the “lalalala can’t hear you” domestic-violence doctrine™ 🌪️😮🍿
lol
GUYS
😐🎤 either it’s:
“she ALLEGED TERRIBLE THINGS
and therefore we say
FIFTH, 🚩
VERY SERIOUS, 🚩
VERY SENSITIVE, 🚩
WE CAN’T ANSWER ANYTHING, 🚩🚩🚩🚩
PLEASE RESPECT PRIVACY DURING THIS TIME”
or it’s
“what domestic violence???
la-la-la can’t hear you,
restraining orders are mythology,
please disregard every court order
and police report
because that never happened
actually <3”
🌈🦄 ✨
like babe.
pick.a.
narrative.
⭐😕
—
you do not get to
oscillate between:
🚫🗣️ “these are grave allegations,
we must sixth-amendment-shuffle
our way through basic(-ass) questions”
and
🫢💥️ “domestic violence?
wowee where did she get THAT idea?
certainly not from the two protection orders
or the felony case we pretend is a creative writing elective.”
—
✨🤡 🚩
y’all.
come on!
the whiplash alone is a tort.
✨🪦✨
you’re literally standing in front of the bench doing:
“NO COMMENT,
TOO SERIOUS,
FIFTH-FIFTH-FIFTH,”
😮.
then one supplemental add-on later:
“WHAT DO YOU MEAN VIOLENCE OR STALKING,
YOUR HONOR, SHE’S JUST BEING DRAMATIC ONLINE,
PLEASE IGNORE.
SHE IS ACTUALLY BOTHERING…US.”
✋😕👉
—
logically, those can’t both be true.
either:
a) it’s serious enough
that you need the dv context to justify silence →
congratulations, 🔥
you just conceded
it matters for
duty,
risk,
and control
or
b) it’s all made up →
in which case
you don’t get to hide behind it
✨😐😶😶🌫️🫥 to dodge
ownership / timeline / conduct questions
…✨🥲
BING
BONG.
🕊️✨
that’s not strategy.
that’s schrödinger’s domestic violence:
simultaneously fake
and
too serious to discuss.
🫢💫✨
right now
your story reads like:
“her account
is absolutely fictitious…
💥 except 💥
when we need it
to explain why
we can’t answer
absolutely (fucking) anything
without self-incrimination
of…real crimes.” 🥲
…✨💀✨
—
so.
homeboy.
😐🗞️
pick a stance. 💥
pick a (fucking) universe. 💥
pick a
goddamn dimension—
or even a
singular point
in time
or space 🛸
that
any part
of this narrative
ever made,
any goddamn sense.
🏠🔥
