492
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

“This was not reckless driving. This was murder,” the judge said before she read out Mackenzie Shirilla's verdict Monday afternoon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

Wow the way she’s crying is disgusting, she’s just sorry for herself not for the deaths she caused. No remorse, only regret for getting sentenced

How do you know that? I don’t know about you but I’ve done things in anger that I felt genuine remorse for later.

Never killed anyone though, I suppose.

[-] Saturdaycat@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Because of her intent and crimes- she had genuine murderous intent as the judgement said. She seemed very cruel and unhinged according to the article and presented evidence and the video showed her crying due to the judgement.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s been two years since she murdered those people. She could easily feel true remorse now.

I’m in no way trying to excuse her actions, I just think it’s worth trying to do some level of empathizing for people. Not that what she did was in any way justified, but I can’t imagine trying to live with myself if I got angry enough to murder someone.

[-] Saturdaycat@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

It's all speculation and assumptions anyway ! We can see different things. I feel disgust and see regret and you may see someone possibly showing remorse. We just don't know for sure either way.

Have a good day fellow fediperson

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Have a good day fellow fediperson

You as well!

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Crying when the sentence was read doesn't say anything one way or the other about her feeling or not remorse because that specific moment is about what's going to happen to her, not about others, so she's crying for herself.

She almost certainly feels regret (which is entirelly about the consequences for herself), but it's unclear that she feels remorse (which is about the consequences for others of her actions).

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Those look like Rittenhouse tears to me.

[-] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

You mean legitimate tears from someone who had trauma from successfully defending himself against attackers? Did you watch any of the trial?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Boo hoo I murdered two people boo hoo. Can I get medal now? Boo hoo boo hoo.

There, that is what I think of your bestie. Go Rittenhouse about it to your family and "friends".

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

It’s been two years since she made that video, regardless of whether it was made before or after the crash.

I’m not trying to say that she is remorseful, only that we cannot say that she isn’t based solely on her actions two years ago.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Looks like a narcissist to me.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sure seems like she had a lot of issues at 17, that’s for sure. Most 17-year-olds don’t murder their friends and boyfriends.

I find her family’s attitude toward the whole thing troubling. I know my family, if I were in this situation and they had the same evidence, would be telling me to plead guilty and take responsibility. I have a feeling that concept was never big in her upbringing or her family’s.

It’s tragic all the way down.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Again it's tragic for the victims, not for her. Saying it's tragic all the way down, is a false equivalence.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Again it’s tragic for the victims, not for her. Saying it’s tragic all the way down, is a false equivalence.

I don’t want to be argumentative, but there is no false equivalence in my position. I never tried to apply any equivalence. Things can be tragic without being equivalently tragic, and one thing being tragic does not take away the tragedy of something else.

I think one could argue that you’re falling prey to the fallacy of relative privation. “X is worse than Y, so we shouldn’t care about Y.”

Tragedy is not a zero sum game. It is absolutely tragic that those young men were murdered. It is tragic that their families lost their loved ones. It is also tragic that this young woman thought the proper solution to her problems was to attempt murder-suicide. It is tragic that she threw away any promise her own life held along with theirs. It is perhaps not tragic, but certainly sad and troubling, that her family seems to think she did nothing wrong.

Yes, it’s more tragic for the victims, but it her story is still a tragedy.

It is important to note that I am in no way trying to excuse her actions or argue for leniency. She murdered two people in a horrible and reckless action. There are consequences for that action beyond the direct ones.

But empathy is important even for those we may hate.

[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Just wanted to say that I love this comment, and it’s a shame that so few people share this sentiment. Thank you for this.

I was actually just having an argument with my brother about this less than a month ago. Not this exact story, but a similar one where I was sad for everyone involved. He also fell into the “x is worse than y, so we shouldn’t care about y” mindset.

I didn’t realize there was a name for that, so thank you for that too!

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
492 points (96.1% liked)

News

23664 readers
2625 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS