> mere curiosity

Well, no. The phrasing suggests some bit of outrage to me, which has its own problems but is still easier to interact with if one is looking to understand their perspective. I suppose it sounds more exclusively like an accusation to you. More likely than either of those is that it’s a combination of several factors which ultimately culminated in the person’s decision to leave their comment.

Regardless, the claim that they must have been making an accusation is speculation which is called out in the guidelines to avoid:

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Similarly, I have heard expressions like "Why would you do x" and "Why would you think y" as questions being asked with curiosity. I've also seen how my perception of their intentions has been distorted such that I would not believe they are simply trying to understand. That isn't to say the phrasing does not seem to trigger such a response (I personally think it sounds hostile in text), it is to say that I can take them at their word when they tell me they did not have that intention. I will, however, concede that the phrase seems to be more commonly said with hostile ignorance rather than humble curiosity.

But... that's kinda beside the point which I did not seem to have made clearly. The original assumption of that person's decision to write that phrase is that it is intended as an accusation to this thread's OP that their brother was actually selling heroin. They do not seem to have made that specific accusation. Recall what I originally replied to:

> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty

That is decidedly not what they were implying, if they were implying anything.