Anonymous wrote:When you use your children as props for financial gain, and put yourself out there as this ideal family to be envied and emulated, its only natural for people to feel some amount of schadenfreude when it all turns out to be for show.

They were fine with, and even sought and encouraged, all the attention when it was lining their pockets. Will be interesting to see if they try to use influencing as an income stream going forward or not.

Did you follow Emilie before this happened? Just curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

Why wasn’t your husband watching him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.

She is trying to block the death certificate, the 911 call, and the police report. All things that are routinely released in court proceedings, etc. At any point in her life prior to this happening, she would have viewed this much interest in her as a reflection of her awesomeness and her being a “girl boss.”

If my child died, the public would not care because I don’t put my life out there on sale for the world. She does.

But yes, you are right I absolutely loathe influencers and struggle to find any empathy when things go poorly for them. My first thought was that she was probably filming/editing/prepping while her unattended three year old wandered outside.

I just read the first few pages of the linked court document, but it seems like what’s really happening is that as a mom, she doesn’t want to see the video or read any graphic details and is afraid that she will end up unwittingly viewing them, whether it’s because they will be splashed across the tabloid pages, or because people maliciously send them to her inboxes. I don’t think it’s inherently unfair for her to try asking for this, especially when it’s within her right to do so.
In terms of moral or karmic balance… she has LOST HER CHILD. And her livelihood as she knows it. If she would like to try to use the legal system to obtain a little privacy during this time because a large number of people like the unhinged PPs don’t consider it within the bounds of decency to offer it, well, that doesn’t offend any sense of rightness for me.
But I also have no idea who this woman is, and am not on social media at all because I’m not interested. So maybe that’s why I’m not so angry bc literally this has no impact on me.
Anyway not to worry guys, cases like these will be used as corporate justification for more and more totally faked AI content in the very near future….it’ll look just like this woman’s channel, but be completely computer-generated, no real family to protect, ta da! And we’ll keep hurtling faster towards hell while you all are obliviously nitpicking at these sad fellow humans on the fringes.

+1

When you use your children as props for financial gain, and put yourself out there as this ideal family to be envied and emulated, its only natural for people to feel some amount of schadenfreude when it all turns out to be for show.

They were fine with, and even sought and encouraged, all the attention when it was lining their pockets. Will be interesting to see if they try to use influencing as an income stream going forward or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Does the public really need to see video footage of the child drowning??? No, they don't.

She is trying to block the death certificate, the 911 call, and the police report. All things that are routinely released in court proceedings, etc. At any point in her life prior to this happening, she would have viewed this much interest in her as a reflection of her awesomeness and her being a “girl boss.”

If my child died, the public would not care because I don’t put my life out there on sale for the world. She does.

But yes, you are right I absolutely loathe influencers and struggle to find any empathy when things go poorly for them. My first thought was that she was probably filming/editing/prepping while her unattended three year old wandered outside.

I just read the first few pages of the linked court document, but it seems like what’s really happening is that as a mom, she doesn’t want to see the video or read any graphic details and is afraid that she will end up unwittingly viewing them, whether it’s because they will be splashed across the tabloid pages, or because people maliciously send them to her inboxes. I don’t think it’s inherently unfair for her to try asking for this, especially when it’s within her right to do so.
In terms of moral or karmic balance… she has LOST HER CHILD. And her livelihood as she knows it. If she would like to try to use the legal system to obtain a little privacy during this time because a large number of people like the unhinged PPs don’t consider it within the bounds of decency to offer it, well, that doesn’t offend any sense of rightness for me.
But I also have no idea who this woman is, and am not on social media at all because I’m not interested. So maybe that’s why I’m not so angry bc literally this has no impact on me.
Anyway not to worry guys, cases like these will be used as corporate justification for more and more totally faked AI content in the very near future….it’ll look just like this woman’s channel, but be completely computer-generated, no real family to protect, ta da! And we’ll keep hurtling faster towards hell while you all are obliviously nitpicking at these sad fellow humans on the fringes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

Right but the question was about their rights. Not sure why they should have fewer rights than anyone else.

Fewer? In an average situation like this, all of the info would have been public record. They have been more protected, not less.

No they haven't. They have used a legal path available to everyone. The question in the OP was should influencers be restricted from using that legal path.

And they were only using it because of crazy stalkers.

LOL crazy stalkers they groomed to love and care about their child and lives in order to profit off of them?

Influencers build their crazies - intentionally. Then they’re victims of that? Nah brah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

I just want to be able to discuss it with others without being lectured by you, since you asked.

I dont feel rage. I do think it’s an interesting discussion. We will one day look back in awe that people opened their homes and children up for public consumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

Right but the question was about their rights. Not sure why they should have fewer rights than anyone else.

Fewer? In an average situation like this, all of the info would have been public record. They have been more protected, not less.

No they haven't. They have used a legal path available to everyone. The question in the OP was should influencers be restricted from using that legal path.

And they were only using it because of crazy stalkers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

+1

It is creepy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has the right to 'sue to block public records requests'. Everyone has the right to do what this family did, influencers or not. This premise is silly.

Well the judge only saw fit to block two pages and now everyone knows what a dolt the husband is. Even then we all suspected it.

Will be interesting to see if/when she revives her channel.

Right but the question was about their rights. Not sure why they should have fewer rights than anyone else.

Fewer? In an average situation like this, all of the info would have been public record. They have been more protected, not less.

