I had first seen the actual news article shared on a mom FB group before and I’ll admit that my reaction to the headline was judgmental but as soon as I read the actual article (that had good information unlike Jez’s) I felt sorry for the parents and a bit angry at the doctor. I had clicked on the article here, hoping…

Some important information about this case missing from this article:

People always say that but I don’t get it. I get why “I’m sorry that people were offended” is a shitty apology. But “I’m sorry to those that I offended” seems 100% reasonable. The people that weren’t offended obviously don’t want an apology so why would one be directed to them?

You’re a shitty person.

Who told you documentaries are objective journalism? That’s demonstrably false in the case of most documentaries.

Exxxxactly, why are people insisting that the filmmakers are responsible. Aren’t the lawyers and police the responsible ones? But they chose not to participate. Drives me batty.

How is any of that a reason to not watch it? What value does your opinion of the documentary hold if you haven’t even seen it?

Everything has bias. Whether that bias impacts the ability of the viewer to draw their own conclusions is what makes the difference.

One of my friends said something almost identical, so I’ll definitely give that a shot. Thanks for your input.

People should have a right to know which restaurants practice unsafe food preparation. That’s why the video got here via the local news, because the local news wanted to let local people know that Waffle House employees recently were caught washing their hair in the kitchen equipment.

The wife-beating question is a false equivalency in this case, because it’s just a made-up bit of fabulism, but the kid is asking something based in reality & truth— i.e. Carson’s stance, which everyone knows, and which he should be able to both articulate AND defend. As a Presidential candidate, Carson ought to be…

The question was a Yes/No answer, though— the kid wasn’t looking for any long philosophical treatise on Why. He wanted a yes or no in public, and Carson punked out!

YES. EXACTLY. My personal (not all that in-depth) theory is that he found the car, and her body in the back, nearish the Avery property at that point, which then gave him time to work with his buddies to get the evidence planting wheels in motion. The sheriffs wouldn’t want to risk him getting out on a DNA test again,…

One of his brothers ? His brother in law ? Brendan’s brother ? Her broher ? Her ex? Random psycho?

And two of them are each other’s only alibi. A shaky one at best because I’m pretty sure “we drove past each other at roughly this particular time”, with no other witnesses, is not one that should have been taken at face value without further investigation by law enforcement.

He has the right to personally believe something that’s wrong, but he does not have the right to take that wrong belief and make it into law. Where these reichwingers are steering with that whole“it’s a choice” bullshit, is they want to remove gay people’s civil rights. If homosexuality were a choice, then you…

If he’s running for public office, he has to be able to support his opinions against people who disagree with him. If he can’t defend his position, then maybe he shouldn’t have that position in the first place.

Why would sweat DNA be hard to plant? He had sweaty things all over his bedroom.

And like it always is on Jezebel, an apology or acknowledgement of you being correct will never come. For that, we’ll need a Christmas Miracle.

....What?

Sandra clearly rolls through the stop sign, directly in front of the cop car, while the cop was in it. She makes the the turn without stopping and he immediately pulls a u turn to tail her. This is something that is clearly seen at the 1:15 mark of the full video.

I’ve been pulled over many times for rolling…