Woman stabs boyfriend and dog, gets 100 hours

>Be attractive woman working in healthcare
>take bong hit with beta boyfriend
>go crazy
>stab boyfriend and dog to death
>idindunuffindaweeddid.jpeg
>judge gives you 100 hours community service
>media calls you Good Samaritan for committing cuckicide

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12994175/Bryn-Spejcher-Chad-o-melia-cannabis-induced-psychosis-sentencing.html

  2. 4 weeks ago
    god

    biggest tragedy is her going for that normie soi boy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He mogs you

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    99 of the 100 hours was for the dog

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >100 hours was for the dog
      she should get 10 years for killing that poor dog

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the law only cares about men, look up "hue and cry" it only applies to males. women have no obligation to the police.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > Spejcher’s lawyers had argued that their client — who was an inexperienced pot smoker — became “involuntarily intoxicated” at the time of the killing after O’Melia had pressed her to take another bong hit after not getting high off the first hit, the outlet reported in December.

      It wasn’t her fault. The bong hit made her involuntarily intoxicated

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        LOL this b***h is just schizophrenic and committed a murder and got away with it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > Spejcher’s lawyer, Bob Schwartz, called Worley’s ruling against his client the “right and courageous thing.”

          No, this was a “right and courageous” ruling by the court. Any one of us would have gotten the same sentence.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        she's a women, before bongs they called it "hysteria" and if she was stone cold sober they'd call it "reasonable fear".

        it's all obfustication for the fact that women are exempt from the law, the purpose of the law is to hold monopoly on violence, and women ALREADY hold monopoly on violence so there is nothing a man can do, ever, to lawfully offend a woman.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >deliberately consume drug.
        >shit happens.
        would this logic extend to inexperienced drinkers driving a vehicle?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          alcohol is "white" and "conservative" therefore it's BAD

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She is a Good Samaritan and society needs her help

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She was found guilty, lenient sentence was imposed by the judge. If she was actually determined to be involuntarily intoxicated then she could not be found guilty. Note: I'm ignoring some interplay between judge and jury determinations here but its not material to my point.

          This makes it even dumber. The question about whether she was involuntarily intoxicated is interesting though. Obviously, if you take PCP and then kill someone you are guilty. Same with drinking. But what if you take something knowing what it is but not aware of the risk of intoxication? You could argue that, unlike someone consuming PCP or Alcohol, she reasonably did not expect to become intoxicated to the extent that she did. This is all assuming the psychosis was real of course.

          Voluntary intoxication is an interesting issue. As we all know, insanity is also a defense. What if someone voluntarily consumes illegal drugs over an extended period that results in them having a psychotic break and killing someone? That person, if satisfying the applicable insanity test at the time of the killing, would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Compare this with someone who consumes an acute dose of the same drug and immediately has a psychotic break. That person would liekly be found guilty because voluntary intoxication is not a defense. Yet, between the two scenarios, culpability is similar.

          The interplay between intoxication (that results in a complete psychotic break as opposed to impaired judgment and inhibition) and insanity is also interesting. Probably varies by state.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You see your honor, when I crashed my Ram 2500 into that kindergarden's classroom I was unaware of how intoxicated I would be after drinking a fifth of vodka. It looked like water to me.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What if the intoxication was different in (1) magnitude or (2) kind than what you expected? Imagine a scenario where you are unaware that you have a genetic disorder that interferes with the proper processing of alcohol. You have one beer and immediately become very intoxicated. Are you still responsible for your actions?

            Or, what if you had a different genetic disorder that caused you to have a psychotic break after consuming alcohol? You have one drink and then have a psychotic break. Are you responsible for your actions here?

            In each case, you voluntarily consumed an intoxicating substance but reasonably did not expect the kind or magnitude of intoxication.

            by the way I think she should've had a longer sentence

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Marijuana is a dangerous drug.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely insane that being under the influence of nonprescription psychoactives would be considered a mitigating factor. Prison isn't just punishment or rehabilitation, it's separation

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      prison is an instrument of law, and law is an attempt to hold monopoly on violence, which is owned currently by women. Women have monopoly on violence, the law will do everything to undermine men who fight against that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Prison isn't just punishment or rehabilitation, it's separation
      Sadly this is lost more and more. In Europe, exclusions are already considered as a purely educating procedure from the daddy authorities. Separation is seen as racist.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Weird the pot heads assured us pot is benign.

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/young-men-highest-risk-schizophrenia-linked-cannabis-use-disorder

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Schizophrenia is genetic. You can't go schizo from pot unless you were already going to go schizo.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you can't go into a psychotic break immediately like that it's bullshit the judge is a moron or a woman or I am repeating myself

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that judge has clearly never smoked weed.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the US, you might get life with a chance if parole after 25 years instead of life without parole because of drug induced i didn't know what I was doing type defense. But your life will be over.

    100 hours community service? How is this victims family not going to 'do what's right' after this?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She already apologized to them during sentencing. What more do you want?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    another reminder that women are playing the game of life on journalist mode

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can absolutely see a wine guzzling pill popping roastie going absolutely berserk after experiencing even a nanosecond of ego death and being detached from her sanctuary of delusions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      t. moron thinking weed is lsd

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guess he got a bong hit transplant

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    judges have no souls or hearts.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *