Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Family's statement on toddler's cruise death

Pauser

By Pauser,
in Norwegian Cruise Line

 Share

Recommended Posts

StillPooh

StillPooh

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

She was nowhere near terminal velocity. She wasn't high enough. 

You’re correct, that was an exaggeration. Based on a 150 foot fall and an 18 month old of average weight, she’d have been falling at around 70 mph when she hit. I still wouldn’t want to see the results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UnorigionalName

UnorigionalName

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, bakersdozen12 said:


So drunk drivers who kill people should be let off simply because they didn’t mean to crash their car, making it an accident too? I mean, by your logic, they are also going to have to live with guilt for the rest of their lives. Sorry, but negligence is negligence. No one is exempt from facing the consequences, including legal consequences, of their actions. 

 

19 hours ago, esm54687 said:

Prisons are filled with people who suffer guilt from accidently taking a life........ let's pardon all of them. 

 

16 hours ago, mugtech said:

It is the old Nixon defense: "He suffered the humility of having to resign from office, that should be punishment enough."  Jerry Ford believed that, lost reelection to a peanut farmer.

 

5 hours ago, ray98 said:

LOL....who knew....as long as you 'feel sorry' you should get a pass for killing someone.

 

Some have lost sight....this isn't about the grandfather....this is about holding a person accountable for the untimely and tragic death of a baby that was caused by the negligence of another.  This wasn't and accident, this was a negligent act because any reasonable person would understand the risk of sitting a child on a railing in front of an open window.

 

Justice is holding that person accountable.

 

I like how this thread is a nice insight where some forum members fall on criminal justice philosophy.    And where evidently the majority on this board lie! The reasons why opinions differ is because of different opinions on the nature and goals of criminal justice.

 

If you think a major component is for punishing people who've done wrong, you want them in prison.

 

If you think it's more about societal effects and rehabilitation, then you probably don't want him to go through anything more.  (Is it likely he's going to be a repeat offender if he isn't punished and throw other grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely other grandparents will see this and then be relieved that they too can throw their grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely punishment will really do much of anything on his development as a human in general other than cause suffering and large costs to the state? no).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starry Eyes

Starry Eyes

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, SherriZ366 said:

The Lawyer was on NBC yesterday stating that the family was utterly crushed that the Step-Grandfather was charged with Negligent Homicide -- lawyer still fighting it out in the media    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-toddler-who-fell-cruise-ship-utterly-crushed-after-grandfather-n1073691

IF hypothetically, instead of the step-grandfather, a cruise line employee had placed the child on that railing (not that an employee would do such a stupid and prohibited act, but strictly hypothetically) can you imagine how that lawyer would be screaming about employee negligence and improper training and huge liability etc.  Had it been an employee rather than a family member, I imagine the lawyer would likely argue placing a small child at risk of falling even four feet from railing to a hard deck (closed window) would be totally unacceptable risk and that placing a child on railing by an open window far past unacceptable.  But instead he tries to spin it as though the window is at fault.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SherriZ366

SherriZ366

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

Sure they lawyer is crushed. If the grandfather is found at fault, the lawyer's chance of getting his multi-million dollar contingency fee is greatly reduced. 

I totally agree -- this lawyer was in San Juan the day of or the day after the accident hitting the family when they were vulnerable.  Had them on some TV shows and went on TV after the Grandfather was charged.  He makes his living by suing cruiselines.  
Bet he or one of his cohorts would have taken the case if the idiot girl who went on the outside ledge to take a selfie had fallen (On Allure of the Seas -- as passenger took a picture and then met with the Concierge and the staff captain. -- the girl was disembarked in Jamaica with her friend who held her legs.  She is banned from RCCL for life and he friend may be too.

Edited by SherriZ366
Link to comment
Share on other sites
esm54687

esm54687

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

 

 

 

I like how this thread is a nice insight where some forum members fall on criminal justice philosophy.    And where evidently the majority on this board lie! The reasons why opinions differ is because of different opinions on the nature and goals of criminal justice.

 

If you think a major component is for punishing people who've done wrong, you want them in prison.

 

If you think it's more about societal effects and rehabilitation, then you probably don't want him to go through anything more.  (Is it likely he's going to be a repeat offender if he isn't punished and throw other grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely other grandparents will see this and then be relieved that they too can throw their grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely punishment will really do much of anything on his development as a human in general other than cause suffering and large costs to the state? no).

Actually.... if you read the thread you would've seen me asking why the grandfather should be exempt from punishment..... the reply was basically because they already feel remorse.

 

Heck, Felicity Huffman felt remorse and got 14 days in jail for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud....... no one died ....... but involuntary manslaughter should be given a pass because you feel he probably won't drop another kid out a window??? 

 

Maybe that's why the world is a little backwards where everyone gets a participation trophy and no one is held accountable for their actions and everyone is entitled to what they don't earn.

 

I'm clearly not saying this is a capital offense and he should be on death row but maybe a little more than a fine....... the criminal justice system isn't just meant for the person committing the crime it was designed as a deterrant to society to help eliminate other crimes against the people. Maybe 30 days is plenty and may wake other people up to not do this. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starry Eyes

Starry Eyes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

 

 

 

I like how this thread is a nice insight where some forum members fall on criminal justice philosophy.    And where evidently the majority on this board lie! The reasons why opinions differ is because of different opinions on the nature and goals of criminal justice.

