". I expect someone who accuses someone of being a heartless, sick individual to at least have a good foundation to make that accusation."
It's a reasonable foundation when someone suggests that a family who has been through this kind of tragedy deserves to be suspected of a crime in lieu of any evidence. There was no mention of any contradictory evidence, so you have no reason to suggest they pursue this as though there was foul play.
"Sometimes you go fishing, and catch a fish. Same goes with an investigation."
You just showed how clueless you are with that comment. As I mentioned more than once, there is a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation. There has to be some evidence or reasonable suspicion, or else you can't start an investigation. A fishing expedition is what the Democrats like to do with Republicans, for example, when they appoint a special prosecutor and the guy goes on a fishing expedition for years trying to find some wrongdoing. But you said you don't have a problem with a fishing expedition.
There's a principle of assumption of innocence in the legal system.
Quote: : "It's a reasonable foundation when someone suggests that a family who has been through this kind of tragedy deserves to be suspected of a crime in lieu of any evidence."
Purely your opinion, and an uniformed one at that.
It also has nothing to do about "deserving", it has to do about obtaining facts. Something you don`t seem to care too much about.
Given the crimes that are committed against children in this country every single day, you have to rule out certain things in the event of a childs death, or any death for that matter. And I am sorry to inform you, but the family did go through a preliminary investigation. If they didn`t, the police did not do their job, as I originally stated.
Quote : "There was no mention of any contradictory evidence, so you have no reason to suggest they pursue this as though there was foul play."
So we are back to the since there is no contradictory evidence mentioned in the article, there is no way a crime could have been committed here... You need to get out in the real world more often. There are any number of cases where a child has been killed and made to look like an accident , when in reality, a crime was committed.
And just because some beat writer for some newspaper didn`t include any contradictory evidence, doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.
I should suspect that you are a heartless, sick person for not caring about making absolutely sure this child was not the victim of foul play.
You base your assumption on a few words in a newspaper article. That is your foundation? I ask some questions, and I am the bad guy... Give me a break.
Quote : "You just showed how clueless you are with that comment."
I have that same feeling about some of your comments. I guess we are even....
Quote: "As I mentioned more than once, there is a difference between a fishing expedition and an investigation. There has to be some evidence or reasonable suspicion, or else you can't start an investigation."
What? You are kidding me right? That there was a completely idiotic statement.
If a child is killed , you have to investigate it, period.
Quote: "A fishing expedition is what the Democrats like to do with Republicans, for example, when they appoint a special prosecutor and the guy goes on a fishing expedition for years trying to find some wrongdoing."
I am afraid both parties do that.
But we are talking about the death of a child! I could give a rats behind about the democrats or republicans bickering, petty games.
A democrat also tries to make absolutely idiotic comparisons to bolster their argument by the way.
Quote: " But you said you don't have a problem with a fishing expedition."
Sometimes you have to go fishing to catch a fish, that is correct.
Quote: "There's a principle of assumption of innocence in the legal system."
Did I say otherwise?