Cyberbullying case settled for parents of missing Truro toddler
- Thread starter Zeedox
- Start date
I don't know. That's a slippery slope. After all, how does a toddler just vanish? Is it not possible that they actually did get rid of their own kid?
How on earth can a kid just vanish into thin air but there be no evidence of foul play? Somebody was negligent at the very least and in that regard they are responsible for it.
How on earth can a kid just vanish into thin air but there be no evidence of foul play? Somebody was negligent at the very least and in that regard they are responsible for it.
It was a sad story. The child was with his grandmother and she stepped out of view for less then 30 secs and he was gone. Nothing but the boots were ever found.
'I think somebody has him': Grandmother of missing boy says in first interview since his disappearance
Without knowing where their son is, Dylan Ehler's parents did what they know he would love to do — launch little dissolvable boats marked with messages of hope and love, one year after he disappeared.
atlantic.ctvnews.ca
I'm well aware of that. I read the article.
But again the question becomes: How can a kid vanish and they say there's no foul play? After all, if they don't know how the kid vanished, is it not possible the parents were involved?
Fact of the matter is, in the vast majority of cases like that, the parents/guardian are involved. They get rid of the kid after an incident and then stage an abduction / disappearance. It's happened literally thousands of times.
So how is it suddenly not permissible to suggest the parents were in on it in some way? After all, history dictates that it is possible.
But again the question becomes: How can a kid vanish and they say there's no foul play? After all, if they don't know how the kid vanished, is it not possible the parents were involved?
Fact of the matter is, in the vast majority of cases like that, the parents/guardian are involved. They get rid of the kid after an incident and then stage an abduction / disappearance. It's happened literally thousands of times.
So how is it suddenly not permissible to suggest the parents were in on it in some way? After all, history dictates that it is possible.
The investigation has so far has stated 'there is no evidence of foul play'. Without evidence it's considered a false accusation.
The little caption on the photo of the bald fat fuck that ran the site says Tom Hurley was the administrator of a Facebook group where people shared information and theories about Dylan's disappearance.
Gonna go ahead and call pure bullshit on that. If all they were doing was saying shit like maybe the parents are covering for the grandmother or maybe the grandmother fucked the kid up and then buried him that's one thing. I'm willing to bet they didn't just share an idea and that was that. He looks just like the sort of fat fuck that runs around spewing all kinds of sick demented bullshit and then spaming it to everybody the people know.
Think about it. If it was just some small FB group discussing different theories they probably would have never even known about it. To know about it they must have been attacked personally and probably in real life too by those fat fucks that had nothing better to do.
Gonna go ahead and call pure bullshit on that. If all they were doing was saying shit like maybe the parents are covering for the grandmother or maybe the grandmother fucked the kid up and then buried him that's one thing. I'm willing to bet they didn't just share an idea and that was that. He looks just like the sort of fat fuck that runs around spewing all kinds of sick demented bullshit and then spaming it to everybody the people know.
Think about it. If it was just some small FB group discussing different theories they probably would have never even known about it. To know about it they must have been attacked personally and probably in real life too by those fat fucks that had nothing better to do.
Without evidence it's a theory. A theory just as valid as any other in a case where police have clearly just punted on the entire thing.
If that is what this is all about then yes. I agree completely. But if it was in fact just people spitballing theories of what might have happened, where do you draw the line?
At that point, how could anybody, media included, even offer up an opinion on anything at all? We would literally be in a police state where police dictate what you can and can not say by what they do or do not know.
Or, more frighteningly, what they want you to think they do or do not know.
Or, even more frighteningly, what they know but don't what you to ever talk about.
This is the probably the case (although online or real life makes no difference up here with our cyber-bullying law).
There's been at least two cases where the victims families were stalked online by individuals and/or groups asserting unsubstantiated rumours in a very public manner. This is where the cyber-bullying law comes from. And that's exactly what the charges were laid under.
Then that makes sense. The article doesn't state anything that was done.
It makes it seem like these people came across a Facebook group talking about it and decided to shut it down.
It makes it seem like these people came across a Facebook group talking about it and decided to shut it down.
You are correct. At times I find the CBC very bad in assuming the reader wants to re-read all the old articles vice giving a new short summary in the new update.
People should just keep their fucking mouths shut and let the cops do their job.