Remember tragic accident with toddler? New revelations...

[GettotheSun]

I've watched the video, and thankfully it stops before what happens.   It's so sad.  Everything about this is so sad. 

[lovemycruisetoo]

Looks to me on the video that he looks out through the ‘open’ window then picks up the child, lifts her up over the rail and then puts her out the window.  So please explain to me again how he said he didn’t know the window was open?  Maybe if he didn’t outright lie on national TV about knowing the window was open, most people would have compassion but he DID and that’s unforgivable and he deserves what he gets IMO  

[podgeandrodge]

5 hours ago, fshagan said:

 

The state has a legal system to, in part, punish wrong-doers in order to preserve the public order.  

 

He was criminally negligent; here in California he might be charged with involuntary manslaughter (his recklessness caused a death, even though he wasn't intending to kill).  If we let him off, we must forgive every drunk driver who killed someone. Their recklessness in drinking too much caused them to kill someone, even though they had no intention of doing so.  Same exact legal theory. Same exact situation. A careless act without bad intent still kills.

 

I can't imagine being so careless and so reckless to directly endanger your grandchild. We've known about gravity ever since Newton got bonked on the head with an apple.

 

I don't accept the analogy of the drunk driver.  As someone else put it elsewhere, a drunk driving accident is no innocent mistake, it happens when a driver makes a deliberate choice to get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, knowing full well that others will be exposed to danger. 

Might be the same legal theory, but do not agree with you that it is the same exact situation.

[rhblake]

If a parent is careless and leaves a child in a hot car and the child dies that parent will normally be convicted and serve time in jail. I think that it is only equitable that the grandfather should serve jail time for his careless actions.

[mjkacmom]

27 minutes ago, rhblake said:

If a parent is careless and leaves a child in a hot car and the child dies that parent will normally be convicted and serve time in jail. I think that it is only equitable that the grandfather should serve jail time for his careless actions.

Actually most are not charged in those situations (and those tragedies are not due to carelessness but a specific set of events which causes the brain to fail).

[rhblake]

5 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Actually most are not charged in those situations (and those tragedies are not due to carelessness but a specific set of events which causes the brain to fail).

I do not know where you live but here in the USA 9 times out of 10 they serve jail time, especially in Florida.

[Newleno]

5 minutes ago, rhblake said:

I do not know where you live but here in the USA 9 times out of 10 they serve jail time, especially in Florida.

At least 2 issues at play here, 1 - the negligence of the grandfather, 2 -  not being forthright about what actually occurred.  Negligence = conviction, not being forthright =  conviction + jail time.  As  stated before multiple reports claim a plea deal with no jail time was refused.  Throw the book at this guy.

[mjkacmom]

30 minutes ago, rhblake said:

I do not know where you live but here in the USA 9 times out of 10 they serve jail time, especially in Florida.

I live in the US 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/indepth/2019/8/3/20755921/is-leaving-a-child-to-die-in-a-hot-car-a-memory-lapse-or-a-crime

[tonit964]

35 minutes ago, Newleno said:

At least 2 issues at play here, 1 - the negligence of the grandfather, 2 -  not being forthright about what actually occurred.  Negligence = conviction, not being forthright =  conviction + jail time.  As  stated before multiple reports claim a plea deal with no jail time was refused.  Throw the book at this guy.

Exactly.

The fact that he changed his story and lied about what happened, probably by the insistence of the parents and/or attorney, THAT is what would get him jail time. It's one thing to do something stupid with tragic consequences, it's another thing to lie about it and blame someone innocent. As I said before, they are all disgusting.

[mjkacmom]

1 minute ago, tonit964 said:

Exactly.

The fact that he changed his story and lied about what happened, probably by the insistence of the parents and/or attorney, THAT is what would get him jail time. It's one thing to do something stupid with tragic consequences, it's another thing to lie about it and blame someone innocent. As I said before, they are all disgusting.

I don’t think he lied, I think he believed everything he said. I think he was told what happened.

[Newleno]

5 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

I don’t think he lied, I think he believed everything he said. I think he was told what happened.

I understand what you are saying, he may have wanted desperately to believe the window story because of this unfathomable tragedy  that occurred, but what about now?  After all the evidence that is out there, you got to take the plea and drop the lawsuit, pronto!

Edited January 20, 2020 by Newleno

[tonit964]

2 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

I don’t think he lied, I think he believed everything he said. I think he was told what happened.

He lied. He first told police that he held her out of the open window and she fell. He then changed his story and insisted he didn't think the window was open, he thought there was glass there.

You might want to watch the interviews with him and the video of him hanging out the window and picking up the child and hanging her out of the window. It doesn't show her falling. You'll have a better understanding.

[mjkacmom]

1 minute ago, Newleno said:

I understand what you are saying, he may have wanted desperately to believe the window story because of this unfathomable tragedy  that occurred, but what about now?  After all the evidence that is out there, you got to take the plea and drop the lawsuit, pronto!

