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.
These new charges are 100% spot on. He was at fault entirely. It's a horrible situation but it is what it is.
He was careless and the child died. There's NO WAY he couldn't differentiate an open and closed window. The family is looking for money instead of understanding a horrible mistake was made.
No one these days wants to take accountability for their actions. They want to blame others-not in this case finally
They weren’t windows... they were a bank of glass panes and one of the panes wasn’t there. Think hockey rink.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by himain
These new charges are 100% spot on. He was at fault entirely. It's a horrible situation but it is what it is.
He was careless and the child died. There's NO WAY he couldn't differentiate an open and closed window. The family is looking for money instead of understanding a horrible mistake was made.
No one these days wants to take accountability for their actions. They want to blame others-not in this case finally
So just to be clear, you think he did notice the window was open, stood the toddler on the handrail 11 stories up, took his arms off her and watched her fall? And he made up the whole thing about her wanting to tap on the glass because it was his intent to get away with orchestrating her fall through an open window?
So just to be clear, you think he did notice the window was open, stood the toddler on the handrail 11 stories up, took his arms off her and watched her fall?
Not being snarky, just looking for clarity.
He claims he didn't realize the window was open. I'm pretty sure the fresh breeze on his face was a clear indicator that it was.
I'm not saying he purposely made her fall but his actions caused her to fall
You would be ok with no charges if the defendant was a ship day care provider?
If it was truly an accident, yes. Humans make mistakes. I had a friend who was trying to open her door with her baby carrier in one hand a a bottle of wine on the other, and she accidentally dropped the bottle and it hit the baby. He was fine, but if he hadn't been, what purpose would be served by charging her with a crime? The grandfather loved that baby, it was a tragic accident. We are so punitive here, and it just to me seems like just lust to see people punished but serves no real purpose (again except to make lawyers rich).
Just like people get in car accidents every day. Every one of them, one person's negligent actions caused harm to another. But unless the person was drinking, or driving recklessly, or texting, we don't charge them with crimes. If they didn't see the traffic light because of sun glare, or they didn't see that car coming as they were pulling out, we don't charge them, and I think that's the way it should be in this case too. If grandfather was drunk, or placed her up there and ignored her because he was playing a game on his phone, then yes, maybe charges are appropriate. But simply misreading a situation and thinking the window was closed is a human accident, not a crime. Even if he was incompetent, which I don't agree with, but that doesn't make it a crime.
Is it your belief he did notice the window was open, and still placed her on the railing and let her go?
It is my belief that you can't miss that those windows are open. This isn't a hockey rink, it's a cruise ship. I used to work for cruise ships for a good chunk of years - when you're that high up, you KNOW when the windows are open.
Despite that, he still placed her on the railing. He didn't "let her go", he clearly didn't have a good hold on her. She could have leaned forward because she didn't know that there was no glass, she could have been squirming, whatever it was, he lost his grip.
The fact is, HE put her on that railing. At no time is it acceptable to place a child on a railing, whether you're holding them or not, because this very type of thing can happen. You don't hold them on the railing at a baseball stadium, you don't hold them on the railing of a balcony of a room, you don't hold them on a railing on a cruise ship, especially 11 stories high.
Did he "intend" to do it? Of course not. There are a lot of people in prison who didn't mean to kill someone, who have great remorse over what they did, but that doesn't mean you get a free out. A child is dead. It's not the child's fault that she is dead. It's not the cruise lines fault that she is dead. It is the fault of the person who put her on that railing.
Forget about the windows for a moment. Think about if he put her on that railing, lost his grip, and she fell backwards landing on her head. That's a big fall for a baby. Is that still the cruise lines fault? Of course it isn't. No matter how far she fell, it's the grandfather's fault for ever putting her up there in the first place.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,629 posts, read 17,961,729 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
It is my belief that you can't miss that those windows are open. This isn't a hockey rink, it's a cruise ship. I used to work for cruise ships for a good chunk of years - when you're that high up, you KNOW when the windows are open.
Despite that, he still placed her on the railing. He didn't "let her go", he clearly didn't have a good hold on her. She could have leaned forward because she didn't know that there was no glass, she could have been squirming, whatever it was, he lost his grip.
The fact is, HE put her on that railing. At no time is it acceptable to place a child on a railing, whether you're holding them or not, because this very type of thing can happen. You don't hold them on the railing at a baseball stadium, you don't hold them on the railing of a balcony of a room, you don't hold them on a railing on a cruise ship, especially 11 stories high.
Did he "intend" to do it? Of course not. There are a lot of people in prison who didn't mean to kill someone, who have great remorse over what they did, but that doesn't mean you get a free out. A child is dead. It's not the child's fault that she is dead. It's not the cruise lines fault that she is dead. It is the fault of the person who put her on that railing.
So you think his statements about wanting to lift her up to allow her to tap on the glass were a complete lie?
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.
