grahamfam3

Well, I’m not sure what service your husband is in, but I can tell you what the US Army’s AR 670-1 says about wear of the Dress Blues:

13–3. Occasions for wear

a. All-purpose wear. The male service/dress uniform is authorized for wear on and off duty, on and off the installation, unless restricted by the commander. The male service/dress uniform is not intended for wear as an allpurpose uniform when other uniforms are more appropriate.

b. Approved wear. The male service/dress uniform is prescribed for year-round wear for all Soldiers, unless otherwise directed by the commander. Soldiers may wear variations of the male service/dress uniform:

(1) On duty when prescribed by the local commander.

(2) At social functions of a private or official nature, either before or after retreat, and while in transit to and from such functions. The male service/dress uniform is normally considered appropriate for social or official functions off the installation, such as memorial services, funerals, weddings, inaugurals, patriotic ceremonies, and similar functions.

(3) When designated by the host of an event.

(4) On other appropriate occasions, as desired by the individual.

(5) Soldiers may wear the male service/dress uniform for commercial travel IAW paragraph 3–7b through c.

c. Restrictions on wear.

(1) Personnel may not wear male service/dress uniform in off-post establishments that primarily sell alcohol. If the off-post establishment sells alcohol and food, Soldiers may not wear the male service/dress uniform if their activities in the establishment center on the drinking of alcohol.

(2) Commanders may further restrict wear of the male service/dress uniform IAW paragraph 2–6c.

Now I’m not sure how cruise ships fall under “establishment center on the drinking of alcohol”, as some I’ve been on seemed to have quite a bit of booze flowing. ;-) but it looks like its good to go for formal nights.

Oh, the paragraphs for blue and white mess dress are different paragraphs but are basically the same.

Right ... one very biased source.

I wasn’t aware that the Elliot.org website was so biased. Is it just HAL, all Carnival owned lines, or all cruising in general?

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Not again with the N*w C*k* analogy. Deja vu much?

Crystal Pepsi?

In this case however, not any evidence that HAL did not both do the right thing and it was the right thing even from a public relations standpoint. But that is only if they stay ahead of the ever-ready arm-chair lawyers who have already drawn and quartered them, in abstentia.

That's fair. You chose to give the benefit of the doubt to HAL. I suspect the opposite is the case. Both of us are entitled to our opinion.

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." - Dr. Ian Macolm

Of course, but if you are going to cite a case for the sake of comparison, at least find one that is similar in nature. The one you chose had nothing to do with the justification for removal, which is the issue here, but with the violent nature the removal itself.

I chose one that was relatively recent and well publicized.

How do you know any of the follow-up details about this incident? A remote 3P news article is the sole source we are all arguing about right now.

 

You know the old saying, if you can't win on the facts, win on the law and if you can't win on the law discredit the evidence. And it you can't impugn the evidence then pound on the table and shout as loud as you can.

You're doing an excellent job of it. The difference is I realize what I am saying is opinion, but you seem to appear to believe what you are saying is fact.

Are you suggesting that the Chan's screamed as officers pulled them out of their cabin, hit their faces during the struggle, and that crew members then dragged them by their arms, apparently unconscious, down the gangplank past rows of onlooking passengers? According to passenger eyewitness accounts, did the crew members laugh as the Chan's were dragged off the ship?

 

If not, comparing the Dao case to that of the Chan's is borders on the absurd.

I didn't say the two were the same factually. I have no idea where you came up with that. My point, which it appears you chose to avoid, is that a company can do something that it is entitled to do, but ends up making it look bad in the long run. Is it your contention that is not true?

I object!

 

"Y'all are out order, this thread is out of order, everyone is out of order. I just completed my opening statement."

 

circa 1979, "And Justice for All", RedneckBob impersonating Al Pacino.

I like this one:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

One would only hope security on military bases exceeds what is available and apprrpriate for cruise ships. Looking forward to your future discussions with Copper, our resident HAL security expert.

