Very disturbing lawsuit

[Toofarfromthesea]

The mother admitted to allowing her kids to be out past curfew.

 

I bet she wouldn't have been thrilled if they had real-time monitored the creepy overture her kid made to the young lady and then took some sort of action against him. Then the real-time monitoring would have been criticized as violating her kid's privacy.

 

Money grab, pure and simple. Shakespeare was right.

[broberts]

I bet she wouldn't have been thrilled if they had real-time monitored the creepy overture her kid made to the young lady and then took some sort of action against him. Then the real-time monitoring would have been criticized as violating her kid's privacy.

 

Money grab, pure and simple. Shakespeare was right.

 

The "kid" was a 13 year old male. They do stupid and creepy things all the time. It is almost a requirement. Stop trying to blame him for his rape.

[Eslader]

I never said you can catch 100% of the rule breakers 100% of the time (and I would hope there are no cameras inside the rooms of the customer). Only an idiot would think that is possible.

 

Well I wasn't going to use the term "idiot," because the person we're arguing against *is* saying that's not only possible, but should be mandatory.

 

It's pretty easy to monitor a screen that is off.

 

You'd think that, but it's actually a great way to make the guy watching the screen fall asleep. The human brain doesn't do well with a complete absence of input, and it starts looking for other things to occupy it - either getting distracted by something else in the room, or just losing consciousness.

 

What I posted was quite clear. How you mischaracterized and continue to mischaracterize it, is on you.

 

Yes, what you posted is quite clear. That you dislike the implications thereof is not our problem.

[xpcdoojk]

They could change their procedures by strictly enforcing curfew. Kid out after midnight, you and your family are off at the next dock. Would cut down on parents who arent aware of where their minor children are.

 

Could also use sail cards to meter drinking. Bartenders shouldnt guess if a person is intoxicated. The computer could cut passengers off if theyve had more than 3 drinks.

 

Hiring a couple dozen extra TV watchers would actually not cost the cruise ship because they could pass these costs on to passengers.

 

The anything goes nature of cruising is likely ending as the industry grows and matures. Lawyers seeking a windfall from deep pocket corporations is a reality of America now and the cruise industry needs to get with the times.

 

3 drinks. Wow.

 

This thread just gets better and better and by that I mean dumb and dumber.

 

JC

[Toofarfromthesea]

.

 

I'm not saying it would be easy. And I am certainly not saying it would have stopped this crime. Those two things being true doesn't mean you simply don't try.

 

Great solution. Let's have the cruise lines spend a ton of money trying the impossible, knowing that even if they succeeded it won't stop the actual problem.

[Toofarfromthesea]

The "kid" was a 13 year old male. They do stupid and creepy things all the time. It is almost a requirement. Stop trying to blame him for his rape.

 

Wow, he was raped? Where did it say that? But good job ratcheting up the emotion.

 

But like your other posts you (intentionally?) completely miss the point, which was about the mom, not the kid.

[broberts]

...

Yes, what you posted is quite clear. That you dislike the implications thereof is not our problem.

 

Again, stop purposely mischaracterizing my posts. Go back read the posts. Actually take the time to correctly understand what was written and the context in which it was written. Only a dishonest person would claim I have even hinted at anything that would result in the fantasy you suggest.

[TC1957]

Parents cannot watch their own kids 24/7, yet a cruise line is expected to monitor over 1000 camera feeds and some 5000 passengers 24/7?

 

Last time I was on a cruise ship there were more than two crew members onboard. Maybe the ships you sail on are different.

 

Do all of you really think it would require one person per monitor? Please tell me you don't think that. Walk into any office building with security and you will see one guard watching a dozen monitors.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

I never said you can catch 100% of the rule breakers 100% of the time (and I would hope there are no cameras inside the rooms of the customer). Only an idiot would think that is possible. But you can do better than 2%.

 

Keep in mind, at that time of the morning you wouldn't need to be monitoring EVERY camera. For over a decade there have been motion activated cameras. If there is no activity in an area at 2:00 am (say inside a venue that has been closed for hours) the camera would turn off. It's pretty easy to monitor a screen that is off.

 

I'm not saying it would be easy. And I am certainly not saying it would have stopped this crime. Those two things being true doesn't mean you simply don't try.

So how many cameras do you think should be monitored/turned on at 2am in the morning? I posted earlier about the difficulties in monitoring 100 cameras. It is simply not practical.

