Summaries are by definition ambiguous. They’re quick overviews of a subject, not in-depth analysis. If I wanted to cherry pick like a troll, I wouldn’t have linked to a source, which itself has footnotes.
As far as US law is concerned, it is entirely possible to murder through inaction. That is my only point.
I don’t understand how can it be cherry-picking when it is a reply to a comment, which stated in it’s entirety
you can’t murder through inaction, unless words don’t mean anything.
If the risk of death or bodily harm is great enough, ignoring it demonstrates a “depraved indifference” to human life and the resulting death is considered to have been committed with malice aforethought.
Quiet contempt, mostly. Their arguments for doing so, while passionate, simply don’t hold up under scrutiny. However, trying to talk to them about it just strengthens their resolve, so I don’t bother.
We understand English differently. There’s no point in continuing this conversation.