5

u/ximstuckx 3h ago

I mean, it is though. If she’s found NGRI and then later gets cleared she can’t be charged again because of no double jeopardy.

4

u/kb2328 3h ago

When has mass ever released someone for this crime though? Precedent in the state is they pretty much do life in facility. This isn't the first or the last. They all end the same.

-2

u/apirateship 3h ago

Who is she a danger to now?

Why would she be locked up for years? Her "post partum psychosis" got solved

2

u/kb2328 3h ago

They have to prove that she is no longer a danger to herself or others. She has a history of killing 3 children and attempted suicide on herself. No one has been released in mass for this kind of crime ever. It's the same as the Yates case who got not guilty by insanity and she'll do life in there also.

-1

u/apirateship 3h ago

She's not crazy anymore - it was 'temporary'.

She's not a danger to anyone.

By their rules she should be out relatively quickly.

1

u/kb2328 3h ago

You think this is the first post partum case to get not guilty by insanity. Yates in Texas got this. Fleming in New York. Who are both still in custody.

4

u/txwoodslinger 3h ago

She will never be released though. And prison v mental hospital is a no win situation. Both are going to be awful in their own ways.

0

u/twoheadedheaded 3h ago

Cucked response

1

u/kb2328 3h ago

Ok Sean.