Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Is Bryan Kohberger Guilty? | Analysis of Probable Cause Affidavit in Idaho Quadruple Murder Case" video.

I agree that no one should judge her. The facts concerning what she did that night are facts she provided to law enforcement voluntarily, to help them establish probable cause for Kohberger's arrest. I disagree with normalizing not calling 911. We can suspend judgment about her, without saying it's "understandable" that a person would fail to call 911. You are supposed to call 911. This crime has to be thoroughly investigated. It's tragic for the other roommates, but they have to be investigated. She can decline to be questioned further if this is bad for her mental health, but if a court subpoenas her, she will need to testify.
34
It certainly seems to be, but probable cause is not the same thing as guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That's why all evidence has to be tested in court.
12
@chodysseus420 Because right now we have no evidence that the two surviving roommates had any involvement at all, and the facts in the affidavit are facts D. M. voluntarily gave to police to assist them. Why is it so hard to suspend judgment? I don't believe in blaming anyone, OR normalizing the failure to call 911. We don't know what happened this time, and every individual deserves the benefit of the doubt.
11
@JillJ-y5f Dr. Grande just told you, that reaction does not last for hours. She might have simply passed out. But she was not "frozen" for hours.
5
@les0101s He also gave reasons why those explanations may not be adequate. I'm not judging her.
5
@JillJ-y5f So she had trauma in her life, froze in fear for hours, and thought nothing of it, it was probably Doordash -- plus she was wasted. Wow I love how people make so much sense.
4
@user-xg3uy6hq9g That twerp attacked me personally for something I did NOT say. Get it? Look, either she was paralyzed by fear or she wasn't. Maybe the way the police took down her statement is not exactly how she made it. I frankly don't see the point of rationalizing this, or assimilating it to situations that are not the same. If you want to normalize not calling -- anyone -- where you heard strange noises and then were surprised by a stranger who scared you in your own house, fine. You be that way.
4
@user-xg3uy6hq9g Let's make it a wrap. I am NOT saying she did not/could not have a perfectly innocent for not calling. I am saying it was not normal not to call. The normal thing, the expected thing, would have been to call. That does not make failing to call into something immoral, sinister, suspect, etc. (Are fine distinctions, like, over now? Do we just line up and take sides? As fast as possible, then dig in? Brilliant.) Second, DO NOT say someone is drunk unless you know for fact that they are. DO NOT presume they are drunk. People with unusual medical conditions have died that way. Plus, it is rude. ("College kids drink, that 'must be' what she did." Stereotype much?? We'll be sure to return the favor, see how you like it.)
4
@sadiyasaleh233 It is normal to investigate all who were present, because they were there. She has the right to decline to speak further, for any reason, but especially to protect her own mental health -- unless she is subpoenaed by a court. Then she will have to testify or prove she cannot. How can this be too tough? And NO, do NOT normalize being petrified, and frozen by fear, but then not calling 911 if/as soon as you are able. No. That is not normal.
4
@JillJ-y5f Try learning to read before you tell other people what to do.
3
@SacredFire777 So she was petrified, momentarily frozen by fear ("fight, flight, freeze"), and thought dude was just a hookup. The culture has changed. I don't understand either extreme: blaming her, or finding some reason why this was "normal." It's not working.
3
@MEMELIFEBABY We know what we know only because Dylan voluntarily cooperated with law enforcement and provided this information. She had the right to remain silent. Nor can you be sure that police took down her statement exactly as she gave it. She has no obligation to play to the Internet mob, and is probably smart to stay away. If a court subpoenas her, then she will testify, under oath, and we'll all hear what she has to say. As far as the story making sense, I agree that there are pieces missing. I can suspend judgment, and not assume the worst. Why do people feel a need to take sides? I will never understand. We don't have all the facts. As far as the press suddenly making up reasons why it is "understandable" that she failed to call for 8 hours, that does sound like a load of --- ----. I object to anyone trying to normalize "frozen by fear" plus "did not call 911 for eight hours." That is not normal. But a lot of people today are not normal. That doesn't mean they are criminals. This is a good time for parents to have a long talk with their kids about safety and what to do in an emergency.
3
@JillJ-y5f I didn't say it was her fault. Who isn't "leaving her alone?" Don't say she was probably wasted. That is rude.
2
@JillJ-y5f And she was frozen in fear and it was Doordash and she has had trauma in her life and . . . Any more words of wisdom? I stated I do not blame her. I know it's a huge shock and tragedy for the survivors as well; and for all we know, the police may have not taken down her statement accurately in the first place. This happens a lot. But I refuse to go along with this conduct being normalized. I'm not saying it's inexcusable or inexplicable -- I'm saying it is NOT normal not to call, and you don't know why she failed to call. You're just making stuff up.
2
@user-xg3uy6hq9g Not consistent with being frozen by fear. What could be the case is that the police did not take her statement down exactly as she made it. That could be. That is common, especially when everyone is under grave stress. Don't try to make sense of inconsistent things. It's not good for you.
2
@user-xg3uy6hq9g Why spin out a story? You all act like if a person emphatically states that they DO NOT blame her but refuses to spin out a ton of excuses, then they are secretly blaming her. Cut it out, will you? Adults can support ambiguity and suspend judgment until they see more facts, or simply suspend judgment because it is NOT their place to judge.
