The other side of the Freedom/tobacco story

[BeagleOne]

A big difference.........and if you don't understand it.......take the time to look it up!!

 

Why should I try to explain it to you......for you to call me a liar!

 

Dig it up yourself, and come back and explain it, in common language......to the rest of us.

 

And, yes, I do understand the difference.........as I have been in the courtroom enough..........and no.......I'm not an attorney!

 

Rick

 

When did I call you a liar? And I don't need to look it up. I have a JD degree from a top ten U.S. law school. I KNOW the difference.

[mechcc]

It HAS to matter. While the Captain does have the ultimate say in who comes or goes, they have to have some kind of "benchmark" on which to base that discretion. A liberal interpretation of what you are suggesting is that if the Captain doesn't like the "look" of you then you are off the boat.

 

No it does not. There is a big difference between criminal and contract law. Legal or illegal does not necessarily apply to contract law. In criminal law the requirement is to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". In contract and/or civil law the requirement is more like what a reasonable person might do and what is in the contract and what a reasonable person would determine that contract means. At least that is what it is in U.S.

 

Your liberal interpretation would not follow what a reasonable person might do.

[wreckem2013]

I think of a certain airline in the US known for cheap fares, who kicked off a customer because of their weight.

 

That lead to a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

However, RCI is claiming a security issue here as the reason for giving this couple the boot. In the end, the security issue I believe will rue the day for them.

 

Being fat isn't a protected class. Atleast not yet

 

In the US(the case you are referring to was from Canada IIRC), Airlines are free to charge moribly obese people for the costs of two seats. If the person refuses, they don't get to board. Some are very much hardline on this, others are not. But FAA regulations already state if the seat belt doesn't snap close with only one extension, the person cannot fly.

[tanelicus]

As they saying goes "there are always three sides to a story, theirs, ours and the truth". It appears that neither side was entirely forthcomming.

 

I have to admit that RCI reporting an illegal substance and police action seems slanderous to me. It is quite troubling, lying always is.

 

I'm still trying to understand what clause of the passenger contract was violated. Last time I read it there was nothing about doing stupid things that endangered no one.

 

Slander is saying something that you know is false about another person. Even then its very difficult to prove, and if there is a very small amount of truth to it, then game over.

 

I believe RCI didn't know for sure what the stuff is. At the very least the way it was contained and looked makes it suspicious.

 

With that said, I think to some degree the ultimate result seemed unecessary to me.

 

I don't expect RCI to put up much of a fight over the return of the money, but they will without a doubt fight to death over their ability to act in a similar manner in the future.

[Pushka]

However, RCI is claiming a security issue here as the reason for giving this couple the boot. In the end, the security issue I believe will rue the day for them.

 

Well, I would like to know where the hidden tobacco issue became a security issue. Security = safety, danger, threat etc. Where did that train of thought come from when all they were held up for was hidden "possible" THC (that was later disproved anyway so their "thoughts" were wrong)

[tanelicus]

Being fat isn't a protected class. Atleast not yet

 

Airlines are free to charge moribly obese people for the costs of two seats. If the person refuses, they don't get to board.

 

Furthermore, FAA regulations already state if the seat belt doesn't snap with one extension, the person cannot fly.

 

My point is that it still brought about an onslaught of lawsuits. In this case, these people were without a doubt not acting within a gray area.

[Pushka]

No it does not. There is a big difference between criminal and contract law. Legal or illegal does not necessarily apply to contract law. In criminal law the requirement is to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". In contract and/or civil law the requirement is more like what a reasonable person might do and what is in the contract and what a reasonable person would determine that contract means. At least that is what it is in U.S.

 

Your liberal interpretation would not follow what a reasonable person might do.

 

So how did they breach RCL contract? Is it reasonable not to allow someone on board who simply put tobacco in the concealed container of hairspray? :confused: I would like that tested in Court.

