Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are pps coming up with the Michael Jackson-type dangle out the window?

"Grandfather holds her up over the railing for 25 seconds". Unfortunately, we don't have access to that video but the judge did which explains everything. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/us/grandfather-opens-up-about-toddler-fall/index.html

*bursts out laughing*

Those absolute fools. Videos don't lie. This family deserves the dragging they're receiving by the courts. How dare you blame this on Royal Caribbean?

Complete negligence.

[Anonymous]

It would be hard for a man who was elderly or in poor health to hold a child up for 25 seconds. I know he isn't exactly elderly, but it doesn't look like he is that healthy.

There is no way having his arms upraised wasn't somewhat tiring.

[Anonymous]

Is Grandpa mentally unwell? It’s hard to explain any of his actions otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be hard for a man who was elderly or in poor health to hold a child up for 25 seconds. I know he isn't exactly elderly, but it doesn't look like he is that healthy.

There is no way having his arms upraised wasn't somewhat tiring.

Your point?

Because that's just more evidence towards negligence. Shouldn't have picked her up and raised her three window heights in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be hard for a man who was elderly or in poor health to hold a child up for 25 seconds. I know he isn't exactly elderly, but it doesn't look like he is that healthy.

There is no way having his arms upraised wasn't somewhat tiring.

He is 51, I believe - younger than a lot of DC area parents!

[Anonymous]

He probably did it to scare her only to lose grip when she kicked or attempted to wriggle back in and away from the potential fall.

In his mind he was doing what a lot of parents do at places to “scare” little kids. Sometimes holding them upside down, etc... over large heights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be hard for a man who was elderly or in poor health to hold a child up for 25 seconds. I know he isn't exactly elderly, but it doesn't look like he is that healthy.

There is no way having his arms upraised wasn't somewhat tiring.

Your point?

Because that's just more evidence towards negligence. Shouldn't have picked her up and raised her three window heights in the first place.

My point? I think you made it.

(?)

I'm saying it was negligent, and even if it hurts, you can't rewrite history to make your failings someone else's responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He probably did it to scare her only to lose grip when she kicked or attempted to wriggle back in and away from the potential fall.

In his mind he was doing what a lot of parents do at places to “scare” little kids. Sometimes holding them upside down, etc... over large heights.

What parents do this?!?!?!??!

My parents never did this to me and my siblings and Dh and I have done it to our children! I've never witnessed it happening to anyone else's kids! I really don't think there are "lots of parents" holding their kids upside down over large heights to "scare" them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He probably did it to scare her only to lose grip when she kicked or attempted to wriggle back in and away from the potential fall.

In his mind he was doing what a lot of parents do at places to “scare” little kids. Sometimes holding them upside down, etc... over large heights.

What parents do this?!?!?!??!

My parents never did this to me and my siblings and Dh and I have done it to our children! I've never witnessed it happening to anyone else's kids! I really don't think there are "lots of parents" holding their kids upside down over large heights to "scare" them!

^^should say "Dh and I have never done it to our children."

[Anonymous]

The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

He only became aware of this condition after she died?

If he did know about it then he should have made accommodations for his disability. If he didn't that's his negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

He only became aware of this condition after she died?

If he did know about it then he should have made accommodations for his disability. If he didn't that's his negligence.

Color blindness is not that unusual in men. What kind of accommodations can be made for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Which is quite a change from their original claim, which is that there was no way to tell the difference between closed and open windows. Only when it was pointed out that the windows were tinted did this claim come out.

Note they didn’t mention what type of colorblindness he has, perhaps because the variety he has wouldn’t have affect his ability to discern the tinted glass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Which is quite a change from their original claim, which is that there was no way to tell the difference between closed and open windows. Only when it was pointed out that the windows were tinted did this claim come out.

Note they didn’t mention what type of colorblindness he has, perhaps because the variety he has wouldn’t have affect his ability to discern the tinted glass.

Didn't one article say he reached out to see if he could touch the glass from the rail but couldn't, so figured it was safe. Wouldn't he be able to feel a breeze or something?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Still makes no sense why he would lift the girl up, when there was glass on the bottom/floor pane. She could look out for herself safe on the ground.