The radfems like you would still support her just because she is a woman. It's just that she would not have had the support of the "woke" BLM and Hotep crowd if she was blonde and white.
That sounds just like something a misogynist would say.
She did not get a sweetheart deal at her sentencing.
I seriously doubt you are an expert on the Stockholm syndrome or abused people.
Do you have any evidence that she was pretending? If so, produce it.
Produce the evidence that men usually get more than 15 years for robbing someone. As for the rest of your post, you know it sounds like something a misogynist would say.
She is half-white, half-black. So she counts as black for purposes of progressive stacking.Not having heard of or seen her before, I thought she was a white woman, in the photos. I looked again just now, and she still does.
Cyntoia has a long history of violence even before she robbed and murdered that guy in cold blood. To pretend she got convicted because of her caffè latte colored skin is ridiculous.
Um, her history of violence had nothing to do with the charges against her nor should they have played a role in her conviction. But go ahead and continue to attempt to cloud the issue by bringing up irrelevant facts.
I already did, in one of the articles I posted upthread. Her MO was to get picked up and then steal the money without providing the service.
It was a rhetorical hyperbole.
Just because I do not think women should not get away with murdering men does not make me a "misogynist". On the other hand, people defending women who murder men are misandrists.
Of course it does. It shows she was predisposed to violence. It puts a lie to the claim that she was an innocent victim who was defending herself. Read the detailed writeup about the case I posted upthread. Read also the statements by the lead detective, which I also posted upthread. Cyntoia Brown is guilty as sin and her sentence should not have been commuted!
True. It should have been first degree murder and armed robbery regardless.
Her history of violence is not irrelevant.
No. The jury and the judge got it right this time.
I seriously doubt you are. The fact is that Cyntoia was engaging in a life of crime before she met Cut-Throat. That suggests they were partners.
No, it does not. It sheds no light on what happened or why it happened or whether she is guilty or not. Your ideological blinders are inhibiting your rationality.
Apparently not. Apparently the idea that if she had committed the same crime today she would have received a 15 year sentence overrided your concerns.
It is to any rational and humane person.
I never claimed I was. And I did not make a claim of fact about what sane people would or would not do in that circumstand.
Obviously it suggests it to you. That does make your conclusion valid or relevant. But that won't stop your incessant ideologically driven claptrap.
I did.
Of course it does. Best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Cyntoia has been engaging in violence since 12 years old, and yet when she robs and murders a man, she claims victimhood. Cry me a river!
Are you talking to yourself again?
That's because Haslam is an idiot. Judging from this thread, he is not the only one bamboozled by her though.
Heh? Penalty for first degree murder is not 15 years in Tennessee.
Wrong. Past criminal history usually plays a role in sentencing. Have you never heard the terms "first offense" or "petty with a prior"?
Then don't pretend you know more than me. Because you know far less.
I explained my reasoning. All you have is "no it isn't" like John Cleese from the Argument Clinic sketch and throwing around pop-psych buzzwords like "Stockholm syndrome".
You are talking to yourself yet again.
And? What do you have to say about it? Please be detailed.
Logically, it says nothing about what actually happened and who actually did it. So, your claim is irrational.
More irrationality. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with being violent in the past and being a victim later on.
More irrationality.
No, I am claiming that the history of violence is not relevant to the issue of her guilt in these crimes. I am not thinking of her as a victim. Your comments are irrational.
He may be an idiot. However, his reasons for his decision appear thoughtful and rational, unlike your posts.
Huh, she was a minor at the time.
It is not relevant to her guilt or innocence of the crimes of which she was charged and convicted.
She was also abused and pimpled out while she was underage. For some reason, you continually ignore that salient part of her history, while you claim that her history is relevant. But hey, doesn't matter, her sentence was commuted and all of your irrationality and rage cannot change that fact.