[tanelicus]

Well, I would like to know where the hidden tobacco issue became a security issue. Security = safety, danger, threat etc. Where did that train of thought come from when all they were held up for was hidden "possible" THC (that was later disproved anyway so their "thoughts" were wrong)

 

The only thing that matters is how RCI chooses to dictatate what a security is or not.

 

Your rights on a cruise ship are only as good as what RCI chooses to give you.

[rubrrick]

From an outsider, and admittedly not having followed your ongoing discourse, it sound like you actually agree with each other for the most part. Thats it, take it for what its worth.

 

 

Where do I send the Grand Prize.............I just think we have a winner here!

 

Could you explain......how you reached this conclusion??

 

Type it out...........and then it's time to close this thread............with your explaination........to top it off.

 

Rick

[BeagleOne]

It HAS to matter. While the Captain does have the ultimate say in who comes or goes, they have to have some kind of "benchmark" on which to base that discretion. A liberal interpretation of what you are suggesting is that if the Captain doesn't like the "look" of you then you are off the boat.

 

That reductio ad absurdum doesn't work. The benchmarks are the captain's judgement and experience, the cruise contract, and what the passengers are doing/saying.

 

Illegality is irrelevant here. It's not illegal to vomit or have diarrhea, but if you admit that either has happened to you a day or so before sailing, they can deny you boarding. It's not illegal to have alcohol in your luggage if you're over 21, but if security finds it, they can deny you boarding. It's not illegal to be drunk on board, but if you're really obnoxious about it, they can put you off in the next port. It's not illegal for you to be the parent of a drunk underage teenager, but they can put you off in the next port along with him. It's not illegal to hide a pipe and a smoking product in a hidden compartment of a fake can of hairspray, but if that makes security think you might be testing the waters for a dry run for drug smuggling, they can deny you boarding.

[jonbgd]

. I have a JD degree from a top ten U.S. law school. .

They give degrees out for Jack Daniels:eek::D:p

[tanelicus]

Where do I send the Grand Prize.............I just think we have a winner here!

 

Could you explain......how you reached this conclusion??

 

Type it out...........and then it's time to close this thread............with your explaination........to top it off.

 

Rick

 

Well you both said that there is a difference between contract law and criminal law. So where's the problem? LOL

[wreckem2013]

I think of a certain airline in the US known for cheap fares, who kicked off a customer because of their weight.

 

That lead to a lawsuit for discrimination.

 

However, RCI is claiming a security issue here as the reason for giving this couple the boot. In the end, the security issue I believe will rue the day for them.

 

Funny thing is, at least in the states most of these lawsuits weren't actually pursuing discrimination claims, but bogus IIED tort claims based on the "extreme" embarrassment of being asked to buy two seats in public.

[BeagleOne]

They give degrees out for Jack Daniels:eek::D:p

 

Why yes, yes they do, and I sneak it onboard in a rumrunner on every cruise! :)

[wreckem2013]

So how did they breach RCL contract? Is it reasonable not to allow someone on board who simply put tobacco in the concealed container of hairspray? :confused: I would like that tested in Court.

 

Unfortunately, you never will. If its ever tested, it will be tested by an arbitrator, likely from a corporate arbitration firm. What the arbitrator determines is final. There are no rules of court. No rules of evidence. Its not like a legal proceeding at all. And to top it all, corporations almost always win, and even when the corporations lose, the people pursuing the action don't really win, the get vindicated but usually at a monetary cost.

 

There is a reason why boiler plate contracts for a lot of things require binding arbitration, venue in specific places, etc. It prevents a whole lot of people from pursuing valid claims. Honestly though, most aren't claims worth pursuing from an economic standpoint.

[tanelicus]

Unfortunately, you never will. If its ever tested, it will be test by an arbitrator, likely from a corporate arbitration firm. What the arbitrator determines is final. There are no rules of court. No rules of evidence. Its not like a legal proceeding at all. And to top it all, corporations almost always win, and even when they lose, the people pursuing the action get vindicated but usually at a monetary cost.

