radiator_1451

6 ms·

1.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
Maybe the person thought that, but that would still be an absurd belief for them to hold. First of all, it doesn't seem like he had any problems he needed "help" with, the article only says he was "developing normally&qu
2.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
I mean, if it was the case that one parent killed the child (Which, to be clear, we don't know. It could have been anybody who had access to the child at the time), then I'd think the best outcome is them getting convicted of it.
3.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
> Doesn't surprise me that someone would give an infant a fraction of a pill of Tylenol as a sleep aid not knowing they have the opioid type and that the fraction they chose is enough to kill the kid one shot Note that this is just
4.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
Calm down. I'm not trying to re-frame anything, perhaps I misunderstood you because your reasons for not prosecuting are incomprehensible to me. Do I understand correctly that you think a murder (or involuntary manslaughter etc) is not
5.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
I'm not surprised that The Lancet is slow or unwilling to correct the record after falling for yet another fraud. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_Lancet_MMR_vaccine-... [2] https://www.thel
6.
by radiator_1451 8mo ago
Investigating a murder is posturing? I really don't understand the "bad ass, fear us" language. Do you consider all criminal investigations to be as frivolous? > odds are all of these deaths are purely accidental/negl