Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

True. Never been on this ship, but obvious from photos of the scene, it's a bustling pedestrian walkway connecting different areas. It looks like the security gate entry at the airport. There's no toys or or playground equipment in the photographs, not even a book! Lawyers flip the facts all the time hoping it will stick . the lawyer probably thought the cute baby will influence the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

True. Never been on this ship, but obvious from photos of the scene, it's a bustling pedestrian walkway connecting different areas. It looks like the security gate entry at the airport. There's no toys or or playground equipment in the photographs, not even a book! Lawyers flip the facts all the time hoping it will stick . the lawyer probably thought the cute baby will influence the jury.

I don’t believe grandpa and lawyer, but people can and do develop colorblindness. I know because my mom developed it and had to retire. But even google could have told you that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

The media repeated the 'child's play area's over and over despite having the photos of that exact area that proved it was NOT a 'child's play area'. The media didn't even bother to fact check what the lawyer fed them. The media is no prize either.

[Anonymous]

I tell my kids to NEVER trust railings. They are not to lean up against, sit on, or put a toddler on.
My father always said that 20 years after the building was constructed, you would never find the fool who neglected to tighten a bolt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

The media repeated the 'child's play area's over and over despite having the photos of that exact area that proved it was NOT a 'child's play area'. The media didn't even bother to fact check what the lawyer fed them. The media is no prize either.

Dude can’t distinguish between a closed and open window. Not surprising he’s having trouble with “play area”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

The media repeated the 'child's play area's over and over despite having the photos of that exact area that proved it was NOT a 'child's play area'. The media didn't even bother to fact check what the lawyer fed them. The media is no prize either.

In the end, the media will not be the ones deciding what happens to Grandpa or whether or not these parents get money from the cruise line. The courts will be deciding it. The media can certainly sway public opinion but, in the end, the facts of what actually happened will matter the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

The media repeated the 'child's play area's over and over despite having the photos of that exact area that proved it was NOT a 'child's play area'. The media didn't even bother to fact check what the lawyer fed them. The media is no prize either.

Very sad how incompetent and lazy the media have become.

[Anonymous]

If the parents honestly believe that the grandpa was of such diminished capacity that he would have needed to be prevented at all costs from doing what he chose to do, then the charges against him should be dismissed and they should face them instead, for putting their baby in his care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

As an example, remember at the beginning of this story, news outlets were saying this was a children’s play area on the ship? That’s an absolute lie and it was spoon fed to the media who repeated it as fact. Guess who planted that narrative?

The media repeated the 'child's play area's over and over despite having the photos of that exact area that proved it was NOT a 'child's play area'. The media didn't even bother to fact check what the lawyer fed them. The media is no prize either.

Agreed. You know it’s bad when the “source” is the daily mail. A People article also used the term “play area”. Journalism is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the parents honestly believe that the grandpa was of such diminished capacity that he would have needed to be prevented at all costs from doing what he chose to do, then the charges against him should be dismissed and they should face them instead, for putting their baby in his care.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

True. Never been on this ship, but obvious from photos of the scene, it's a bustling pedestrian walkway connecting different areas. It looks like the security gate entry at the airport. There's no toys or or playground equipment in the photographs, not even a book! Lawyers flip the facts all the time hoping it will stick . the lawyer probably thought the cute baby will influence the jury.

I don’t believe grandpa and lawyer, but people can and do develop colorblindness. I know because my mom developed it and had to retire. But even google could have told you that.

It's not the same.
I'm an ophthalmologist and your mom didn't develop color blindness randomly or from old age, she developed it from either an injury or an eye disease that damaged the optic nerve or the retina of the eye, such as glaucoma.

The PP with the color blind father in-law is correct, acquired color blindness is different than color blindness (which stems from genetics and developed from birth and which is what the grandfather in question supposedly has).

That PP is correct in stating that what the grandfather sees is normal to him, as it's the only vision he's been accustom to for his entire life.

---

And to the PP who said there should be signs about the "dangers of railings"... really??

Falling off of a cruise ship because the railing was too low is one thing, and that is negligible (has anyone ever seen the railing on the balcony at Strathmore?? I sat in the very first row and was terrified walking in front of others to get to our seats. It was such a narrow walkway, I was holding onto our 8 year old son for dear life, as I was afraid he was going to actually fall over!).

However, when do we stop shifting the blame off on others for our own impulsive negligence and start making people accountable for their own FREE (and reckless) WILL?

I don't feel the grandfather should be charged, as they've suffered enough - but I also feel that placing blame where there isn't any is equally wrong.

This was a horrific accident, but an accident nonetheless.
RC isn't at fault, the grandfather was negligent. Unintentionally negligent, but negligent just the same.

[Anonymous]

^ Just to expand on Strathmore -- I'm 5'8" & the railing in front of the first row of the balcony came to my thigh as I was walking by it.

That's how low it is, and that's how easy it would have been to topple over it as you passed in front of someone else trying to get to your seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

True. Never been on this ship, but obvious from photos of the scene, it's a bustling pedestrian walkway connecting different areas. It looks like the security gate entry at the airport. There's no toys or or playground equipment in the photographs, not even a book! Lawyers flip the facts all the time hoping it will stick . the lawyer probably thought the cute baby will influence the jury.

I don’t believe grandpa and lawyer, but people can and do develop colorblindness. I know because my mom developed it and had to retire. But even google could have told you that.

It's not the same.
I'm an ophthalmologist and your mom didn't develop color blindness randomly or from old age, she developed it from either an injury or an eye disease that damaged the optic nerve or the retina of the eye, such as glaucoma.

The PP with the color blind father in-law is correct, acquired color blindness is different than color blindness (which stems from genetics and developed from birth and which is what the grandfather in question supposedly has).

That PP is correct in stating that what the grandfather sees is normal to him, as it's the only vision he's been accustom to for his entire life.

---

And to the PP who said there should be signs about the "dangers of railings"... really??

Falling off of a cruise ship because the railing was too low is one thing, and that is negligible (has anyone ever seen the railing on the balcony at Strathmore?? I sat in the very first row and was terrified walking in front of others to get to our seats. It was such a narrow walkway, I was holding onto our 8 year old son for dear life, as I was afraid he was going to actually fall over!).

However, when do we stop shifting the blame off on others for our own impulsive negligence and start making people accountable for their own FREE (and reckless) WILL?

I don't feel the grandfather should be charged, as they've suffered enough - but I also feel that placing blame where there isn't any is equally wrong.

This was a horrific accident, but an accident nonetheless.
RC isn't at fault, the grandfather was negligent. Unintentionally negligent, but negligent just the same.

Do you think that his color blindness prevented him from being able to tell that the window was open. It sure looks open in every picture and video I've seen, but I'm not color blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Just to expand on Strathmore -- I'm 5'8" & the railing in front of the first row of the balcony came to my thigh as I was walking by it.

That's how low it is, and that's how easy it would have been to topple over it as you passed in front of someone else trying to get to your seat.

How many people have fallen? Has the management been informed of the danger? Without these conditions, they have no idea of the danger and are not negligent.