 

And if monitoring the cameras wouldn't have stopped this crime, what's the point?

[CruiseGal999]

Still so much dwelling on the curfew and the "bad parenting" associated with letting him wander around "after the curfew". If he had been wandering around at 12:45am and the assault happened at 12:50am, would we still be calling them "bad parents"?

 

Parents let their young kids wander around ships alone during the day and there are plenty of places that assaults could happen during the daylight hours. Are they "bad parents"? I walked past the library and the card room several times a day on a recent cruise and hardly ever saw anyone in there, no matter what time of the day it was. If you're up and around before 8am, the ship's common areas are virtually empty - a kid going to get a pastry could easily be assaulted in any number of locations. Is that "bad parenting"?

 

I do understand the mother's comments about the false sense of security implied in cruise line ads (although basic intelligence and common sense have to enter into the picture at some point). Obviously the cruise lines aren't going to make an ad warning people about the possibility of crime on board - but I rarely see the cruise lines step in to police even minor skirmishes between passengers, so there is a sense of "lawlessness" onboard.

 

This is a terrible thing to have happened and warning to all of us that we never know who we are cruising with or what they are capable of.

 

YES! Because a 13 year old (boy or girl) has NO business being out that late. This is bad parenting. Even further evidence is the fact that this 13 year old boy, supposedly, offered a young girl a keychain for her virginity! THAT is a punk and he's headed nowhere good. Hope the parents can turn him around.

[Cruzaholic41]

The "kid" was a 13 year old male. They do stupid and creepy things all the time. It is almost a requirement. Stop trying to blame him for his rape.

 

Whoa! Wait. Where did it say he was raped?

[Cruzaholic41]

Becci, you are getting the Chief and the Hound mixed up. They are both full of great and helpful knowledge though, just from different aspects/sides/directions of nautical information.

 

Like you, I agree with the Hound.

 

I agree. Paul’s posts in this thread have been spot on, as usual.

 

Sorry - the Hound’s posts. :D

[TC1957]

Whoa! Wait. Where did it say he was raped?

 

The case involves the sexual assault of a minor. Most people are going to equate "sexual assault" and "rape". I know the two have different legal definitions...just stating what most will do.

[JediNeo]

Last time I was on a cruise ship there were more than two crew members onboard. Maybe the ships you sail on are different.

 

Do all of you really think it would require one person per monitor? Please tell me you don't think that. Walk into any office building with security and you will see one guard watching a dozen monitors.

 

I know it is not a 1:1 ratio. I was simply responding to the post that stated their kids slept in the cabin next to them and they couldn't watch their kids 24/7 and how this statement correlates to other posters expecting a ships cameras to be monitored 24/7.

 

If it is widely accept that nobody can watch their offspring 24/7, why is it assumed and expected for security (Ship/Office/Casino) to monitor over 1000 video feeds 24/7?

[Milwaukee Eight]

Wow, he was raped? Where did it say that? But good job ratcheting up the emotion.

 

 

 

But like your other posts you (intentionally?) completely miss the point, which was about the mom, not the kid.

 

 

 

I agree. Adding words like that are nothing more than how Fake News works. Twist the facts to ones own narrative.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RDC1]

Really? How do places like MGM, The Venetian, etc. pull it off 24-7.

 

Actually they don't. They do monitor the gaming area. primarily the tables, pretty heavily. Even there they scan through a number of tables, looking for anything suspicious. They will home in if either they see something that raises their attention or if notified by the pit boss. They will also pick certain tables to monitor if their internal win loss info indicates something out of wack with a particular dealer. They do use facial recognition software in conjunction with a list of banned or suspect players that they use as a triggering mechanisms. There are all sorts of methods that employees can trigger an alert to security for them to hone in on a particular area.

 

As far as the rooms and hallways of the hotel portion those are usually not monitored aggressively, unless something comes up that causes them to (such as a rash of reported thefts for example). There they depend upon other access means to reduce risk such as key cards in elevators, guards at the entrances to the hotel etc. varies a bit by casino.

 

Notice that the major hotel casino from which the Las Vegas shooter operated did not catch him hauling multiple very heavy bags of weapons through the hotel to his room.

[RDC1]

Still so much dwelling on the curfew and the "bad parenting" associated with letting him wander around "after the curfew". If he had been wandering around at 12:45am and the assault happened at 12:50am, would we still be calling them "bad parents"?

