Modern Relationships and Lindsey Clancy Case. 3 Children Strangled. Overwhelming Support From Females and Male Backlash.
- Thread starter Lightbeamrider
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Is she still hearing voices or was that just a one time event? When did she start hearing voices or did this start with them telling her to murder the three kids?
The correct phrase in this situation is she committed homicide.
Calling a homicide a murder will only be correct in cases where the legal definition of murder is met in that jurisdiction, usually involving a killing with intent.
Link
I am not going to engage in your twisting further, I will admit you are a pro.
I did not refer to her, until she is convicted of a crime I am not going to say she committed a homicide. I'll say she confessed to killing them and she is charged. But the children were murdered. That is a fact. Homicide includes both murder and self defense and all forms of justified killing. No one is going to tell me killing those children was justified.
Comparison of Homicide and Murder
| Feature | Homicide | Murder |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Any act where one person causes the death of another. | An unlawful killing committed with malice aforethought. |
| Legality | Can be lawful (self-defense) or unlawful (a crime). | Always unlawful and illegal. |
| Intent Required | Not required; can be accidental, reckless, or intentional. | Required; involves premeditation, intent, or extreme recklessness. |
| Criminal Charges | May result in no charges if justified, or lead to various charges. | Always results in a serious felony criminal charge. |
Being convicted by a court of law is not required before using the term murder. What is required is that the killing is unlawful, results in felony charges, and required extreme recklessness.
We're weren't. We were discussing whether or not messengers could deliver a message. And I suppose whether a person has a grasp on reality if he can receive one.
There is most definately demonic activity regarding the entire sad mess. Dismissing this fact, takes the focus off the reality of
a very real spiritual battle being fought,. This trial seems to be the microcosim in the macro of this country. Babies are already fodder for the devil's offerings and as many probably know, some on the left are currently advocating aborting up to the moment of birth and killing beyond. Some people may read how the countries around OT Israel offered babies as sacrifices and think how horrible, but what do they think is going on in this country? Many people are inspired by demons to do the horrible things that they do....all kinds of crimes.
What is a fact with Clancy, is that she was never diagnosed with postpartum until AFTER she killed the children. Prior, multiple doctors diagnosed her with anxiety. Who knows. If she wasn't hearing audible voices prior to the murders, who knows what she
had going on between her ears.
And yes, drugs are an entryway to demonic activity. None of that will come up in trial but people here should understand it. Should.
At first it is a "homicide investigation" because they don't know. For example, if a child is playing with the drapes we used to have these cords that could cause them to be strangled. It is possible that children could have been strangled by accident and when the mother discovered this she moved all three to the basement and then jumped out the 2nd floor window. However, once the details are known, it wasn't an accidental death, it was "murder".
Classic turnabout for the average narcissistically inclined individual. I would not think you have any 'use' for anyone you cannot actually 'use'.
Right. And if you question him or disagree, you are 'of no use to him'. Like I said, a person is no use to him if he cannot use them.
I have been kind of taken aback at what he said but when reviewing his remarks, it seems he is a mindreader, a criminologist, both a prosecutor and a defence lawyer and understands all medical terms and has reviewed all there is to know about both Clancys and is able to determine who did what, who thought what and he would like to spank both of them.
It becomes difficult to determine facts when rumor spreaders take such delight in dispensing their theories.
No, the legal definition does not require a conviction to use the word murder. For example, Charlie Kirk is not a "homicide investigation" it is a murder investigation. Whoever killed him planned it, and it was not justifiable.
You were the one making up the requirement.
However, it would be wrong to say that Lindsay, or Patrick or anyone else was guilty of murder until they are convicted. The children were murdered, yes, but until someone is convicted of the crime they are presumed innocent.
Now she has confessed, and she has been charged, and so alleged to have murdered the kids is fine.
For a killing to be treated as murder, the act usually has to be unlawful and tied to intent or a serious state of mind.
Her state of mind is in question here. My goodness!!!
I am just amazed how you change your tune when it suits your position.
From a strict legal and journalistic standpoint, we cannot definitively say the Clancy children were "murdered" because Lindsay Clancy has not been convicted of murder, and the legal definition of murder requires criminal intent. [1, 2]
The Fact of the Killings: Both the prosecution and defense agree on the physical facts of the case—that Clancy strangled her children in January 2023. It is factually accurate to state that she killed them or that they are the victims of a homicide. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Journalistic Standards: Professional news organizations (like the New York Times or BBC News) carefully use phrasing such as "the deaths of the Clancy children," "the killings," or "the children she is accused of murdering" to preserve the presumption of innocence and avoid legal liability before a final verdict is reach
From a purely physical and technical perspective, yes, the children were murdered because their lives were intentionally and violently taken by another person through strangulation.
The children did nothing to justify the killing, it wasn't self defense, it wasn't some accident the children did.
That is my point. You are saying that what happened to the children depends on how a jury votes. I am saying it doesn't. What happened to the children is a fact. What happens to the killer depends on how the jury votes. But even if they vote that she is innocent by reason of insanity it does not change one iota of what happened to the children.
Practicing and not actually doing it for real....doing gubbermint work.... because if they were actually any good they would be in the private sector making good money. Not the pathetic checks the government gives out.
Based on what I witnessed, they did an excellent job of showing that Lindsay Clancy planned the killing of her three children and was lucid while doing it, meaning Lindsay was not psychotic (out of control) when she strangled her three children. Posted here and ignored. By you and others. These were facts, not opinion like you all are doing with no facts. Your post above is all fact free opinion