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.
You know how they say babies have a swimming instinct up to a certain age? If you put a baby in water it’s supposed to be able to swim or tread naturally. It would be cool if babies also had a flying instinct. So if something like this happens she can sprout little wings and glide down to the ground.
No, babies cannot naturally swim. People say that?! I really hope no one is throwing their newborn baby into water thinking they'll be fine and swim. They won't.
I believe he held her up to look at the view. He had to know the window was open. It was no more than 6-12 inches from his face. He did not expect her to lean forward to bang on the glass. When she did, he lost control of her because he was not holding her tight enough. She may have been leaning back and resting on him prior to lunging forward. Like others have said, baby and toddler physical behavior can be unpredictable.
If indulging her love of banging on glass was so important - why hoist her up? The lower glass panels would have sufficed.
After the accident, one of the parents or grandma may have said "Why did you do that? You know she likes to bang on glass." Next line of thought - hire an attorney and blame the cruise line.
It was a horrible accident that could/should have been prevented. While I feel bad for the family, I feel worse for the baby.
If indulging her love of banging on glass was important, why stand in front of an open window? I think he probably wasn't aware she was accustomed to banging on glass. She surprised him, and he wasn't ready for it. But why choose an open window anyway, even just to look at the view?
I think you're thinking of dogs. Babies don't have a natural swimming instinct. They make instinctively make similar movements in water, but definitely can't swim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundaydrive00
No, babies cannot naturally swim. People say that?! I really hope no one is throwing their newborn baby into water thinking they'll be fine and swim. They won't.
The next time you're at a zoo or an aquarium, notice how many parents do this with similar sized children.
Okay, I'm imagening.
What I'm seeing in either a zoo or aquarium is a railing standing approx 4 ft high from the ground. What we do know is the ships railing was 11 stories from the dock.
No, babies cannot naturally swim. People say that?! I really hope no one is throwing their newborn baby into water thinking they'll be fine and swim. They won't.
The idea they have a swimming instinct must come from the natural birthing fad of a few decades ago, where the mom births the child in a small shallow pool of warm water, and the baby seems to automatically swim underwater while the umbilical chord is still attached. (There have been photos of this.) Once the chord is severed, and the baby starts breathing through it's mouth/nose, the baby would drown underwater. It's alarming that some people have drawn a generalization from this, that babies instinctively know to hold their breath and swim around at any random time after birth. This is the first I've heard of that false belief.
Furthermore, a baby thrown into water would sink. It wouldn't have time to even catch a breath. It would sink so deep, it would drown, especially if thrown or dropped from a height of one story, let alone 11.
This says nothing about swimming. Conserving oxygen slightly better than an adult is in no way, shape, or form the same as swimming.
People think babies can swim because babies hold their breaths automatically. if a baby can take a breath before submersion its very similar to swimming. obviously they cant swim but the basis for the misnomer is correct.
I'm following this thread and find the contrasting posts fascinating.
This was a horrible incident, a beautiful, loving, curious and active child lost her life. I can't imagine the sorrowful depth of how the family must feel, It's impossible (for me) to even phrase the emotional and mental condition of grandfather.
I can understand hiring the lawyer as a spokesperson since the family is in no condition to talk. My best guess he's putting so much blame on the cruise line is to protect the grandfather. Honestly, I can see in any way, shape or form of any lawsuit being successful.
This was human error pure and simple. No one deserved this. The responsibility is 100% the families and they unfortunately have to live with that.
I believe he held her up to look at the view. He had to know the window was open. It was no more than 6-12 inches from his face. He did not expect her to lean forward to bang on the glass. When she did, he lost control of her because he was not holding her tight enough. She may have been leaning back and resting on him prior to lunging forward. Like others have said, baby and toddler physical behavior can be unpredictable.
If indulging her love of banging on glass was so important - why hoist her up? The lower glass panels would have sufficed.
After the accident, one of the parents or grandma may have said "Why did you do that? You know she likes to bang on glass." Next line of thought - hire an attorney and blame the cruise line.
It was a horrible accident that could/should have been prevented. While I feel bad for the family, I feel worse for the baby.
That (the bold) could have happened. It is more likely than what the San Juan Port Authority first stated - that the baby fell when the grandfather "slipped" or "lost his balance." That that was so unlikely on a solid deck on a docked ship probably led some to conclude the grandfather had to have been doing some "else" - like dangling her etc.
Fortunately the vast majority of adults do not dangle children from heights; more, however, might use a railing for support even though that's far from wise in some locations.
While I can see the above scenario, I also think we tend to err in conclusions because it is natural to imagine ourselves in the situation like standing at that window. This inevitably drops what might be key variables because we were not there. For example, there is almost no breeze on many tropical days - that's what I love about the tropics (we enjoy eco lodges) - you really can't tell if you are inside or outside. Even at 11 stories, the cruise ship may well have been docked up against another.
So I can still envision more than one scenario. Perhaps it's not so much that he mistook an open window for one that is closed but never really looked and only assumed since the others were closed per both the family and the Port Authority statement.
That railing has minimal room for the little girl's feet between it and a closed window - maybe about 6 inches. He could have approached it looking downward preparing to settle her on the railing and fit her feet in. Alternatively he might have intended for her to stand on it while supported and approached the wall lifting her into place putting her body between himself and the "window" blocking his view.
That accident took only a second to happen. We're focusing on the window; maybe he focusing instead on his granddaughter did not.
This is such a tragedy for the family that I suppose my inclination is to not come to a highly negative conclusion absent a police report etc. Maybe that falls within the category of giving them the benefit of doubt which seems both appropriate and a kindness. It's human to be judgmental from the first with facts in many situations hard to come by. What social media does is to allow us to transfer our private opinions into the public arena in a way that potentially contributes to the overall harm. On the other hand, it also allows us to learn - for example, to be that much careful of our own children. Mixed blessing.
Last edited by EveryLady; 07-12-2019 at 12:11 PM..
I'm following this thread and find the contrasting posts fascinating.
This was a horrible incident, a beautiful, loving, curious and active child lost her life. I can't imagine the sorrowful depth of how the family must feel, It's impossible (for me) to even phrase the emotional and mental condition of grandfather.
I can understand hiring the lawyer as a spokesperson since the family is in no condition to talk. My best guess he's putting so much blame on the cruise line is to protect the grandfather. Honestly, I can see in any way, shape or form of any lawsuit being successful.
This was human error pure and simple. No one deserved this. The responsibility is 100% the families and they unfortunately have to live with that.
It's true that they needed to hire a lawyer, because the police came after them; they were planning to launch an criminal investigation of the grandfather.I don't know what's come of that police initiative. Does anyone here have an update to post?
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.
