Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

Yes, I made this same point. But even if it rises to the level of criminal negligence, what is the point of charging him? The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is unlikely to happen again. Charging a reckless driver is a bit different because that person could get behind the wheel again and the charge could serve as a warning to other drivers about what might happen to them if they are reckless. Here, we don't have those same considerations. So what purpose does the criminal charge serve here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

Yes, I made this same point. But even if it rises to the level of criminal negligence, what is the point of charging him? The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is unlikely to happen again. Charging a reckless driver is a bit different because that person could get behind the wheel again and the charge could serve as a warning to other drivers about what might happen to them if they are reckless. Here, we don't have those same considerations. So what purpose does the criminal charge serve here?

We charge people if they break the law. Not only if it may happen again. I personally think more negligent caregivers should be charged for their carelessness. It is inexcusable and I don’t like the precedent of “we are not charging them because they are sad.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

Yes, I made this same point. But even if it rises to the level of criminal negligence, what is the point of charging him? The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is unlikely to happen again. Charging a reckless driver is a bit different because that person could get behind the wheel again and the charge could serve as a warning to other drivers about what might happen to them if they are reckless. Here, we don't have those same considerations. So what purpose does the criminal charge serve here?

We charge people if they break the law. Not only if it may happen again. I personally think more negligent caregivers should be charged for their carelessness. It is inexcusable and I don’t like the precedent of “we are not charging them because they are sad.”

But that's just it - criminal charges like this AREN'T routinely filed against negligent caregivers. And I think with good reason. What about the parents of kids who fall out of windows? Should they be criminally charged in every situation? Or does it depend on the circumstances? There's a level of discretion involved in these types of cases and I think we get into slippery slope territory when you start criminally charging parents or caregivers whose kids are killed under these types of circumstances. It is not black and white. There's a reason that "negligence" is primarily a civil standard rather than a criminal one.

I don't think the grandpa should be charged not because he's sad (not even sure where you pulled that from) but because I don't think it serves any purpose in this particular case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

Yes, I made this same point. But even if it rises to the level of criminal negligence, what is the point of charging him? The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is unlikely to happen again. Charging a reckless driver is a bit different because that person could get behind the wheel again and the charge could serve as a warning to other drivers about what might happen to them if they are reckless. Here, we don't have those same considerations. So what purpose does the criminal charge serve here?

We charge people if they break the law. Not only if it may happen again. I personally think more negligent caregivers should be charged for their carelessness. It is inexcusable and I don’t like the precedent of “we are not charging them because they are sad.”

Exactly. His remorse can be addressed in the sentencing, but he should still be charged.

[Anonymous]

This is closer to the parents who hoist their kids to circumvent the safety barrier in zoos. So the kids can have a better view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

Yes, I made this same point. But even if it rises to the level of criminal negligence, what is the point of charging him? The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is unlikely to happen again. Charging a reckless driver is a bit different because that person could get behind the wheel again and the charge could serve as a warning to other drivers about what might happen to them if they are reckless. Here, we don't have those same considerations. So what purpose does the criminal charge serve here?

We charge people if they break the law. Not only if it may happen again. I personally think more negligent caregivers should be charged for their carelessness. It is inexcusable and I don’t like the precedent of “we are not charging them because they are sad.”

But that's just it - criminal charges like this AREN'T routinely filed against negligent caregivers. And I think with good reason. What about the parents of kids who fall out of windows? Should they be criminally charged in every situation? Or does it depend on the circumstances? There's a level of discretion involved in these types of cases and I think we get into slippery slope territory when you start criminally charging parents or caregivers whose kids are killed under these types of circumstances. It is not black and white. There's a reason that "negligence" is primarily a civil standard rather than a criminal one.

I don't think the grandpa should be charged not because he's sad (not even sure where you pulled that from) but because I don't think it serves any purpose in this particular case.

It comes from the argument you always here that “they have suffered enough.” And some negligent caregivers ARE charged. And the PR police have seen surveillance footage we have not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is closer to the parents who hoist their kids to circumvent the safety barrier in zoos. So the kids can have a better view.

Exactly. BUT FOR what he did, she would still be alive.

[Anonymous]

Or did he physically hold her outside the window only for him to struggle with getting her back in - toddler weight and positioning could have made him lose control of his grip.


Ala Michael Jackson and Blanket on the balcony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is closer to the parents who hoist their kids to circumvent the safety barrier in zoos. So the kids can have a better view.

Exactly. BUT FOR what he did, she would still be alive.

Are the zoo parents charged with crimes, though?

[Anonymous]

FYI, if you google this family, Chloe's mom is an attorney herself. Not sure what kind of law but clearly she was able to find a cruise-ship ambulance-chaser within hours of this incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is closer to the parents who hoist their kids to circumvent the safety barrier in zoos. So the kids can have a better view.

Exactly. BUT FOR what he did, she would still be alive.

Are the zoo parents charged with crimes, though?

Don’t know, but they definitely should be! I think all idiot caregivers should be charged.

[Anonymous]

According to the local papers, he's been charged with negligent homicide. In the PR penal code that is considered a misdemeanor. But, unlike most misdemeanors, which carry a maximum incarceration of 6 months, negligent homicide under the code carries an incarceration penalty of 3 years. Negligence in the PR penal code is defined, consistent with common law, as an action that the actor should have known carried a substantial risk of harm, an action that is a crass deviation from the standard of care of a "reasonable person."

So, if the judge found probable cause for this charge, it's likely that the video and/or witness statements strongly suggest that he knew it was an open window and knowingly sat her on a narrow railing in front of a void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, if you google this family, Chloe's mom is an attorney herself. Not sure what kind of law but clearly she was able to find a cruise-ship ambulance-chaser within hours of this incident.

She should have found someone better. This guy is a total sleaze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the local papers, he's been charged with negligent homicide. In the PR penal code that is considered a misdemeanor. But, unlike most misdemeanors, which carry a maximum incarceration of 6 months, negligent homicide under the code carries an incarceration penalty of 3 years. Negligence in the PR penal code is defined, consistent with common law, as an action that the actor should have known carried a substantial risk of harm, an action that is a crass deviation from the standard of care of a "reasonable person."

So, if the judge found probable cause for this charge, it's likely that the video and/or witness statements strongly suggest that he knew it was an open window and knowingly sat her on a narrow railing in front of a void.

Agree. They have evidence he knew the window was open, IMO.