So do I, especially an explanation as to why the individuals involved were not identified and detained at the time of the incident if it was significant enough to warrant a passenger being ejected from the cruise.

You are relying on hearsay and speculation to build your particular case here. It is not the letter of the law that is in contention here. You are just making things up for reasons yet unknown. That is what is in contention.

You have exactly the same number of facts available to you that I do, yet you seem just as capable as I do to form an opinion?

Bottom line: if in his judgement the Captain thought it was advisable to put the Chan's off the ship, whether for the safety of others or for any other reason, he was entitled to do so.

Fouremco, you are absolutely 100% correct. The Captain has every right to do so.

But that doesn't mean HAL isn't going to end up looking bad or in small claims court. United Airlines had every right to have Chicago Department of Aviation officers remove David Dao from Flight 3411, but look how that turned out.

Given the Chan's insistence on review of the video of the incident, I strongly suspect (can't prove Salty, you're right!) the wrong person was identified and ejected from the cruise. My current job is in the legal industry, and based on my personal experience guilty parties are generally trying to discredit physical evidence and get it excluded, not reviewed.

So now we have yet again morphed from the crew member reported to have been referred post-incident for medical attention ,..... to now an injury requiring medical treatment, escalated now to ......a "reasonable deduction" that a criminal assault and battery had been committed.

 

Beware of facts not in evidence. Thank you for recognizing the "extent of any actual injury was not detailed".

You should read the link I provided explaining what the definition of assault and the definition of battery are. Someone doesn't have to have been severely injured to meet that threshold. In fact, you don’t even have to have been injured enough to require medical assessment. Also, I never said anyone was medically treated, I said apparently the crewmember was assessed. Attention to detail is important. Again, still waiting for an explanation why the person who allegedly committed such an offence was not detained at the time, and why.

Maybe, because they had not committed a "crime" ? No need to commit a crime for the Captain, after consultation with Headquarters, to decide to have you removed from THEIR ship.

According to the article, a crew member had been both assaulted, and battered. The extent of any actual injury was not detailed, but it was enough to have the individual assessed by a medical professional which means it can be reasonably deduced to have been more than a friendly hand on the shoulder. Assault is a crime, whether in Russia, the US, or international waters.

https://www.lomtl.com/articles/understanding-the-difference-between-assault-and-battery/

That they got the "wrong guy" is pure speculation on your part.

No, more like logical inference. I'm still waiting for a logical explanation why the person wasn't detained at the time of the incident. Eyewitness identification after the fact is notoriously unreliable.

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2016/11/22/statistical_issues_and_reliability_of_eyewitness_id_as_a_forensic_tool.kafadar.legalfact.pdf

Such clairvoyance. I am dazzled. And a new poster to boot. Sounds almost like a trial run for a trial.

Not new to the board, if you pay attention you will note I've been on this website longer than you have. I normally read, however. And yes, you should be dazzled, I see your impression of the security services on cruise ships and raise it 30+ years in the US Army. You clearly have no idea how poorly trained and unprofessional they are. Clearly.

On the bright side, there are a lot of judgmental people commenting who claim they won't be sailing with HAL. :)

Also a lot of judgmental people who assume that HAL got the right guy days later on a ship with how many people on board?

HAL is not in the business of just booting revenue generating passengers. If they say he assaulted a crew member, then he most likely did. They don't need to show the wife crap. It's the husband who needs to speak up and admit to his wife what he did.

Sounds like sloppy work on the part of the ship's security, and the Captain not caring if they got the right guy or not. Rather than admit they accused the wrong guy much better to hunker down and deny wrongdoing. Just FYI, if Mr. Chan had assaulted a crew member, please explain why ships security at the departure point (yes, they are always there) hadn't taken him into custody and confined him to his cabin at the time? Answer: because they screwed up, didn't detain the individual, and then had to try to guess who it was who committed the assault later and guessed wrong. The Captain backed up his security staff's accusation rather than reviewing the definitely existing video due to either 1) feeling he or she needed to back up his or her crew once the after-the-fact identification was made and/or 2) not caring.