Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to rush to the end of the book.

The grandpa will not be found to be negligent.

The cruise ship will be found negligent for having unsecured windows.

Apparently .000001% of the population needs to be explicitly told "don't hold babies outside over open windows" and therefore because .000001% of people are idiots, everyone else must pay (companies, and other customers carrying those trickle down costs)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should be treated the same as parents who leave their children in car seats to die or who otherwise cause their children's deaths. I'm not going to argue one way or the other, but we have to be consistent with handling caretakers who cause children's deaths. Either we exonerate all of them or hold all of them accountable.

In this case, however, there is one additional fact, that the family is filing a lawsuit against the cruise company. Their insistence of the innocence of the person responsible, e.g. the grandfather who was careless, blaming the cruise ship for his negligence in checking whether there was any form of protection before putting his grandchild up there is telling. He not only shows no remorse, and the family's insistence that the cruise line is to blame, show that he does not accept his responsibility in causing the death of his grandchild and seeks to blame someone else. And the fact that they are not only accepting his responsibility but trying to profit from this is sickening.

Two very different things. Those parents were neglectful. He should have checked but it was not a spot you'd think would be open.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence to show that people that leave thier kids in cars are not neglectful. It is a trick of the mind. The grandfather knowingly raised his grandchild to either an open window or a closed window with intent to let her bang on it. Either one is neglectful.

[Anonymous]

The family and the hired lawyer KNOW that grandpa picked the girl up and put her in the open window. And then she dropped out of the window and/or pushed herself out.

They know that the video or photos will show grandpa doing that with the toddler.

That is why their first move was to frame the narrative as "cruise ship never should have had an open window!" "Who would ever have an open window in a 'play area'?" "Little girl always pushed on windows with no problem at hockey games."

The whole message was about how unreasonable it was to have an open window on the ship. The whole point of that is to remove grandpa from a "negligence" claim/charge. We (the public) thought it was just stunned parents trying to make sense of the situation and show support for grandpa's mental well-being. No. This line of messaging was intentionally trying to set the public narrative against any charges.

It's not that grandpa didn't put the girl up there. It's that no one could have known or expected an open window.

That issue is the crux of the prosecution's case in the criminal court. And also the crux of the family's case against the cruise line in civil court ====> Was it reasonable to think that the window in this spot was closed and secure?

If yes, then grandpa goes free and the cruise ship pays.

If no, then grandpa gets convicted of something (or pleads guilty), and the civil suit goes away (or RCI pays a little courtesy award for their suffering).


See this video on the same ship. If you look toward the end, you see how far the railing is from the window and exactly what it looks like out the window and down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

In this press conference, the attorney admits that grandpa put the girl up on the railing (implying that she was standing on the railing) and that the girl went to bang on what she thought was the glass and then she was gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_fbq7ED6U

Translation: The girl was standing on the railing. She lurched/pressed forward (as toddlers do). Grandpa lost his grip on her and she went out the window.

Those facts are admitted by grandpa and the family.

The ONLY question is whether it was an obvious danger -- i.e. was it obvious that the window was open?

I think the video answers this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The family and the hired lawyer KNOW that grandpa picked the girl up and put her in the open window. And then she dropped out of the window and/or pushed herself out.

They know that the video or photos will show grandpa doing that with the toddler.

That is why their first move was to frame the narrative as "cruise ship never should have had an open window!" "Who would ever have an open window in a 'play area'?" "Little girl always pushed on windows with no problem at hockey games."

The whole message was about how unreasonable it was to have an open window on the ship. The whole point of that is to remove grandpa from a "negligence" claim/charge. We (the public) thought it was just stunned parents trying to make sense of the situation and show support for grandpa's mental well-being. No. This line of messaging was intentionally trying to set the public narrative against any charges.

It's not that grandpa didn't put the girl up there. It's that no one could have known or expected an open window.

That issue is the crux of the prosecution's case in the criminal court. And also the crux of the family's case against the cruise line in civil court ====> Was it reasonable to think that the window in this spot was closed and secure?

If yes, then grandpa goes free and the cruise ship pays.

If no, then grandpa gets convicted of something (or pleads guilty), and the civil suit goes away (or RCI pays a little courtesy award for their suffering).


See this video on the same ship. If you look toward the end, you see how far the railing is from the window and exactly what it looks like out the window and down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

In this press conference, the attorney admits that grandpa put the girl up on the railing (implying that she was standing on the railing) and that the girl went to bang on what she thought was the glass and then she was gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_fbq7ED6U

Translation: The girl was standing on the railing. She lurched/pressed forward (as toddlers do). Grandpa lost his grip on her and she went out the window.

Those facts are admitted by grandpa and the family.

The ONLY question is whether it was an obvious danger -- i.e. was it obvious that the window was open?

I think the video answers this question.

Any rational non-senile person would have 100% known the window was open. I don’t even understand how this is a question. Just look at the photos and videos online if you have never been on this ship or a similar one.

[Anonymous]

The first video above is the best I’ve seen to set up the scene. And remarkable how the lawyer has FALSELY set up the scene.

