This is just so sad,,and makes me ask WHY would someone do this?? I don't call it 'playing'??

[fly girl]

Totally agree with you.
And in reference to this thread, what if, instead of a family member, we substitute a nanny or babysitter. Should they be prosecuted? If convicted should they serve time?
Should accountability and consequences vary, depending on who is involved in the (potential) crime?

Very true. If it was a nanny/babysitter my feelings on prosecuting them would've been very strong. The authorities have to look at it from an unbiased view.

I still feel horrible for him, and hope he doesn't see any time. I do think on some level consequences vary on who was involved. The vast majority (let me be clear, not all) of parents/grandparents would give their life for their children/grandchildren. I am sure this grandfather wishes he was the one to fall. But would a nanny or babysitter feel the same? Ehh . . . probably not. I think that does play a factor.

Similar to the mom who held her child up at the Pittsburgh Zoo to see the painted dogs, and he fell in. Was it horrific accident due to poor judgement? Yes. Was it the zoo's fault? No. Did they charge her? Yes. But she didn't receive any legal punishment, they knew what she was enduring was punishment enough.

 

[sam_gordon]

It’s illegal to pass a bus, she should be charged.

I'm assuming the GF did something that was maybe not directly illegal, but negligent. We don't know what the GF did. Going to the extreme (and I'm not saying this is what happened), what if he did "dangle" the child out of the window? Should he be forgiven of that?

 

[cabanafrau]

I hear you BUT all that likely does come in to play. In many court cases whether a person is charged can depend on the victims wishes, the circumstances around what happened, the location of where something happened or the need for precedent or answers. The victim can't speak for herself, so it may be the judge has said ... since those involved have not taken responsibility or possibly because they refused to cooperate ... we need to get the facts on record to move forward no matter the end result. The family is pointing full finger at RCI as if they lifted her up themselves, and wanted the public to know that they had no responsibility in the end result ... that is not true. So yes, maybe if they didn't do all that trying to lay blame on others they would not be here.

Since the family has refused to acknowledge what happened, refused to cooperate, left PR and went straight to the televisions to get America on "their side" ... what does PR do? Take the bullying. Just say "oh well, these things happen." I think if the facts and video show clear negligence then yes they have to move forward with the negligent charge. If Grandpa was driving drunk and she was in car and killed would we say don't charge him because he's Gpa and is in pain? And let the family move forward with suing the grocery store that sold him the beer without any context of responsibility. I get it - it's awful, I hope I am never in a situation where they have found themselves - but sadly accountability comes in to play, especially when there are others with a finger pointed at them.

Just because Grandpa is the one who did it doesn't make it any less chargeable. Not charging him is saying what he did is okay. Given willful action preceded the accident, he has to answer to that. But I do hope the judge can bring a finality to it (who knows Gpa may not have wanted it handled like the family did) and whatever the ruling, not put in him jail. There is no jail any worse than his own mind.

All what likely comes into play? Why should the fact that the parents did a TV interview or are suing RCI have any influence whatsoever on whether or not criminal charges should be brought in this case? Only what the accused did or did not do should be considered in making the decision whether or not to bring charges. It's not justice to charge one person because you disapprove or disagree with the actions of another.

It's also not appropriate for the government to make charging decisions because they feel "bullied", which I'm not suggesting they do. If the government has an issue with the family's refusal to cooperate and if they left the jurisdiction illegally there are legal remedies to address that which definitely don't include arbitrarily filing criminal charges, which I'm not suggesting they did.

I'm not suggesting it's less chargeable because Grandpa was the responsible adult with the care of the child at the time or that there's no harm/no foul because Grandpa is in pain. I'm suggesting that Grandpa had no intent in the world to put the child at risk and it's still unclear whether he did know, should have known, or was capable of knowing he was doing so. The video may shed some light on the situation, however it may not tell the complete story quite the way many are assuming. Physical factors relating to Grandpa may well have played a part in this, factors he may not have been capable of articulating in the aftermath, factors he may easily have been too much in shock to even comprehend at the time.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Yes, I said it was too bad they repeated an old article for a new article. Repeating past articles without fact checking them is poor journalism.

What facts should the reporter have checked? Did Winkleman not actually make the statements he did? Did the parents not appear on "Today", devastated? Did one of the other or both not put the entire blame on the cruise line?

From my several readings (to see if I was missing something) of the article linked in post 956, the only actual news is the first paragraph. The rest of the article is just to refresh people on what happened four months ago.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm not suggesting it's less chargeable because Grandpa was the responsible adult with the care of the child at the time or that there's no harm/no foul because Grandpa is in pain. I'm suggesting that Grandpa had no intent in the world to put the child at risk and it's still unclear whether he did know, should have known, or was capable of knowing he was doing so. The video may shed some light on the situation, however it may not tell the complete story quite the way many are assuming. Physical factors relating to Grandpa may well have played a part in this, factors he may not have been capable of articulating in the aftermath, factors he may easily have been too much in shock to even comprehend at the time.

Isn't the bolded exactly what a court case would determine? I don't think anyone is saying GF had any kind of intent of this accident happening. That doesn't mean he wasn't negligent.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'm assuming the GF did something that was maybe not directly illegal, but negligent.

Thus, the charge of negligent homicide.

