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.
this is cherrypicking
I don’t understand how can it be cherry-picking when it is a reply to a comment, which stated in it’s entirety
the full definition requires an act. you cherry picked one ambiguously worded section.
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.
that’s not what your source says.
We understand English differently. There’s no point in continuing this conversation.
have a nice day
Thanks. You too!