Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

Not according to the parents. They say someone is to blame. (RCI.) Once you introduce blame, I think there is plenty to give grandpa. And plenty of people get charged/jail time for killing people with their car. You just don’t hear about it. The guy who killed the baby in Leesburg got a year in jail. I’m sure he is just as sorry as step grandpa here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

Well Grandpa hasn’t been convicted so why are you assuming it will be different? He may end up just the same as the drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

This case is different because the family doesn’t think it’s a tragic accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

I don’t have an opinion about whether there should be a punishment. However, this case is different because negligence means you did something that you knew or should have known was dangerous. Properly driving your car and hitting something that is almost impossible to see is not negligent. Holding a toddler on a high rail is something a reasonable person should know is dangerous. That’s the theory, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

This case is different because the family doesn’t think it’s a tragic accident.

It has nothing to do with what the family thinks. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

This case is different because the family doesn’t think it’s a tragic accident.

What do you mean / why do you say that

[Anonymous]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/210/831979.page#15920288

I’m reading the U.K. immunity thread above and struck by the similarities to this thread. As I pointed out over there, in both cases someone died due to someone else’s carelessness but the public opinions are vastly different. Fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone involved sounds like an idiot. Why would you leave the window open in a playroom/childcare facility, especially one that's 11 stories up? But also, why would you put a child on a windowsill because she loves banging on windows. Wtaf? Even if the window was shut, that's an accident waiting to happen!

It wasn’t a playroom/childcare facility. The family’s lawyer keeping calling it a kids play area, but it simply wasn’t. By his reasoning, the whole ship would be considered one big play area, so none of it should be exposed to open air anywhere.

Agreed, I don't know why they keep insisting it was a child's play area. I've seen the pictures and I've read everything that people who have been on this ship have said. It wasn't, it was a lounge near a kid's pool, but it was definitely separate from the kid's area. It was probably equally close to the bar. Not to mention, it was a window that was up above a railing. A child that age wouldn't have had access to it, the grandfather placed her up on a railing, which isn't safe to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And it wasn't a mistake. It was willful negligence

Up to the judge to decide. Willful means deliberate. Did he deliberately place her on ledge knowing the window was open or did he not realize the window was open? I believe he claimed the latter. Either way, open or closed, he overestimated her safety as an older grandpa who kept her safe prior to this horrific (insert whatever you'd like to call it).

He did not willfully intend to kill his granddaughter. He is already serving a life sentence, imo. The judge should order therapy or this man will harm himself.

You appear to be using willful as a synnym for intent, which is not the charge. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Calm down Connie, was replying to a different poster. To another angry poster, judge will decide sentencing based on jury verdict. Tragic and sad no matter the outcome.

What you said was wrong - it doesn't matter to whom it was directed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone involved sounds like an idiot. Why would you leave the window open in a playroom/childcare facility, especially one that's 11 stories up? But also, why would you put a child on a windowsill because she loves banging on windows. Wtaf? Even if the window was shut, that's an accident waiting to happen!

It wasn’t a playroom/childcare facility. The family’s lawyer keeping calling it a kids play area, but it simply wasn’t. By his reasoning, the whole ship would be considered one big play area, so none of it should be exposed to open air anywhere.

Agreed, I don't know why they keep insisting it was a child's play area. I've seen the pictures and I've read everything that people who have been on this ship have said. It wasn't, it was a lounge near a kid's pool, but it was definitely separate from the kid's area. It was probably equally close to the bar. Not to mention, it was a window that was up above a railing. A child that age wouldn't have had access to it, the grandfather placed her up on a railing, which isn't safe to begin with.

It’s a lie to make their case sound less insane. Just like their calling an open window a “hidden danger.” WTH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. He should be.

Sadly, I do agree with this.

I don't. How many times do drivers kill pedestrians jaywalking in the dark and get off with no jail time, as long as they are sober and don't leave the accident site? How is this case different? Just another tragic accident.

It's different because in the case you describe, the victim did somethign that contributed to hius death, and may even have been negligent or breaking the law himself. Also, there is no indication that the hypothetical driver acted negligently.

Neither of those things are true here.

[Anonymous]

Yes, how could he not have known?

Having been on several RCI ships, the windows are tinted. Even if the window was open so that you could not see the window frame, the difference in light between open and closed windows is signficant and noticable. The windows on the 11th deck will have a breeze even if there is virtually no breeze outside at dock level. At that height, there is always a breeze. There is a railing for a reason. How a responsible adult can put a toddler up on a railing and let go, is beyond me. It's not like there is a ledge there to put the child on, it's only a railing. I've put my children up to sit on those railings, but I would never let them go. For the child to touch the glass as the grandfather contends, the child has to lean over. The window leans away from the railing. Most children cannot reach the window like an adult can, so the child would have to lean over to reach the glass. Who doesn't hold a child in that situation whether or not the window is open? The child cannot touch the glass sitting upright. Impossible.

So, whether you consider the accidental or not, whether you consider it criminally negligent or not, the family lost all credibility and support when they chose to try and sue the cruise line and make money off of their own family negligence. It's like scammers. They commit a crime, then try to make you pay for it.

Here is a photo of an open window during the day (like at boarding time). Can you tell which windows are open?:


Even at night, it is obvious:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, how could he not have known?

Having been on several RCI ships, the windows are tinted. Even if the window was open so that you could not see the window frame, the difference in light between open and closed windows is signficant and noticable. The windows on the 11th deck will have a breeze even if there is virtually no breeze outside at dock level. At that height, there is always a breeze. There is a railing for a reason. How a responsible adult can put a toddler up on a railing and let go, is beyond me. It's not like there is a ledge there to put the child on, it's only a railing. I've put my children up to sit on those railings, but I would never let them go. For the child to touch the glass as the grandfather contends, the child has to lean over. The window leans away from the railing. Most children cannot reach the window like an adult can, so the child would have to lean over to reach the glass. Who doesn't hold a child in that situation whether or not the window is open? The child cannot touch the glass sitting upright. Impossible.

So, whether you consider the accidental or not, whether you consider it criminally negligent or not, the family lost all credibility and support when they chose to try and sue the cruise line and make money off of their own family negligence. It's like scammers. They commit a crime, then try to make you pay for it.

Here is a photo of an open window during the day (like at boarding time). Can you tell which windows are open?:


Even at night, it is obvious:

Precisely. I get the family is grieving and wants to blame someone other than grandpa. But this is simply foolishness and any sensible judge/jury would agree.

[Anonymous]

God cases like this are so heartbreaking. That family will never heal. I agree grandpa should be charged.