That’s one of the reasons why I think his mind is shot, I too think it’s crazy not to take the plea. One if the reasons why they might not be dropping the lawsuit is to prevent being sued by RCL. There is much better chance of that happening if it’s dropped vs. losing.

[sanger727]

9 hours ago, podgeandrodge said:

I don't accept the analogy of the drunk driver.  As someone else put it elsewhere, a drunk driving accident is no innocent mistake, it happens when a driver makes a deliberate choice to get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, knowing full well that others will be exposed to danger. 

Might be the same legal theory, but do not agree with you that it is the same exact situation.

 

Why? Someone who decides to drink in excess and then drive home breaks the law and put themselves and others in danger. Someone who decides to hold a small child out an open window 150 ft above the ground is breaking the law and putting the child in danger. 

 

I don't know the laws in Puerto Rico or how the justice system works there. Where I live (in Ohio), we have a criminal charge of child endangering. Basically says to take action or by neglect that puts a child as substantial risk of physical harm. The child is the victim. The state file charges and prosecutes. Most often the parents are the ones charged. The fact that their are family and it's their child doesn't give them the right to injury maliciously or by neglect the child. What if the parent shook their baby until the child had brain damage. Suddenly they shouldn't be held responsible for that because it's their child?

 

This case is not dissimilar. An adult who can reasonably foresee possible consequences of his actions, held a child out and open window 150 ft above the ground, she fell and died. The child is the victim. The state is prosecuting. Most likely with zero input form the parents on what they want to see happen. Why would that matter? The child is the victim, not the parents. She is dead and can't speak for her self. So the state is holding him responsible and attempting to extract some justice for her. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Newleno]

5 minutes ago, sanger727 said:

 

Why? Someone who decides to drink in excess and then drive home breaks the law and put themselves and others in danger. Someone who decides to hold a small child out an open window 150 ft above the ground is breaking the law and putting the child in danger. 

 

I don't know the laws in Puerto Rico or how the justice system works there. Where I live (in Ohio), we have a criminal charge of child endangering. Basically says to take action or by neglect that puts a child as substantial risk of physical harm. The child is the victim. The state file charges and prosecutes. Most often the parents are the ones charged. The fact that their are family and it's their child doesn't give them the right to injury maliciously or by neglect the child. What if the parent shook their baby until the child had brain damage. Suddenly they shouldn't be held responsible for that because it's their child?

 

This case is not dissimilar. An adult who can reasonably foresee possible consequences of his actions, held a child out and open window 150 ft above the ground, she fell and died. The child is the victim. The state is prosecuting. Most likely with zero input form the parents on what they want to see happen. Why would that matter? The child is the victim, not the parents. She is dead and can't speak for her self. So the state is holding him responsible and attempting to extract some justice for her. I don't think that's unreasonable.

WORD! we have an educated logical person in da house!

[graphicguy]

Mentioned in the other threads, I believe it was pretty clear from the get go that the Grandfather was sadly the negligent one here.  It's tragic, no doubt.  Heart wrenching for the family and the now departed little girl.

 

But, the Grandfather is culpable.....so is the family.  Instead of moving on from this, and trying to heal family wounds, the family decided they wanted monetary compensation from the cruise line.  The buck stops with the family, not the lawyer.  The family decided to sue...not the lawyer.  The lawyer is just a vessel who navigates the legal process.

 

I had read that the courts would recommend no jail time from the Grandfather, because they believed it was an accident.  While, I had originally thought that anyone who would dangle a child out of an open window high up from the deck below (which the video clearly shows, had to be either drunk, high, or mentally challenged, ended up none of that was true.  He just really showed extremely poor judgement.

 

Instead of taking the "no jail time" route, the Grandfather changed his story, and the family decided to sue for monetary compensation (which is a tragedy, too).  They couldn't just heal, and let the Grandfather live the rest of his life knowing what happened was his fault.

 

There's nothing with this family that will be able to replace their (grand) daughter.  Looks like forgiveness and understanding has been thrown out the window, too.

 

My guess, the Grandfather will end up serving some time, and the family will look to burden the courts with a frivolous lawsuit.  RCCL has way too much evidence on their side for this to even be heard in a civil court.

[NLH Arizona]

1 hour ago, mjkacmom said:

I don’t think he lied, I think he believed everything he said. I think he was told what happened.

Then why did he apparently, at his first interview with the police, say he held her out a window and dropped her and then it changed to he didn't know the window was open?

[mjkacmom]

1 hour ago, sanger727 said:

 

Why? Someone who decides to drink in excess and then drive home breaks the law and put themselves and others in danger. Someone who decides to hold a small child out an open window 150 ft above the ground is breaking the law and putting the child in danger. 