 

It's probably written into the cruise line contract. They can try to challenge that provision however as being unfair. Typically arbitration provisions are indeed held up.

[Pushka]

That reductio ad absurdum doesn't work. The benchmarks are the captain's judgement and experience, the cruise contract, and what the passengers are doing/saying..

 

I understand that. But the examples you gave are actual instances of behaviours that have presented themselves, they actually occurred, and not just a "maybe" or guess work.

 

In this situation the Captain has made a guess on behaviours that only might occur.

 

Maybe parents of teenage kids who order a wine package for their room should be kicked off too because they might give their kids a drink?!

[tanelicus]

Unfortunately, you never will. If its ever tested, it will be tested by an arbitrator, likely from a corporate arbitration firm. What the arbitrator determines is final. There are no rules of court. No rules of evidence. Its not like a legal proceeding at all. And to top it all, corporations almost always win, and even when the corporations lose, the people pursuing the action don't really win, the get vindicated but usually at a monetary cost.

 

There is a reason why boiler plate contracts for a lot of things require binding arbitration, venue in specific places. Some like AT&T allow for small claims or binding arbitration. It prevents a whole lot of people from pursuing claims. Honestly though, most aren't claims worth pursuing from an economic standpoint.

 

Noticing she's an Aussie, does she have the same contract as cruisers from the US when sailing out of the US?

 

Are forum selection clauses as strong when a person is a international cruiser?

[wreckem2013]

Noticing she's an Aussie, does she have the same contract as cruisers from the US when sailing out of the US?

 

Are forum selection clauses as strong when a person is a international cruiser?

 

I believe they are that strong, at least if the foreigner wanted to sue in the US, because the contract clearly spells out what law they are using, and in the US said clauses are typically upheld(ones that aren't are usually because of poor drafting). Another factor would be, where did they buy the ticket from? Which RCI did they buy the ticket from (US or UK)?

 

US courts have sent US citizens to foreign courts for claims originating in the US but selection clauses are in say Germany. I don't see US courts letting foreigners off the hook. If they are Australian they might try and sue there but I am not sure how far that would go. But I do believe most courts in other nations honor selection clauses on contracts to the point they are trying to get an international convention in place to clarify.

[BeagleOne]

I understand that. But the examples you gave are actual instances of behaviours that have presented themselves, they actually occurred, and not just a "maybe" or guess work.

 

In this situation the Captain has made a guess on behaviours that only might occur.

 

Maybe parents of teenage kids who order a wine package for their room should be kicked off too because they might give their kids a drink?!

 

Not having been there, I can only speculate, but from what the posters with law enforcement experience have said, what the husband was doing met the criteria for a "dry run" for drug smuggling. How common those dry runs are, or how reasonable in the real world such a suspicion is in a case like this, I have no idea.

 

If the "dry run" idea is legit, then IMHO the cruise line is perfectly justified in denying passage based on what someone MIGHT do. Suppose they let the people sail, and at final disembarkation, U.S. Customs finds cocaine or heroin in the secret compartment. IDK what the cruise line's liability is there...they knew that the people were possibly doing a "dry run" when they boarded, but they let them sail anyway, and now, lo and behold, they're trying to sneak drugs in.

[bighairtexan]

Today I cut wood without eye protection. Would the captain deem that irresponsible?

 

Tomorrow I might drive around the block without my seatbelt on, should I cancel my next cruise?

 

I don't believe the above behavior, though irresponsible, would have an impact on cruising, nor would come under a cruise captain's jurisdiction. :rolleyes: Though you probably SHOULD be prepared for consequences: from a splinter in your eye, to being thrown from the car were you in a wreck. Or MAYBE nothing would happen. "You pays your money and you takes your chances."

 

Behavior has consequences. I've behaved irresponsibly in my life, yes. And there have been results of that behavior too. Sometimes I've escaped unpleasant consequences and other times.... not so much.

