Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect the grandfather didn't do himself any favors with the way he and the rest of the family were so fierce in blaming everyone but him. It's one thing when someone causes a death through their negligence and shows true remorse and takes responsibility for their actions, because then there's at least some reason to believe they get what they did wrong and won't do something similar again. But when someone causes another person's death through their own sheer carelessness and then wants to blame everyone else rather than acknowledge his own role in what happened, well, that's exactly the case you want to prosecute to make sure the person doesn't do something similar again.

I don’t think he should be charged. Accidents happen unfortunately and they can happen to anyone. But going after the cruise line and not taking responsibility was a bad move. Yes it’s his fault, it sucks but he shouldn’t be charged.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I just don’t see how this wasn’t intentional.

[Anonymous]

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.

It's easier to think about reckless behavior. Was his behavior reckless? Did that behavior result in unfortunate consequences?

That's why we can charge you for murder if you kill someone while driving under the influence. I am sure your drunk self had no intention of killing someone.

[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.

It's easier to think about reckless behavior. Was his behavior reckless? Did that behavior result in unfortunate consequences?

That's why we can charge you for murder if you kill someone while driving under the influence. I am sure your drunk self had no intention of killing someone.

Similarly, if you are driving along and simply not paying attention, and run someone over, you will be charged. This is no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how this wasn’t intentional.

Because you are smart and have common sense and have trouble understanding that not everyone does.

[Anonymous]

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.

Have you never read a book? Let me introduce you to something called a jury trial. Been around for hundreds of years; why, it's even in the Constitution!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be a lot more sympathy for the grandfather's fatal error if he and the family didn't put out false information and blatantly lie, in their re-telling of the story. If he simply came out as "I just wasn't thinking and lost my grip" as a tragic accident, I'd think less harshly.

But the family seems so deep in the denial of his responsibility and blame that it's hard to not think grandpa should be charged.

Which was what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t see how this wasn’t intentional.

He put her up to the ONE open window on purpose, and the family needs to own that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be a lot more sympathy for the grandfather's fatal error if he and the family didn't put out false information and blatantly lie, in their re-telling of the story. If he simply came out as "I just wasn't thinking and lost my grip" as a tragic accident, I'd think less harshly.

But the family seems so deep in the denial of his responsibility and blame that it's hard to not think grandpa should be charged.

Which was what?

Np here. Eyewitnesses said that he was originally saying she slipped out of his arms/dropped her/she squirmed. Later he changed it to, he didn’t see the open window/it’s the cruise line’s fault.

[Anonymous]

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.

So then this helps the cruise companies defense?

[Anonymous]

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.

Does no one actually read or pay any attention to the tv shows you watch?

willful
Deliberate
Knowingly
Intent
Intent to kill

These are all legal terms with actual meaning. You have to look at what the actual charge is and what’s required to prove that charge. The actual criminal code. No one, not a single person suggested that he intended to kill the child (that would have brought a murder 1 charge; again, depends on the words of the relevant criminal code).
According to the article, Grandpa was charged with negligent homicide. You’d have to read the code but it may be that all the prosecution must prove at trial is that he negligently hoisted the child to the danger, didn’t secure her, and she fell to her death. If judge or jury agree it’s proven, grandpa’s guilty as charged.

[Anonymous]

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.

So then this helps the cruise companies defense?

Well certainly if he is convicted, the cruise line can use that conviction as a defense in their civil case.

[Anonymous]

^^maybe there are theories that he intentionally killed her. But it doesn’t matter in this case because that’s not what he’s charged with.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1 The went from being a sympathetic family, to unsympathetic in a blink of an eye once they started blaming the cruise ship.