Not a child’s play area. Zero reason to hoist a kid — she can touch the glass from the floor. But look at that railing! — No sane rational person would let go of a child to balance on that railing — if there was a closed window!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The family and the hired lawyer KNOW that grandpa picked the girl up and put her in the open window. And then she dropped out of the window and/or pushed herself out.

They know that the video or photos will show grandpa doing that with the toddler.

That is why their first move was to frame the narrative as "cruise ship never should have had an open window!" "Who would ever have an open window in a 'play area'?" "Little girl always pushed on windows with no problem at hockey games."

The whole message was about how unreasonable it was to have an open window on the ship. The whole point of that is to remove grandpa from a "negligence" claim/charge. We (the public) thought it was just stunned parents trying to make sense of the situation and show support for grandpa's mental well-being. No. This line of messaging was intentionally trying to set the public narrative against any charges.

It's not that grandpa didn't put the girl up there. It's that no one could have known or expected an open window.

That issue is the crux of the prosecution's case in the criminal court. And also the crux of the family's case against the cruise line in civil court ====> Was it reasonable to think that the window in this spot was closed and secure?

If yes, then grandpa goes free and the cruise ship pays.

If no, then grandpa gets convicted of something (or pleads guilty), and the civil suit goes away (or RCI pays a little courtesy award for their suffering).


See this video on the same ship. If you look toward the end, you see how far the railing is from the window and exactly what it looks like out the window and down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

In this press conference, the attorney admits that grandpa put the girl up on the railing (implying that she was standing on the railing) and that the girl went to bang on what she thought was the glass and then she was gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_fbq7ED6U

Translation: The girl was standing on the railing. She lurched/pressed forward (as toddlers do). Grandpa lost his grip on her and she went out the window.

Those facts are admitted by grandpa and the family.

The ONLY question is whether it was an obvious danger -- i.e. was it obvious that the window was open?

I think the video answers this question.

Everyone needs to watch that first video. I find it impossible to believe he didn’t know the window was open.

[Anonymous]

Agree with pp after seeing the video. It is VERY obvious which windows are open and the grandfather deliberately picked one that was open to show his granddaughter the view. A terrible accident but certainly not the cruise ship’s negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The family and the hired lawyer KNOW that grandpa picked the girl up and put her in the open window. And then she dropped out of the window and/or pushed herself out.

They know that the video or photos will show grandpa doing that with the toddler.

That is why their first move was to frame the narrative as "cruise ship never should have had an open window!" "Who would ever have an open window in a 'play area'?" "Little girl always pushed on windows with no problem at hockey games."

The whole message was about how unreasonable it was to have an open window on the ship. The whole point of that is to remove grandpa from a "negligence" claim/charge. We (the public) thought it was just stunned parents trying to make sense of the situation and show support for grandpa's mental well-being. No. This line of messaging was intentionally trying to set the public narrative against any charges.

It's not that grandpa didn't put the girl up there. It's that no one could have known or expected an open window.

That issue is the crux of the prosecution's case in the criminal court. And also the crux of the family's case against the cruise line in civil court ====> Was it reasonable to think that the window in this spot was closed and secure?

If yes, then grandpa goes free and the cruise ship pays.

If no, then grandpa gets convicted of something (or pleads guilty), and the civil suit goes away (or RCI pays a little courtesy award for their suffering).


See this video on the same ship. If you look toward the end, you see how far the railing is from the window and exactly what it looks like out the window and down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5e6b2VOdys

In this press conference, the attorney admits that grandpa put the girl up on the railing (implying that she was standing on the railing) and that the girl went to bang on what she thought was the glass and then she was gone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK_fbq7ED6U

Translation: The girl was standing on the railing. She lurched/pressed forward (as toddlers do). Grandpa lost his grip on her and she went out the window.

Those facts are admitted by grandpa and the family.

The ONLY question is whether it was an obvious danger -- i.e. was it obvious that the window was open?

I think the video answers this question.

Everyone needs to watch that first video. I find it impossible to believe he didn’t know the window was open.

Right? If the jury sees that I don’t see how RCI pays the family anything.

[Anonymous]

The grandfather needs to be found negligent to discourage these frivolous lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Does the family know that there were - gasp - open balconies all over the ship too? Should close those up too? “Get a fan!” like Mom suggests instead of windows?

[Anonymous]

I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

ONE death due to 10000% user error, when 99.9999% of people know how to old babies outside windows?

No, we should no do that. We need to hold people accountable for being neglectful idiots.

[Anonymous]

^ should be know NOT to hold babies outside windows (obviously!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose you have to ask, does a cruise ship *need* windows. If just one life can be saved by eliminating them, shouldn't we do that?

Should they really be out on the water too? Someone might drown.

[Anonymous]

Remember the similar tragedy where a mom set a 2 yr old up on the safety ledge of a zoo exhibit for a better view? The toddler lost balance and fell into a pack of wild painted dogs. The child died immediately. One dog was shot, all were displaced, the zoo exhibit closed and the zoo “settled with the family, terms undisclosed.” The mom’s excuse for placing the kid in danger? “I thought there was glass there!”
Hmmmmm.