[broberts]

. . . If the "dry run" idea is legit, then IMHO the cruise line is perfectly justified in denying passage based on what someone MIGHT do. Suppose they let the people sail, and at final disembarkation, U.S. Customs finds cocaine or heroin in the secret compartment. IDK what the cruise line's liability is there...they knew that the people were possibly doing a "dry run" when they boarded, but they let them sail anyway, and now, lo and behold, they're trying to sneak drugs in.

 

So if the cruise line decides that people wearing black are likely drug dealers they are justified in denying boarding to these people because the "MIGHT" attempt to smuggle an illegal substance? If that is too silly a question then just where does one draw the line on which acts or behaviors predict future illegal acts and which do not?

 

I truly doubt the authorities would hold the cruise line responsible for a passenger attempting to smuggle anything. If they did cruise lines would already be out of business.

 

You can not and should not assume that a crime will be committed at some future date by someone based on a current non-criminal behavior. Part of that is simple common sense, nobody can read the mind of another. But just as important is the principal of innocent until proved guilty - and it's awfully hard (well it should be) to prove guilt when no wrong doing has occurred.

[celle]

And the next idle and irrelevant speculation is:

Considering that the husband of the person who started the original thread ruined their fourth anniversary celebration by his foolish act, do you think they will ever be celebrating a fifth anniversary? (Just joking!)

[Pushka]

So if the cruise line decides that people wearing black are likely drug dealers they are justified in denying boarding to these people because the "MIGHT" attempt to smuggle an illegal substance? If that is too silly a question then just where does one draw the line on which acts or behaviors predict future illegal acts and which do not?

 

I truly doubt the authorities would hold the cruise line responsible for a passenger attempting to smuggle anything. If they did cruise lines would already be out of business.

 

You can not and should not assume that a crime will be committed at some future date by someone based on a current non-criminal behavior. Part of that is simple common sense, nobody can read the mind of another. But just as important is the principal of innocent until proved guilty - and it's awfully hard (well it should be) to prove guilt when no wrong doing has occurred.

 

Agreed. Especially when the Police, who attended the scene, had no further interest in the matter. On what grounds can the Captain say they were at risk, when the Police weren't bothered enough to even further test the material. Had the Police been concerned enough to make further tests then I had no issue with the Captain's actions. But they didn't. They didn't lay charges. They said it wasn't a Police matter.

 

Not having been there, I can only speculate, but from what the posters with law enforcement experience have said, what the husband was doing met the criteria for a "dry run" for drug smuggling. How common those dry runs are, or how reasonable in the real world such a suspicion is in a case like this, I have no idea.

 

If the "dry run" idea is legit, then IMHO the cruise line is perfectly justified in denying passage based on what someone MIGHT do. Suppose they let the people sail, and at final disembarkation, U.S. Customs finds cocaine or heroin in the secret compartment. IDK what the cruise line's liability is there...they knew that the people were possibly doing a "dry run" when they boarded, but they let them sail anyway, and now, lo and behold, they're trying to sneak drugs in.

 

 

Can't you see how many ifs and buts are in your post? And if it was that common, and therefore 'legit' then we might just have heard about this kind of thing happening a lot more. If they were later caught sneaking drugs in, then fine, full punishment.

[odettemcf]

Because we're Americans and we were raised to believe that you only got arrested if you broke the law. It's something that we were encouraged to be proud of. "Other countries" could arrest you for nothing just to keep you quiet or to maintain control via intimidation. So, that's why we all look at it that way.

 

Now, I know you're going to say that the ship isn't part of the US, but you asked... I answered. :)

 

...So using the logic that you are rasied with does that mean that if you breach RCI policy you should be arrested?

 

RCI policy is NOT the same as US Law (I'm assuming):rolleyes: which means that you can be denied boarding WITHOUT breaking the law and being arrested.