BBM:
Great questions!
The answers are somewhat subjective, but I'll give you my opinion.
I was willing to give HH the benefit of the doubt until I read the affidavit.
The line for me was upon discovering that she refused to cooperate with investigators in the case of her missing, vulnerable, 11-year-old stepbrother.
_______________________________
For me, there's the Red Line. HH crossed it.
The argument that "she's a minor" is not going to cut it for me. At all.
Moral development, i.e., knowing right from wrong, understanding the link between actions and consequences, empathy, etc., occurs prior to the age of 18. There's not a magic switch at 18, where, Voila! People reach an age of moral accountability.
If HH doesn't know the difference b/t right and wrong now, she likely never will.
I personally suspect she never will…or if she does, she'll disregard it, just as she disregarded it in this case.
Either wittingly or unwittingly, and, frankly, none of us knows which is the case, HH aided TS in cleaning up a crime scene by purchasing cleaning supplies for her, then taking LS out of the house while TS scrubbed TS's blood off of walls, floors, etc.
Do I think HH knew at the time she was purchasing supplies to help her mother clean up a bloody murder scene?
No.
Do I think HH now realizes she purchased supplies to help her mother clean up a bloody murder scene?
Heck, yeah.
She knows.
HH has lied to reporters for her mother.
Even little kids know lying is wrong.
The argument that, "Well, she probably believed her mother," is laughable to me.
Do people honestly think HH doesn't know that her mother is a consummate liar?
She knows her mother lies with practically every exhaled breath.
She also knows her mother did something bad to GS.
She made a decision not to cooperate with LE.
Which is to say, she made a decision not to help investigators find her missing 11-year-old stepbrother.
There's my Red Line.
JMO.
