• PizzaMan
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    What are you even talking about?

      • PizzaMan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        What does that have to do with this?

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s a statistically irrelevant example.

          But if we’re talking about conservatives pulling a single data point out of context and running it up a “non-con bad” flag pole, then this example has accidental value.

          • PizzaMan
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Sounds like they gave her probation because she was making an insanity plea, because she had psychosis. That, and she was seemingly remorseful. Therefore they gave her probation.

            Are you saying insanity pleas are invalid?

            Either way, this has nothing to do with the DC AG or what he said. You clearly have no argument for that conversation so you just moved to the next.

              • PizzaMan
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                It was drug induced psychosis, not a chronic condition. You’d know that had read your own article.

          • PizzaMan
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Right, I got that part. But what does it have to do with the DC AG, who wasn’t on that case?