Why would a little baby ever need to be on a hike like this? It doesn’t make sense. Even without the baby, hikes can easily be dangerous. Snakes, heat, bug bites, dehydration, getting lost, flash storms/floods, falls, twisted and sprained ankles (very common!). Why ever chance that with a little baby?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

If they were responsible for what happened (I don't know enough about the case), the worst possible consequence has already happened. How does posting stuff like this help? Why not focus on reminding people about the importance of preventing heatstroke and making safe choices when outdoors?

No one is suggesting the first bolded claim, and it's weird that you come up with that specific description. Also, if the second bolded statement is true, we may not be able to blame them for what happened, depending on the circumstances.

*came up

It is weird they brought that up! I am an average hiker. I do some hard trails but do easy trails every weekend. Where I live we do 80s and 90s hikes often, especially last year we would go to shaded trails often with kids. This trail was shaded except for the last part. I think with the day's progression the sudden spike in temp and full sun coupled with inexperience baby wearing in high temps hurt them. I still think it was something more toxic but I remember the first time being out in 90s temps baby wearing around town and as if a switch went off, baby and I got incredibly hot. I went into a hotel lobby to cool us down after barely getting out for the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

If they were responsible for what happened (I don't know enough about the case), the worst possible consequence has already happened. How does posting stuff like this help? Why not focus on reminding people about the importance of preventing heatstroke and making safe choices when outdoors?

No one is suggesting the first bolded claim, and it's weird that you come up with that specific description. Also, if the second bolded statement is true, we may not be able to blame them for what happened, depending on the circumstances.

*came up

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

If they were responsible for what happened (I don't know enough about the case), the worst possible consequence has already happened. How does posting stuff like this help? Why not focus on reminding people about the importance of preventing heatstroke and making safe choices when outdoors?

No one is suggesting the first bolded claim, and it's weird that you come up with that specific description. Also, if the second bolded statement is true, we may not be able to blame them for what happened, depending on the circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?

The only recorded lightning strikes off the day were 25 miles away from where the family was found

Oh I see. Yeah that wouldn’t seem to be a factor then most likely.

Actually I just read that lightning in ground current can travel up to 60 feet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/06/27/how-lightning-kills-and-injures-victims/

The lightning did not travel 25 miles underground and kill this family. Period.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

Seems like we have a US-born genius here.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

Ah yes the superior intellectual prowess given to those >>Booorn in the U-S-A…<<

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?

The only recorded lightning strikes off the day were 25 miles away from where the family was found

Oh I see. Yeah that wouldn’t seem to be a factor then most likely.

Actually I just read that lightning in ground current can travel up to 60 feet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/06/27/how-lightning-kills-and-injures-victims/

Look, I'm from Florida and as paranoid about lightning as anyone (if I hear even the faintest rumble, I make the kids come inside). But would the dad still be in a seated position after a lightning strike? That seems unlikely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?

The only recorded lightning strikes off the day were 25 miles away from where the family was found

Oh I see. Yeah that wouldn’t seem to be a factor then most likely.

Actually I just read that lightning in ground current can travel up to 60 feet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/06/27/how-lightning-kills-and-injures-victims/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?

The only recorded lightning strikes off the day were 25 miles away from where the family was found

Oh I see. Yeah that wouldn’t seem to be a factor then most likely.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

How many times are you going to post this same stuff about them being mentally ill thrill seekers?

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

…which would definitely count as weird and a factor in their deaths in the eyes of police, yes? Experienced people make obviously bad decision - why? If not mentally ill thrill seekers, that is. I doubt it’s true, but he certainly wouldn’t be the first tech millionaire to be one of those so who knows. Clearly there are additional non-public details that are making the police investigate this as something out of the ordinary.

I don't care if they accidentally went on the wrong trail. It was cruel and reckless to take a baby and dog on this trek. Period. They aren't idiots; he's a tech millionaire and she wasn't some dumb foreign babe in the woods, she was born in the U.S. and graduated from Berkeley. So spare me they didn't know how hot it was going to be. You do not take a baby and dog on a 85 or 95 or 110 degree hike. Clearly mentally ill thrill seekers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?

The only recorded lightning strikes off the day were 25 miles away from where the family was found

Anonymous wrote:I feel that 25 miles is a good indication against lightening. Plus, lightening leaves marks.

What 25 miles are you referencing here?