 

[DisneyKoyote]

I believe the grandfather should be taken to court- I feel terrible for the family but that is the correct/fair thing to do. Just because no one wants to press charges against him, doesn't mean that it should be swept aside. The court/govt need to speak for the victim if there is no one else to speak for them (in all cases not just this one). Otherwise, serial killers can get away with picking out victims who are family-less and friend-less.
I do think in this case the grandfather should not be punished too heavily tho, he has suffered enough.

 

[bdcp]

The grandfather was negligent. Having been on that ship, the cruiseline is in no way responsible. The only way she could reach where she was was to be put there (on a handrail, not a seat) and I've posted this somewhere before, but it was not in the kids play area. She could not have fallen if he didn't put her there and it's very easy to see when those windows are open and when they are not. They ARE tinted. If nothing else, this charge will hopefully prevent RCI from having to pay out a huge amount of money (settlement). I don't doubt he feels horrible and the guilt is eating away at him, but that doesn't absolve him from responsibility. People are charged with negligent homicide all the time for things they didn't intend to do. Distracted driving, etc. You can't absolve him of responsibility just because you feel sorry for him or think he feels bad about it. Most people with a conscience would feel guilty, but that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Do I think he'll do time? No, but it does set an example and help clear up RCI's reputation which has been damaged by things the family and their lawyer have said.

 

[ronandannette]

I'm assuming the GF did something that was maybe not directly illegal, but negligent. We don't know what the GF did. Going to the extreme (and I'm not saying this is what happened), what if he did "dangle" the child out of the window? Should he be forgiven of that?

Forgiven by the family? I can’t speak to that. Legally excused? No way! Dangling is a willful act and would prove conclusively that he was fully aware the window was open. The defence, to this point, and their criticism of the cruise line is that he didn’t know and it was impossible to tell.

 

[sam_gordon]

I find it interesting that Cruise Critic deleted their thread on this event. It got updated last night/this morning with the charge against the GF, there were a couple other replies, and now "poof".

 

[mousefanmichelle]

This is a sad situation all the way around. The grandfather should be prosecuted just like anyone else who did this. The loss of a life, especially that of a child, is unthinkable. I have said it before, if that had been me, I would have dove after that child leading to my own death because there is no way on earth I could live with myself after that. I never want to be responsible for the death of anyone especially one of my own. This family will never be the same whether gpa is charged/convicted or not. They will never be able to repair their relationship with gpa. Sad, sad, sad.
I feel though that personal responsibility should happen. He did it. Clearly. Whether it was an accident or intentional, he did it. Own it. Don't go blaming the cruise line for something you did and that they had not control over. Its like saying its the cars fault when you back up over your child in the driveway. Nope. You were driving it. It's your responsibilibty to know your surroundings. Not the cars fault.
I just don't understand why people don't own their mistakes and always try to scape goat it :-(

 

[laceltris3]

I don't believe the PR DOJ would make a statement that the grandfather negligently exposed the child to the window if they did not have direct evidence of that, no matter what the family was doing or saying.

Also, there has always been a phantom thread on the NCL board at CC. The threads are being deleted from the RC board.

 

[kirstenb1]

I have no way of proving it obviously, but there seems to be some grace, or discretion that comes into play with these heart wrenching cases. Whoever mentioned the hot car deaths, that is a reasonable comparison. So often, the parents are not prosecuted, or found not guilty. I really think if the family had not gone on the offensive, the authorities might have reacted differently.

 

[Kaleidodad]

What about the lady who passed a stop school bus and hit three kids earlier this year? Should she not be prosecuted either? I doubt she will ever have another peaceful moment in her life.

She was found guilty of three counts of reckless homicide just last week:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...ent-jury-deliberating-fatal-crash/3995912002/
21+ year maximum sentence.

 

[ronandannette]

She was found guilty of three counts of reckless homicide just last week:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...ent-jury-deliberating-fatal-crash/3995912002/
21+ year maximum sentence.

A dreadful loss of life and life-altering for the driver, but alas, it's entirely just for her to bear the consequences of such reckless, if unintentional, negligence.

 

[Searc]

I find it interesting that Cruise Critic deleted their thread on this event. It got updated last night/this morning with the charge against the GF, there were a couple other replies, and now "poof".

That's bizarre.

 

[ronandannette]

That's bizarre.

Cruise Critic isn't much anymore other than cabin recommendations and endless discussions of free drink packages.

 

[mjkacmom]

That's bizarre.

Just deleted from tho RCL board.

 

[bdcp]

Cruise Critic isn't much anymore other than cabin recommendations and endless discussions of free drink packages.

That's because there are too many snowflakes who get too easily offended by someone disagreeing with them. I've been on CC for 14 years and the "offended" have increased dramatically over the years. Some just can't handle facts because their "feelings" get hurt. I think CC is trying to avoid that with this story because the opinions are all over the place, although most agree the grandfather was at fault. Those of us that have been on that ship, know what the reality is with those windows and it's not that RCI is at fault.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's because there are too many snowflakes who get too easily offended by someone disagreeing with them. I've been on CC for 14 years and the "offended" have increased dramatically over the years. Some just can't handle facts because their "feelings" get hurt. I think CC is trying to avoid that with this story because the opinions are all over the place, although most agree the grandfather was at fault. Those of us that have been on that ship, know what the reality is with those windows and it's not that RCI is at fault.

But why would they let the thread continue when the incident happened but delete it now? I think there were maybe 5 replies this morning.