Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to prove intent? I agree w PP that GFa acted on a fleeting impulse. Guessing he may also lack intelligence. As another PP mentioned he could have diminished functioning due to a yet undiagnosed dementia...maybe this will be his defense?

You people suggesting the man did it on purpose are sick in the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you have to prove intent? I agree w PP that GFa acted on a fleeting impulse. Guessing he may also lack intelligence. As another PP mentioned he could have diminished functioning due to a yet undiagnosed dementia...maybe this will be his defense?

You people suggesting the man did it on purpose are sick in the head.

Right. Because people killing others on purpose never happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have an update on this particular case??

I cannot find anything current online about this.

They’ve seen the video.
https://people.com/crime/toddler-cruise-ship-death-video-exonerates-grandfather-says-lawyer/
The stupid reporter on this is still calling it a “children’s play area” FFS.

[Anonymous]

I would love to know what code was violated. So far it sounds and looks like....rail was too high for anyone to climb up on. Would have to be lifted up on. Railing was far enough away from window that grandpa wouldn't have been able to tell window was open. Which means even if a child or adult leaned up against window, there was enough space that they wouldn't fall out. That all seems like proper precautions to me. I'll tell you what isn't a proper precaution....hoisting child up on rail and letting her lean forward. Lawyers like him are the scum of the earth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone have an update on this particular case??

I cannot find anything current online about this.

They’ve seen the video.
https://people.com/crime/toddler-cruise-ship-death-video-exonerates-grandfather-says-lawyer/
The stupid reporter on this is still calling it a “children’s play area” FFS.

And that's why I can't take any of the article seriously. He takes everything the lawyer said as truth and doesn't bother to do any research. What terrible "journalism"

[Anonymous]

I feel for those parents but their child died because the grandfather broke the law by putting the child in extreme danger.

They don't get money for this unless they want to sue grandpa for everything he (and their mom) have.

[Anonymous]

Apparently the grandfather has stated that he is colorblind. I don't know if this is something he believes he just discovered late in life, or if there is maybe some documentation in a prior medical, school, or work record?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/grandfather-charged-in-girls-cruise-ship-death-says-hes-colorblind/ar-BBXlMe5?ocid=ientp

[Anonymous]

PS: I assume he also has hearing and tactile impairment, given that he couldn't feel or hear the wind whistling past at that height.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PS: I assume he also has hearing and tactile impairment, given that he couldn't feel or hear the wind whistling past at that height.

This and the above sound like excuses, as they still do not explain why the grandfather lifted the toddler up so she could "bang on the glass" - the glass was floor to ceiling, and the child could look out, and bang on the glass from the floor. Just like at her brother's hockey games - there was ZERO reason to lift her up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: I assume he also has hearing and tactile impairment, given that he couldn't feel or hear the wind whistling past at that height.

This and the above sound like excuses, as they still do not explain why the grandfather lifted the toddler up so she could "bang on the glass" - the glass was floor to ceiling, and the child could look out, and bang on the glass from the floor. Just like at her brother's hockey games - there was ZERO reason to lift her up.

I don’t know. It probably made sense in his head. It wasn’t great judgment and I’m sick to my stomach reading about it. But I can believe that he genuinely believed it was closed. It’s probably not reasonable that he believed that. But I believe he likely believed it. That seems more probable than a grandfather lifting a toddler to lean toward and open window.

Reading that article just makes me sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: I assume he also has hearing and tactile impairment, given that he couldn't feel or hear the wind whistling past at that height.

This and the above sound like excuses, as they still do not explain why the grandfather lifted the toddler up so she could "bang on the glass" - the glass was floor to ceiling, and the child could look out, and bang on the glass from the floor. Just like at her brother's hockey games - there was ZERO reason to lift her up.

I don’t know. It probably made sense in his head. It wasn’t great judgment and I’m sick to my stomach reading about it. But I can believe that he genuinely believed it was closed. It’s probably not reasonable that he believed that. But I believe he likely believed it. That seems more probable than a grandfather lifting a toddler to lean toward and open window.

Reading that article just makes me sick to my stomach.

I don't believe he dropped her on purpose, but I 10000% believe he knew the window was open. Why are we only *just* hearing about color-blindness now? Sounds like an afterthought diagnosis. While not intentional, I still firmly believe he was stupid and dangerous on his own accord. He did a very stupid, very fatal thing.

Perhaps he should not be charged. But neither should the cruise line be sued, for something 99.9999999% of people understand and are safe with. And I loathe cruise ships!

[Anonymous]

He knew that window was open. It was the ONLY window open - it was totally obvious that it was open.

You don't put a toddler in an open window like that unless you are getting some sort of weird thrill out of doing so.

What grandpa did was weird, dangerous and inexplicable. I don't expect to ever understand what he was thinking because what he was thinking makes NO sense. That baby girl should not be dead.

[Anonymous]

He placed her in the window and leaned forward with her! WTF!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps he should not be charged. But neither should the cruise line be sued, for something 99.9999999% of people understand and are safe with. And I loathe cruise ships!

He is not being charged with intentionally harming the child. That would be murder (first or second degree) or manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary).

He is being charge with negligent homicide. In other words causing the death of an individual due to negligent behavior. This is an appropriate charge. He voluntarily bypassed security systems to put his granddaughter into a position of danger and then failed to take appropriate precautions for the situation that he created. He raised her up to a window that she could not reach. He sat her on a railing that was intended to keep adults and children further from the window. He did not check the window that had a railing to keep people away from it to see if there was any danger there. He allowed her to lean over the railing without adequately holding securely to the child. Negligence is a very apt and appropriate description of the sum of his actions.

The charge definitely fits the crime, to a T.

[Anonymous]

He picked her up to see the pretty view and feel the ocean breeze. He knew the window was open.
It’s stupid to try to balance a toddler on a railing (and this railing was chest high). But stupid turns to deadly (and criminal) when you do it at an open window.