Exaggerated or Not?

[Cruiser_1977]

@DarrenM You say in post #178 "The only criminal is the attacker". This thread started because there is pending litigation against the cruise line. The litigation has been brought by the victim/her family. Do you believe based on the highlighted assertion, that Royal Caribbean then bears no responsibility?

[Aquahound]

2 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

@DarrenM You say in post #178 "The only criminal is the attacker". This thread started because there is pending litigation against the cruise line. The litigation has been brought by the victim/her family. Do you believe based on the highlighted assertion, that Royal Caribbean then bears no responsibility?

 

I agree with DarrenM that the only criminal is the attacker.  Do I feel the cruise line has some culpability?  Maybe, if the story is to be believed as told.  But regardless, the cruise line's act is not criminal. 

[DarrenM]

Personally I dont believe the cruise line did anything wrong. Except not throwing the attacker overboard weighed down with concrete.

 

Unless the attacker was a crew member?

 

But we live in a world now of litigation, and someone seems to get blamed for everything.

 

I hate this litigation mentality.

[DarrenM]

But I can understand the victims familys anger. Its just not aimed in the right direction.

[Cruiser_1977]

@Aquahound I didn't mean to imply that the cruise line is being, or should be, held criminally responsible. I realize my wording was not the most accurate.

Edited September 10, 2019 by JennyB1977

[DarrenM]

And despite my fabulous attempt to explain this, I am not Petrocelli.

[navybankerteacher]

56 minutes ago, DarrenM said:

or it could be that we all know there are dodgepots out there, and people shouldnt put themselves at risk, but so what?

 

This girl got drunk, on a cruise ship.

 

The only criminal is the attacker, And death is too good for him.

 

She made a huge mistake getting drunk. Still doesnt mean she was in any way responsible for the attack. Not one bit.

 

I didnt go to University. I just know right from wrong.

 Yes, the only criminal is the arracker (I do not think anyone has claimed that the girl committed a crime by drinking).

 

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?: “ By saying that “She made a huge mistake getting drunk” you are clearly acknowledging that she “ made a huge mistake” —- which undeniably contributed to the situation where she was attacked.  If she had not sat down with them, if she had not gotten drunk, if she had not gone with them to whatever place the attack took place - the outcome would surely have been different. 

 

It it is undeniable that her irresponsible behavior set the stage.

 

Don’t get me wrong: as a father of two daughters and a grandfather of seven girls, I would argue that castration should be a minimal part of the penalty applied for rape.

 

But refusing to acknowledge that irresponsible behavior on the part of a victim can actually contribute to future comparable situations:  if it is acknowledged that young girls have no obligation to behave responsibly, you are excusing, in advance, the sort of stupid behavior that can contribute to situations such as this.

 

I am not excusing the attackers in any way - but trying to claim that the conduct of the victim should not be considered is simply not acceptable.

 

Perhaps if you had received more education you might be better able to consider cause and effect.

[DarrenM]

Ah, you cant resist a little personal attack can you?

 

My education level allows me to know that matter how much the girls behaviour was questionable, there is no excuse for what then happened.

 

And that is the point you seem to be ignoring.

 

I dont have any daughters or grand daughters, yet I seem to have more empathy with the victim than you do.

 

And I know you are not excusing the attacker, but you are giving them an excuse.

 

"I am not excusing the attacker, but......................."

[DarrenM]

And that closes the case for the prosecution..............or am I the defence?

[frantic36]

47 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Yes, the only criminal is the arracker (I do not think anyone has claimed that the girl committed a crime by drinking).

 

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?: “ By saying that “She made a huge mistake getting drunk” you are clearly acknowledging that she “ made a huge mistake” —- which undeniably contributed to the situation where she was attacked.  If she had not sat down with them, if she had not gotten drunk, if she had not gone with them to whatever place the attack took place - the outcome would surely have been different. 

 

It it is undeniable that her irresponsible behavior set the stage.

 

Don’t get me wrong: as a father of two daughters and a grandfather of seven girls, I would argue that castration should be a minimal part of the penalty applied for rape.

 

But refusing to acknowledge that irresponsible behavior on the part of a victim can actually contribute to future comparable situations:  if it is acknowledged that young girls have no obligation to behave responsibly, you are excusing, in advance, the sort of stupid behavior that can contribute to situations such as this.

 

I am not excusing the attackers in any way - but trying to claim that the conduct of the victim should not be considered is simply not acceptable.

 

Perhaps if you had received more education you might be better able to consider cause and effect.

 

 

One thing that will get my blood boiling is victim blaming and navy you are doing a great job of doing it. 

 

Did the young girl do something silly even stupid, yes she did, but I remember making stupid mistakes when I was younger. Due to having good friends around me nothing bad happened. This young girl did NOTHING to deserve what happened. Maybe you were perfect navy and never did anything wrong. 

 

The attitude of some comments here are why rape is under reported. Because somehow the victim is to blame as well. "Her dress was too short", "She was drunk and vulnerable", "She was a known prostitute" etc, etc...

 

None of this warrants sexual assault. 

 

Should the cruise line be blamed, I don't know the full story so I won't comment. But the young girl should not be condemned and vilified.

 

Julie

[calliopecruiser]

5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

my contention that if he had not been drunk but had  taken a taxi back to his shop he might not have lost his money?

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

[sft429]

4 minutes ago, frantic36 said:

 

Should the cruise line be blamed, I don't know the full story so I won't comment. But the young girl should not be condemned and vilified.

 

Julie

 

Condemned and vilified?  Dramatize much?  

[frantic36]

I call it as I see it. You can disagree if you wish.

Edited September 10, 2019 by frantic36

[navybankerteacher]

11 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

There is never any such thing as sure thing, but someone who puts himself in harm’s way is far more likely to be harmed than someone who does not.

