I never said it was a "veteran exclusive" condition. You are missing the point. It's obviously over your head.
You have blinders on, and you are stuck in a rut, or denial, that won't allow you to admit that Penny's past employment is very relevant, and could be the key to why this happened, and the outcome of the trial. It's not an assumption, it's a fucking fact! Because of his service in the Military, which is his past employment, it has to be looked at. It 100% relevant. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a "global crutch".. or that his actions should be excused.. but it sure as hell is relevant. That's the argument.. if his past employment is relevant. HIs Military service is part of his past employment, and I stated why it is important, using PTSD as an example.
I brought up PTSD to demonstrate why Penny's past employment is very relevant. But you seem to not be able to grasp the connection. You seem to think I am arguing about PTSD to get Penny off, I'm not, I was simply explaining WHY Penny's past employment is relevant, and because PTSD triggered you and others, I had to show why it is. All you keep saying is Neely, Neely, Neely.. the article.. when Neely wasn't the topic. But that is who you are stuck on.. you can't get past your own mental block of what I am telling you. step the fuck back and look at the whole picture.. take the blinders off and stop looking at it from just one narrow perspective focused on Neely, PTSD, when all this was about is if Penny's past employment is relevant.. IT IS!