Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Downloads

Content

VR44 - This week on Vapid Response: we survey some of MAGA’s worst takes on the recent mistrial of Lindsay Clancy, all the way from “women are too woke and emotional to be on juries," to “the man who acted out of emotion to ignore the law is the true hero.” Also: the manosphere’s casual endorsement of domestic violence against women who want to talk about their own mental health, and a quick refresh on the incredibly nuanced reality of a mental health defense in Massachusetts.

You can watch the episode here!

Jury instructions in Commonwealth v. Clancy, delivered August 26, 2026 

“Lindsay Clancy’s Activist Jury Is a A Consequence of Democrats’ Soft-on-Crime Creep,” Jordan Boyd, The Federalist (9/14/2026)

“What a Lindsay Clancy Juror Said About the Case is Just Insane,” Matt Vespa, Town Hall (9/13/26)

“Men, Get Ahold of Your Lindsay Clancy-Supporting Wives and Girlfriends Before It’s Too Late,” Eddie Scarry, The Federalist (8/24/26)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

Sam

One thing I've been trying to get information on is how does that different standard of proof in Massachusetts NGRI defenses actually affect things? How often is it tried relative to places where it's an affirmative defense? How often is it successful? How long are people found guilty for that reason usually confined and what are the recidivism rates, and how does that differ in Massachusetts specifically? Also, I think it would be more appropriate to say that it's alleged that this hold-out juror was disregarding their own reasonable doubts than to take that as given on allegation alone. They've now denied that. The prosecution at least attempted to present some evidence on planning and concealment, the sort of things that are typically presented as evidence in an attempt to prove mens rea.