 

There sure as hell is a link (causal or not is immaterial)  - a girl who gets drunk and wanders off with some guys is far more likely to have interaction with those guys than a girl who does not get drunk and wander off with them.

 

Of course there is one of your “many possibilities” which might have changed things  — a tsunami might have made everyone seasick enough to go back to their cabins to sleep it off —— but let’s try not to be stupid. 

[calliopecruiser]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

[calliopecruiser]

4 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

causal or not is immaterial

Oh my God.

Seriously?

 

Sure, fine, whatever.......

[Cruzaholic41]

33 minutes ago, frantic36 said:

One thing that will get my blood boiling is victim blaming and navy you are doing a great job of doing it. 

 

 I totally agree. A 15 year old girl has had her life changed in a horrible way and all some can do is point out her wrong doing. I wish I could say I was surprised but it’s par for the course with him. Some people just don’t know when opinions are better left unsaid. 

[navybankerteacher]

12 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

If you really believe that the girl did not do something she should not have done, there is no point in further discussion.  No one has suggested that she was to blame - or that the creeps were less guilty because of her undeniably stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior.

 

Trying to ignore her stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior as an expression of your disgust at the actions of the creeps does not accomplish anything other than failing to warn others of the perils of stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior.

 

Equating the risk factors assumed by a 15 year old getting drunk with strangers  and wandering off with them with the day-to-day risks of eating breakfast or slipping in a bathtub represents a mind-set incapable of rational discussion. 

 

Have a a nice day.

[ilikeanswers]

36 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

 

Exactly, getting drunk doesn't equal getting raped. Lots of people get drunk and don't get raped. The only variable is a person making a conscious decision to commit a crime. 

 

There is an insane assumption that if we all behaved "appropriately" crime would just disappear. As if criminals wouldn't find another way to commit a crime. This is why the focus on the victim's behaviour is so inappropriate as it takes away the responsibility for the crime from the criminal onto the victim and that results in lenient sentencing. Any time you give a criminal a "but the victim..." you lessen the severity of the crime and send the message that the victim's behaviour outweighs in importance to the perpetrators. And after four pages of arguing over the victims behaviour that message has well and truly set in. 

 

If you want to send the message crime is inexcusable how about using some of the biting social commentary on the perpetrators instead of the victim for a change? Because rape is still widely considered not to be a serious crime and the constant victim blaming by the media and the public only solidifies that assumption. It does not make society a safer place if anything it emboldens people to commit crimes. 

[clo]

I want to totally back off wanting this thread to be locked.  It has NOTHING to do with cruising but if even one person "gets it" it will be worth it.  There are some very cogent replies here and I especially like @ilikeanswers

[Toofarfromthesea]

18 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

 

And there are ways to minimize risk and ways to maximize risk.  Which would you say happened in this case?

And, frankly, I put most of the blame for the risk being maximized on the 'responsible' adults who allowed her to roam free.

[Toofarfromthesea]

18 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

 I totally agree. A 15 year old girl has had her life changed in a horrible way and all some can do is point out her wrong doing. I wish I could say I was surprised but it’s par for the course with him. Some people just don’t know when opinions are better left unsaid. 

 

Because heaven forbid some other 15 year old girl reads about it and figures out that she DOESN'T want her life to be changed in a horrible way and adjusts her behavior accordingly.

[DarrenM]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

And there are ways to minimize risk and ways to maximize risk.  Which would you say happened in this case?

And, frankly, I put most of the blame for the risk being maximized on the 'responsible' adults who allowed her to roam free.

Aye, magic. And what of those parents who did everything they could, but find their daughter got raped anyway?

 

Maybe they should have got her not to wear a skirt, maybe they should have their daughter change sex at birth, you know, just to mitigate any risk.

 

But then, boys have been abused too.

 

I wonder what you will blame THEIR parents for?

 

 

[gammite]

i find it ridiculous that sides have to be taken at all in this situation.

 

imo, all parties bear responsibility including RCI, the criminals, the parents and the girl.  there is no way in heck a RCI staff member didn't see this girl getting plastered.

 

i don't understand the girl even being in a position to get wasted.  and i also don't understand how the assailants were able to get this girl alone.  why was a 15 year old allowed to roam the ship by herself?  as some other people have mentioned i am sure that no one would allow their 15 year old daughter to roam a major city by herself.  kids around here are not even allowed to walk to school or the bus stop or home from school by themselves.  

 

even when i was in high school or younger and we had pool activities we had a buddy system.  you were to keep tabs on your buddy at all times and every 15 minutes we had a "buddy check."

 

keeping it real where the heck were the parents?  where were her friends or siblings?

 

this entire situation reeks of irresponsibility and predators taking advantage of said irresponsibility. 

 

some people scoffed at a woman that said that they had a 9pm curfew at 15.   i am a dude and i had to be in my room at 9pm until i was a high school sophomore.  up until the 8th grade it was 8pm.  once i became a junior i had no curfew but my parents whom, raised me responsibly, knew that i could handle myself at that point. 

 

too many parents get on "vacation" and think that their responsibility as parents are "on vacation" too.  they allow their kids to run wild and free and mess up everyone else's vacation.  i have seen it too many times and that is one of the abundance of reasons i choose to cruise while school is in session.

 

that girl should never have been alone.  the assailants need to be dealt with as harshly as the law allows.  but let's not pretend there were not other issues here as well.

 

i hope that RCI learns from this unfortunate incident and makes some policy changes.

Edited September 11, 2019 by gammite

[DarrenM]

But the point most of us are making is that no matter how silly, risky, or whatever, the girls behaviour was, it should not have resulted in a sexual assault. There is no excuse no matter how much some try to make one.