No they haven't. They have used a legal path available to everyone. The question in the OP was should influencers be restricted from using that legal path.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you read the report, they had alarms on all exterior doors but they were not turned off. They also had a katchakid netting system for the pool but both parents said they since they had been using the pool often, they hadn’t put it on between swims. The dad was feeding the baby a bottle. He had warmed it and was still feeding the baby when he ran out to the pool, he actually set the baby down outside and dove in to get the toddler. The toddler has taken swimming lessons and according to the report he was swimming for 2 minutes before going under but the area where he fell in didn’t have anywhere for him to grab or get out. He normally was very cautious around the pool (wouldn’t go in on his own) but in this case he tripped over something he was carrying and fell in.

The dad was sports betting in basketball and he won $100 on his sports betting. Crazy that someone on here is sticking up for the dad.

The 3 year old tripped and fell into the pool and was treading water for two minutes before he could no longer get air. He floated unconscious on his stomach for 7 minutes until his father noticed the dog looking into the pool and that’s when he noticed his 3 y/o floating in the pool who was outside unsupervised (both parents admitted to the police that their son couldn’t swim) for 9+ minutes and his father was watching basketball and blaming the newborn for him being distracted until the police confronted him and he had to change his story because it was caught on camera.

I am not sticking up for dad. He was clearly inattentive and that decision cost his son his life and likely will destroy to some degree the lives of the rest of the family. I am stating facts from the report that haven’t yet been discussed (feeding newborn, netting, alarms, swimming lessons)

None of those details matter.

Anyone with two kids close in age knows it's not hard to stop feeding an infant to stop a toddler from doing something dangerous. If you have a 3 yr old and a newborn, you will do this daily. Is it annoying to have to set the bottle down, disrupt the infant, and etc.? Yes, though if you are watching the 3 yr old in the same room, you can usually just say something or even intervene with one hand. Feeding an infant is not a reason to let your 3 yr old wander around outside alone for 10 minutes.

The netting is irrelevant if they didn't use it. If a child died in a car accident and wasn't in a car seat, but the family said "oh we have a car seat and do use it sometimes but it just seemed like a hassle to use it this time," would you view that as a mitigating circumstance or actually *evidence of negligence*? For me it's the latter, it means they knew what they were supposed to do and didn't bother to do it anyway. Can't blame ignorance.

Same with the door alarms, if they weren't engaged it doesn't matter. Honestly stuff like this only make me more annoyed because they have this big house with all these expensive features, so they have resources, but they aren't using those resources to keep their kids safe. They want their life to look a certain way on Instagram but aren't doing BASIC things to keep their kids safe. It's gross.

And that period of time after your kids have started swimming lessons but before they are independent in the water is a really important time to supervise your kids in or near water, because they can sometimes be overconfident or extra excited about water, but obviously lack the judgment to know when it's safe. That's your job. My kid didn't actually start swimming lessons until 4 but she was watched like a hawk around water both before and after she started because even though we were a bit late to enroll in swim lessons, we were not lax about water safety. Swimming lessons are not a replacement for water safety, especially at this age when kids have zero other resources (not tall enough to stand up in the water, no judgment for when it's safe to go in, etc. -- a 3 year old could be a decent swimmer and still drown because they are 3 and kids that age are not water safe on their own no matter what).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

What more do you want? I think they got their comeuppance. But the “rage” some of you are feeling is misplaced. It’s sad but they are the ones who have to live with the consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

Nah, it’s not odd. The details of the report were just released Friday and paint a vivid and haunting image of a three year old struggling for his life, for two full minutes, while dad watches basketball. The report clearly shows a lying, coward of a
Father. And a lovely dead child, and a
Mother who had been warned many times yet disregarded common wisdom and paid the ultimate price. Career, child, marriage- gone like POOF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These comments are so mean.

Emilie was/is considered one of the more normal and down to earth mom 'influencers' too. A wholesome sweetheart. Just tragic.

Tragic for her. Her deadbeat husband was betting on basketball rather than parenting. He’s criminally negligent and lucky he isn’t being charged.

The report was just released Friday. So, yeah. The details are the reason for the luncheon of public opinion. Is this really mysterious to you?
PP here. I can definitely see this. But she is getting hammered just for being an 'influencer'.

And? You really want people here to stop talking about this but they don't have to just because you say so.

It’s more than a little odd that people here are obsessed with a months old accidental drowning in Arizona.

These phrasing is the most meaningless phrasing in the history of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the judges are deciding these cases on an individual level according to the facts. So, I'll trust them to make the decisions.

I would like the judge to say to her, “oh, so you think there is too much public interest in the death of your child? Maybe you should have thought about that before selling your family for profit.”

Here is a novel idea. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!!

But then how would they get rich influencing? Their entire business model depends on people not minding their business.

That is also none of your business. I think it's kind of gross that people want these records.

If the info is out there concerning everyone else, there is something absolutely gross, dishonest, abusive about her trying to hide what is public information. 911 calls are public. She has no right to block those and I don't give one crap about what you think of people who listen to them.

It also *is* other people's business when a child dies for preventable reasons. If there's a police report, there is almost always a public interest in releasing it. In this case:

- releasing the police report helps disseminate information about pool safety and might alert other parents with backyard pools to how quickly a child can die because you have failed to secure your pool or supervise the child closely enough. Releasing the report can save lives.

- alerts others in the community to the fact that this family has an unsecured pool and a history of failing to supervise kids. Not only will this let others know that their kids are not safe at these people's house, but it might make them more thoughtful about taking their kids to other homes and know better what to look for or ask about.

While I would ordinarily be inclined to agree, the strange obsession with this accident is creepy. I find it deeply disturbing, and perhaps strong privacy protections is the only way to address that.

We need to implement privacy protections because of how your nervous system is reacting to this conversation? No, we don't.