 

If you think a major component is for punishing people who've done wrong, you want them in prison.

 

If you think it's more about societal effects and rehabilitation, then you probably don't want him to go through anything more.  (Is it likely he's going to be a repeat offender if he isn't punished and throw other grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely other grandparents will see this and then be relieved that they too can throw their grandkids out windows? no.  Is it likely punishment will really do much of anything on his development as a human in general other than cause suffering and large costs to the state? no).

I suspect you are greatly oversimplifying the spectrum of opinions here by jumping way, way ahead to a directly to a discussion of prison.  Some people here could opine that, based on publicly available information, the GF might well have acted negligently and should face the justice system.  We do not have all the facts, and even if we did, we might favor conviction different charge if we were hypothetically on a jury. Even those who happened to agree on a charge when given all facts, might differ on punishment after hearing mitigating factors.  Some might want well want prison, some might want a suspended sentence, some might be most concerned that he not be allowed to be unsupervised with children.  

 

I also suspect the family would get more sympathy here if they were only grieving, not also suing.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mugtech

mugtech

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, SherriZ366 said:

 

Totally agree -- plenty of other Social Media sites to discuss politics.  This site is to discuss Cruising.  😝

The point was there are two sets of rules, one for the rich and powerful, and another for the garden variety grandfather who is the perp.  The idea he should slide because he has suffered enough is an outrage, not unlike the child who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Two Wheels Only

Two Wheels Only

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, MizDemeanor said:

I think this needs to go away from media, social media, and be resolved outside of the public eye for the childs sake. 

 

Discussing the topic won't hurt the child at all.

Not discussing the topic won't help the child at all.

 

Anyone can avoid the thread by not reading it.

 

 

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cruisercl

Cruisercl

Posted
Posted

It is about personal responsibility, the GF was responsible for the safety of the little girl.

He failed and it is considered a criminal act because she died (horrifically).

 

The money grab law suit by the family totally dishonors her life; why would the family even want any money?

RIP baby girl, you are in safe hands now. Humanity is sorry for your untimely and painful death. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SherriZ366

SherriZ366

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, mugtech said:

The point was there are two sets of rules, one for the rich and powerful, and another for the garden variety grandfather who is the perp.  The idea he should slide because he has suffered enough is an outrage, not unlike the child who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

See your point but please keep Political Figures out of comments.  I have been on so many sites and pages where posters start posting Political opinions on pages that are totally unrelated to the theme of the site -- e.g. cruise sites, Downton Abbey discussions etc.  Many people who post on these sites are looking for an escape from politics and other news.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SherriZ366

SherriZ366

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Cruisercl said:

It is about personal responsibility, the GF was responsible for the safety of the little girl.

He failed and it is considered a criminal act because she died (horrifically).

 

The money grab law suit by the family totally dishonors her life; why would the family even want any money?

RIP baby girl, you are in safe hands now. Humanity is sorry for your untimely and painful death. 

I agree about the money grab dishonoring this poor child's life.  And the lawyer is still pushing the law suit in the media.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
esm54687

esm54687

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RCLcruiser2012 said:

So heaven forbid your father killed your granddaughter by accident you would be ALL for him going to prison?  I don't think so!!! I am sorry I just don't agree and I am ALL for justice but this situation doesn't sit well for me.  

Well, the justice sytem works only if punishment is uniform and that includes family and friends.......  while it would suck and I wouldn't be happy..... I'd visit my father every weekend if it was truly an accident......   why is my father different than the nanny who shook a crying baby a little too hard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
esm54687

esm54687

Posted
Posted
Just now, RCLcruiser2012 said:

I guess we will agree to disagree.  I don't think he did it on purpose but anyone knows you don't shake a baby..........  

and those who know not to shake a baby also know not to lift a baby up 4 feet to an open window and let go..... 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cruisequeen4ever Holiday Sharing Rare

cruisequeen4ever

Posted
Posted

The toddler died, and that’s what the family should be focused on, not suing the cruise line for having a window open on the main pool deck. The same stupid claim could be used about the top deck railings. If they just enclosed the entire ship in a bubble, no one would go overboard. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nwcruiselover

nwcruiselover

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, cruisequeen4ever said:

The toddler died, and that’s what the family should be focused on, not suing the cruise line for having a window open on the main pool deck. The same stupid claim could be used about the top deck railings. If they just enclosed the entire ship in a bubble, no one would go overboard. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. 

I totally agree with you.  I appreciate you mentioning that the window in question was on the main pool deck, not in a children’s play area as the media and the family’s lawyer keep saying.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peachypooh Great Review Rare

Peachypooh

Posted
Posted

This whole thing has so many facets. The fact remains that the grandfather did an irresponsible

thing and a child died as a result. I agree with the poster that said if a crew member lifted

the child up to see out the window there would be no discussion. It's just because it's

the grandfather. It would make me sick to my stomach to try to profit off the death of

my child. That said...grief makes people do and say irrational things and I do believe

they are being influenced by the attorney. I was on a sister ship to this one with a three

year old. NO WAY would I have lifted her up to an open window to look out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...