 

I don't know the laws in Puerto Rico or how the justice system works there. Where I live (in Ohio), we have a criminal charge of child endangering. Basically says to take action or by neglect that puts a child as substantial risk of physical harm. The child is the victim. The state file charges and prosecutes. Most often the parents are the ones charged. The fact that their are family and it's their child doesn't give them the right to injury maliciously or by neglect the child. What if the parent shook their baby until the child had brain damage. Suddenly they shouldn't be held responsible for that because it's their child?

 

This case is not dissimilar. An adult who can reasonably foresee possible consequences of his actions, held a child out and open window 150 ft above the ground, she fell and died. The child is the victim. The state is prosecuting. Most likely with zero input form the parents on what they want to see happen. Why would that matter? The child is the victim, not the parents. She is dead and can't speak for her self. So the state is holding him responsible and attempting to extract some justice for her. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I see a difference between a momentary lack of good judgement and a deliberate and intentional breaking of the law. 

[mjkacmom]

30 minutes ago, NLH Arizona said:

Then why did he apparently, at his first interview with the police, say he held her out a window and dropped her and then it changed to he didn't know the window was open?

Maybe someone told him that. 

[pcakes122]

7 minutes ago, mjkacmom said:

Maybe someone told him that. 

And maybe the person that told him that said it because they actually SAW what happened.  I get that you are trying to argue for compassion for the grandfather and I actually agree with you there - however, continuing to blindly argue on his behalf when it is clear that he DID lie and he WAS negligent doesn't help your case.   It was an accident I am certain. He did not mean to kill the little girl.  However he needs to accept accountability that he made a mistake and just let this family move on and stop the lawsuits and circus around this.  I firmly believe if he did this then nobody would be bashing him right now.

[DinaS]

On 1/18/2020 at 12:05 PM, Petoonya said:

Not just a tragedy for the parents but the grandpa too. It was negligent but he had no intention of dropping the little one. I can't imagine the horror of watching the little girl slip out of his fingers. And the nightmare of guilt he must feel now. He was untruthful but in the horror of the aftermath, while it's inexcusable, can understand why he lied.

It's all just terribly sad.

 

While I am certainly hoping he had no intention of dropping the child, unless you are him - you cannot say with any degree of certainty that "he had no intention of dropping the little one".

 

Mental health issues aren't always obvious, and they aren't always diagnosed in time or at all.

[Petoonya]

49 minutes ago, DinaS said:

 

While I am certainly hoping he had no intention of dropping the child, unless you are him - you cannot say with any degree of certainty that "he had no intention of dropping the little one".

 

Mental health issues aren't always obvious, and they aren't always diagnosed in time or at all.

You're quite right. But I'm the eternal optimist and hope for the positive. Putting a child on the sill of a window might qualify as mental illness I realize. Hope that it's not so.

[Mike_DeA]

1 hour ago, mjkacmom said:

I see a difference between a momentary lack of good judgement and a deliberate and intentional breaking of the law. 

 

Did he accidentally put the child out of the window and hold her there?  I believe there are law against putting a child in danger, whether or not something bad ultimately happens. 

 

So he intentionally broke child endangerment laws, correct?

[April42749]

I found a better version of the video...although not close enough  to see that he looks tired from following a toddler all day or that he's moving her from arm to arm.

The child walks over to the window and he follows.

Hypothetically...she indicates she wants to look out.

He sticks his head out for 10 seconds.

Hypothetically....he asks her if she wants to look out.

He decides it's ok for her to look out.

He picks her way up...and then lowers her....and continues to stand there holding her for about 30 seconds. 

After that 30 seconds he falls to the floor.

 

Summary...I don't see a crime or mental illness.  I don't see a frail or drunk or tired elderly man.  The only thing I see is someone who lacks common sense.  If I were standing next to him I would have told myself that guy's an idiot.  If I told him that, he would have told me to mind my own business.

 

 

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, mjkacmom said:

I see a difference between a momentary lack of good judgement and a deliberate and intentional breaking of the law. 

I guess you have never sat in court when DUIs appear. They all claim it was a momentary lapse in judgement. And in many cases it’s true. I know at least 1-2 people (I’m sure you do too, whether or not you know it) who are fundamentally good people who make good decisions that made a really bad decision (heavily influenced by alcohol). None of them walked into a bar thinking ‘I’m gonna get hammered and kill someone driving home’. They walked into a bar to have a good time. After too many drinks they mistakenly thought that they were still ok to drive. Is it really that different from a grandfather sticking his head out the window and thinking, man, it would be great if my grand daughter could see this view. Both are momentary lapses in judgement, possibly influenced by over indulging in alcohol, that lead to a crime being committed. Even if the grand daughter hadn’t fallen and been hurt, a crime was commiitted simply by him lifting her out a window and causing a substainial risk of physical harm