Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I strongly believe, if he did what he's being accused of here, of purposely thrusting the baby outside a window 11 stories up that he knew to be open, he's greatly impaired. No one with any judgement at all, does that.
Yeah, they do. Heck this forum alone is full of threads about the stupid and dangerous things people do. I don't see anyone claiming they must all be mentally impaired in some way. Walking off boardwalks to get up close with hot springs. Balancing kids on rails at zoos, crossing barriers to get closer to zoo animals. Approaching a 'cute' or hurt animal in the wild. Using fireworks to blow things up or otherwise mishandling them. Crawling into chimneys for whatever reason. On and on.
There was zero evidence, leading up to this incident, that the grandfather had ever made unsound decisions.
So, no, the parents shouldn't be responsible for being clairvoyant and knowing this would happen.
By all accounts, this was completely out of character.
(Leading me to question upthread the possibility that he may have the beginnings of frontal lobe dementia. Who knows.)
I agree. I think it is wrong to assign blame for Chloe’s death, to the parents. I am sure they feel some guilt, even though they are not at fault. That’s normal. But it’s wrong to try and assign blame where it does not belong.
There is no way anyone, no reasonable or sane person, could have foretold the grandfathers actions.
Last edited by ChessieMom; 01-28-2020 at 08:49 PM..
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
Time will tell why you think the things you think?
No, time will tell how this will turn out, in the end. There's no real reason for us all to spar on this, when in the fullness of time, we'll learn what will happen.
I'm guessing that in the end both parties will agree to an undisclosed out of court settlement. Corporate attorneys have to weigh a settlement against a long standing death claim involving a child that could create long term bad publicity and loss of cruise bookings. And fighting a protracted legal battle with expensive legal staff could create huge attorney fees. Right or wrong isn't the only consideration when dealing with lawsuits.
No, time will tell how this will turn out, in the end. There's no real reason for us all to spar on this, when in the fullness of time, we'll learn what will happen.
It's a discussion board. I'm discussing the topic, I'm not arguing with you.
When you claim that a not guilty verdict automatically means the cruise ship is guilt, I'm just trying to figure out why you would think such a thing when that is not at all how are justice system works.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,622 posts, read 17,953,728 times
Reputation: 50641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
It's a discussion board. I'm discussing the topic, I'm not arguing with you.
When you claim that a not guilty verdict automatically means the cruise ship is guilt, I'm just trying to figure out why you would think such a thing when that is not at all how are justice system works.
This isn't as if we're discussing a topic that will never be resolved. This will be resolved.
A not guilty verdict in a criminal trial for grandpa will clearly open the door for a civil victory against the cruise line.
But again, as I said, we can wait and see because this will play out either way, in time.
A not guilty verdict in a criminal trial for grandpa will clearly open the door for a civil victory against the cruise line.
That's not how it works though. Grandpa being found not guilty doesn't mean he was innocent in Chloe's death. We already know he isn't innocent. We know that he was the cause of her death, not RC. It's up to the prosecution to prove that he is guilty of negligent homicide.
Grandpa was the one who violated the ships guest conduct policy. He agreed to it when he boarded that ship, but still hoisted Chloe up and over the safety railing and out the window. Royal Caribbean can only tell their guests not to do something. It's not possible for them to physically stop each guest from breaking the agreed upon policy.
You can't really know that, although you can speculate.
They didn't file the civil suit until after grandpa was charged with negligent homicide.
Which wasn't quick. It appeared they were waiting, for quite a while, and then file after the criminal case was filed.
They pretty much immediately had Winkleman spin-doctoring for them. A maritime lawyer whose firm just so happens to specialize in suing cruise lines over passenger injuries and whose website proudly boasts "Over $300 Million Recovered On Behalf Of Our Clients". And who isn't cheap.
Clearing the grandfather in criminal court would require a defense lawyer. But that's not who they hired.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. That won't happen.