 

Parents let their young kids wander around ships alone during the day and there are plenty of places that assaults could happen during the daylight hours. Are they "bad parents"? I walked past the library and the card room several times a day on a recent cruise and hardly ever saw anyone in there, no matter what time of the day it was. If you're up and around before 8am, the ship's common areas are virtually empty - a kid going to get a pastry could easily be assaulted in any number of locations. Is that "bad parenting"?

 

I do understand the mother's comments about the false sense of security implied in cruise line ads (although basic intelligence and common sense have to enter into the picture at some point). Obviously the cruise lines aren't going to make an ad warning people about the possibility of crime on board - but I rarely see the cruise lines step in to police even minor skirmishes between passengers, so there is a sense of "lawlessness" onboard.

 

This is a terrible thing to have happened and warning to all of us that we never know who we are cruising with or what they are capable of.

 

But then the plaintive would not be blaming Royal for not enforcing the curfew as part of her case. The main reason curfew and her allowing violation is being discussed is because it is part of her case.

[2018NewCruiser2018]

A filed suit does not mean the Plaintiff has won. Typcially for a buisness to be liable for the criminal acts of a third party three things must exist. First the owner had a duty to exercise reasonable care; second the owner failed to exercise reasonable care; third the failure of that care is teh proximate cause of the injuries.

 

Diffrent jurisdictions have diffrent standards for what reasonable care is.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

Do all of you really think it would require one person per monitor? Please tell me you don't think that. Walk into any office building with security and you will see one guard watching a dozen monitors.

And each of those monitors probably has a single camera feed. So you have one person watching 12 cameras. Now get up to 100 cameras. How many signals do you think you can watch at one time?

[Eslader]

Again, stop purposely mischaracterizing my posts. Go back read the posts. Actually take the time to correctly understand what was written and the context in which it was written. Only a dishonest person would claim I have even hinted at anything that would result in the fantasy you suggest.

 

 

OK:

 

Yes, implicitly RCI allowed it because the ship did not enforce its curfew in this instance.

 

RCI did not "implicitly allow" it by "not enforcing curfew," because RCI did not have the requisite knowledge to make the decision on whether or not to enforce curfew in that instance.

 

 

What we're trying to get across to you is that if the kid was running around after curfew and staff did not know about it, then they were not allowing anything, nor were they failing to enforce anything.

 

Putting your statement into land-based context, if someone gets murdered it is not reasonable to say that the police department allowed it to happen simply because there was no police officer present to stop the murder.

 

Perhaps you would like to rephrase what you wrote?

[momofmab]

But then the plaintive would not be blaming Royal for not enforcing the curfew as part of her case. The main reason curfew and her allowing violation is being discussed is because it is part of her case.

 

 

 

I’m talking about the reliance on the curfew issue by posters on this thread, in determining that these parents “bad parents”.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[S.A.M.J.R.]

BTW, I found this image online...

 

This has NO RELATION to any ship, just a sample. It looks like there are just under 100 images that this guy is looking at. Do those of you who believe all cameras should be monitored 24/7 really believe this one guy is able to watch all of these images, enough to tell there's something bad going on?

[momofmab]

YES! Because a 13 year old (boy or girl) has NO business being out that late. This is bad parenting. Even further evidence is the fact that this 13 year old boy, supposedly, offered a young girl a keychain for her virginity! THAT is a punk and he's headed nowhere good. Hope the parents can turn him around.

 

 

 

But the curfew was 1am and the determining factor on here as to these parents being “bad parents” is that they knew their kid was out after curfew. My argument is that an assault can happen anytime. The uncle and the dad fully intended to retaliate- they could have done so at any time, really....12 noon, midnight, etc. Trying to vilify the parents diverts attention from the seriousness of the assault.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[RDC1]

I’m talking about the reliance on the curfew issue by posters on this thread, in determining that these parents “bad parents”.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

From her own words in an interview she allowed violation of the curfew, yet is blaming the cruise line for failure to enforce in the law suite. I can see why someone might take that as an example of bad parenting or at least failure to set a good example.

[CruiseGal999]

The case involves the sexual assault of a minor. Most people are going to equate "sexual assault" and "rape". I know the two have different legal definitions...just stating what most will do.

 

It's been stated that the case reported PHYSICAL assault ... and it was twisted into 'sexual' assault along the way. Who knows.