2
@user-xg3uy6hq9g I can use logic: if a person is in shock and paralyzed by fear, then they are not in a normal state, capable of doing normal things. If x, then y. "How many people come face to face with someone like that under those circumstances?" Who was "someone like that," at the moment she came "face to face" with him? What were "those circumstances?" Based on what we know now, or based, obviously, on what she perceived then? We know what is "normal" through case histories of other crimes. We also know based on the fact that other countries mandate calling for assistance if you are able to do so and do it safely, and failing to do so is considered a crime. This is called "nonassistance a personne en danger." Such lack of assistance in those societies requires an explanation, and such societies generally include civil law/Roman law countries (common in Latin American, Latin Europe, Russia, and elsewhere). We, I admit, have no such general obligation. So I guess it is normal not to call in that sense. In my opinion, I don't like to see it normalized from an ethical point of view, but, as you can see . . . well. We are on our way. Good luck to you.
2
@sadiyasaleh233 According to the affidavit, she was petrified and froze. You can't have it both ways.
2
@rahannneon I hope that parents everywhere have a real heart-to-heart with their kids.
2
True, but that depends on the motive.
1
@les0101s Read what I wrote again.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 Fix your spell check.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 I am sorry for your loss, but you see fit to attack me when you have no idea of what trauma I've lived through. Would it be normal for OTHER PEOPLE who saw the crash that killed your father to call 911? Not you, but other people. At least someone. Suppose no one had called. Would you judge that to be "normal?" I never said what you accused me of saying, and I don't believe you don't know it. Or maybe you are so personally traumatized that you don't understand how to make distinctions, and you take something that has absolutely nothing in common with the situation you lived through and you somehow find a way to take it personally. Did this roommate witness the near-instant death of an immediate family member at a moment when she, too, suffered physical injury? You don't see nuances here, just a black and white world?
1
@sadiyasaleh233 Now that you've collected yourself, I am guessing that you realized that SOMEONE called 911 when you and your father were in an accident and you could not. That was normal of them -- and yes, it was far more clear in your case than in this one. But you see, you do have a sense of what is NORMAL, don't you? And that includes a call for help.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 When you go on the attack like that, you could convince people not to call for help, do you realize that? In a lot of countries, failing to help when you can is called "nonassistance a personne en danger," and is a crime. In America, no one has a duty to report someone else's accident if they had no part in it, even if they are safe and able to call. If I were immature, an interaction like this could convince me to just mind my own business, which is my right to do, and never call to help anyone again. You should apologize for assuming my view is baseless, and for attacking me personally. Whole societies make it their law that there are times when you have to call. I never blamed the victim here, I made that crystal clear. I agreed the OP is basically right. Think about the world you want to live in. Someone called to help you. You attack someone who supports that.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 I didn't judge her, much less "crucify" her. I never asked that anyone do what they cannot. I don't care about the consensus. The "consensus" was, briefly, that anyone who was unvaccinated should be deprived of a hospital bed. Not to mention that if you are homeless it "must be" your own fault. That's an ongoing "consensus." So much for consensus. And frankly, I don't even see the "consensus" you see -- though I'd rather see posts like OP, which I basically agreed with from the start, than people blindly criticizing her. Which is why I did not do so, either. Suddenly, you're semi-reasonable, BUT you are still casting aspersions at ME and claiming I said something I did not say, or even think, much less speak. You are still putting words in my mouth. Shame on you. I am less likely to call for help today than I was a week ago, although I still have my ethics, and courage, which I have for my own sense of self, and not so much based on normal, human compassion. We have a completely dysfunctional society now. Consider what you want to contribute to, and how you want to live. Blocked.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 My gawd, your post prior to your last post is a string of lies. You don't even realize it? If a person is indeed in shock, are they in a "normal" state? No. They are not. Is it always a person's fault that they are not in a normal state, capable of doing normal things? NO. Who said it was? Who today does not know about how long shock can last, how common incipient PTSD is, how "fight, flight, freeze" is a state a person cannot will themselves out of? Who suggested these things are not real? That's not what the discussion here is about. The discussion, or at least the legitimate one, simply notes that we don't know whether this is what happened to her. We only assume it is possible. Just how much baggage are you placing on the word "normal?" And why? Good thing someone did the normal thing for you, when you needed the normal thing to be done.
1
@sadiyasaleh233 BTW, why didn't you go after one of the people who actually attacked the woman, or blamed her? Why did you go after me, who did not? I know why. I wonder if you do. Just keep trashing intelligent people. See how that works out for you when you need a doctor, lawyer, therapist . . .
1
@sadiyasaleh233 Ha. I forgot to block you. You just demonstrated that I did not blame her in the least. I continued to reiterate at every point that I did not blame her. And if she was severely traumatized, she was not in a normal state, and she may not have been able to do normal things. You can respond to any comment as you see fit, including a comment that was never made and was expressly excluded. If you want to go around misrepresenting what has been said, that is your issue. A lot of countries have laws that impose a general duty to call for help, IF a person is able to do that, and to do it safely. If they can't, no one makes them. Such laws are, ahem, normal in most of the world. (In the US, we rely on moral persuasion, assuming that still exists.) I am trying to call you to your senses to tell you that you are normalizing conduct that could come back to hurt you. If you don't care, that's up to you. I certainly don't take it personally. It's not my problem. (Nice little DARVO move, after pointlessly personalizing a theoretical discussion -- is that all ya got?) This time, blocked for real.
1