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

[ronandannette]

No doubt I believe there is a coping mechanism in his denial. Facing the truth that you killed your granddaughter would send most people over the edge. I know if it were me, I could not live with myself. I think that is where he comes in with the not knowing the window was open, he was color blind, etc. His brain is trying to cope. I understand that.

However, after the fake tear interview, I think he truly knows the reality. That is why when he made that statement about not having to admit facts it angered me. Maybe it is because he doesn't want to come to reality, idk, but my gut says he said that because of the civil suit. If he had to explain the video tape and all the actions he did, the civil suit would be thrown out.

I still cannot believe the family hasn't watched the tape. I can understand parents not wanting to see the final moments - I cannot fault them for that. They want their memories to remain, not the last horrifying images on a grainy video. But they need a honest, non-biased representative to look at it and tell them that this was grandpa's fault. He was negligent, not Royal Caribbean. The whole story is explained in those tapes. Unless they are seeking a payday, I cannot explain why they have this civil suit still going. And if it is for the money, that is grotesque. I am still heartbroken for them, but your time is better spent keeping Chloe's memory alive in a more positive fashion. Just my personal thoughts.

Yes, just so. And although my love and sympathy goes out to every bereaved parent everywhere, the circumstances here make me hope RCCL throws every possible resource at crushing these people in court.

 

[mjkacmom]

No its not enough. Jail exists for this reason. His own guilt is not enough.

Jails are supposed to rehabilitate, I doubt he will be dropping any more kids off of cruise ships. It can cost up to $60,000 a year to house an inmate.

 

[DLgal]

Jail/prison exists to rehabilitate criminals. Probation was the right course of action in this scenario. He deserved some form of punishment from the law for his criminal negligence, but prison wasn't the answer here.

Prison is not just for rehabilitation. Many people spend a lifetime there and die there. There are life sentences for a reason. It's a punishment. In this case, I absolutely feel he should have done some jail time because if he can't seem to admit fault and liability here, he is a continued danger to himself and others. But this is how our justice system fails. How can you admit guilt while not "admitting to facts." Makes no sense.

 

[sam_gordon]

Prison is not just for rehabilitation. Many people spend a lifetime there and die there. There are life sentences for a reason. It's a punishment. In this case, I absolutely feel he should have done some jail time because if he can't seem to admit fault and liability here, he is a continued danger to himself and others. But this is how our justice system fails. How can you admit guilt while not "admitting to facts." Makes no sense.

I disagree with the bolded. First, I think he's not admitting fault simply because of the civil case, NOT because he honestly thinks he did nothing wrong. Second, I think he would be EXTRAORDINALY safe going forward in the same situation. Therefore he's not a continued danger to himself or others. I don't think jail time does any good.

 

[mjkacmom]

I disagree with the bolded. First, I think he's not admitting fault simply because of the civil case, NOT because he honestly thinks he did nothing wrong. Second, I think he would be EXTRAORDINALY safe going forward in the same situation. Therefore he's not a continued danger to himself or others. I don't think jail time does any good.

And Mets face it, the state he made was written by his lawyers, at this point the family is just a pawn for attorneys.

 

[sam_gordon]

And Mets face it, the state he made was written by his lawyers, at this point the family is just a pawn for attorneys.

I'm sure. That's why I'm surprised it included "I'm relieved I don't have to admit facts." I would hope RCI gets a chance to ask him why that relieves him so much.

Let's also remember (I think this is right), he agreed to the plea deal. That deal would (should?) have had what the punishment would be if he pled guilty. I don't think the courts can change the terms of the deal after it's accepted (unless the defendant violates the term).

 

[DLgal]

I disagree with the bolded. First, I think he's not admitting fault simply because of the civil case, NOT because he honestly thinks he did nothing wrong. Second, I think he would be EXTRAORDINALY safe going forward in the same situation. Therefore he's not a continued danger to himself or others. I don't think jail time does any good.

I know this is all just clever court speak type stuff. I am just taking what was said literally, and in that way, he has NOT admitted that he was at fault. Therefore, if he doesn't think he did anything wrong, what is it stop him from being similarly negligent going forward?

Again, I understand why this language was used, but to a layperson who doesn't know the nuances of legalese and the various ways in which deals get struck in court, it looks bad. "I plead guilty, except I won't admit that this was my fault, so I can continue to hold the cruise line liable in civil court." Doesn't strike me as admitting fault at all, and who is to say he won't use a similar argument in the future to hold someone else accountable for something he may do?

 

[sam_gordon]

I know this is all just clever court speak type stuff. I am just taking what was said literally, and in that way, he has NOT admitted that he was at fault. Therefore, if he doesn't think he did anything wrong, what is it stop him from being similarly negligent going forward?

Again, I understand why this language was used, but to a layperson who doesn't know the nuances of legalese and the various ways in which deals get struck in court, it looks bad. "I plead guilty, except I won't admit that this was my fault, so I can continue to hold the cruise line liable in civil court." Doesn't strike me as admitting fault at all, and who is to say he won't use a similar argument in the future to hold someone else accountable for something he may do?

eh, it's done all the time (plead guilty without "admitting" fault). At least I've heard it on the news plenty of time. Alford Plea? Is that right?

 

[DLgal]

eh, it's done all the time (plead guilty without "admitting" fault). At least I've heard it on the news plenty of time. Alford Plea? Is that right?

I know that. I get it, but my PERSONAL judgment is that this is a slimy way to get out of a horrible thing that you did.

 

[sam_gordon]

I know that. I get it, but my PERSONAL judgment is that this is a slimy way to get out of a horrible thing that you did.

I agree 1000%!

 

[starry_solo]

I'm sure. That's why I'm surprised it included "I'm relieved I don't have to admit facts." I would hope RCI gets a chance to ask him why that relieves him so much.

Let's also remember (I think this is right), he agreed to the plea deal. That deal would (should?) have had what the punishment would be if he pled guilty. I don't think the courts can change the terms of the deal after it's accepted (unless the defendant violates the term).

Actually no, thats not how a plea deal works. The DA can recommend a sentence following a plea deal and agree not to ask for anything more. The judge has the ultimate decision as to whether they will sentence the guilty person to what the DA recommends or the max that the law allows.

 

[sam_gordon]

Actually no, thats not how a plea deal works. The DA can recommend a sentence following a plea deal and agree not to ask for anything more. The judge has the ultimate decision as to whether they will sentence the guilty person to what the DA recommends or the max that the law allows.

Thanks. How unusual would it be for the judge to increase the punishment? And, if the judge DOES increase the punishment, can the defendant rescind their guilty plea?

 

[Donald13]

Jails are supposed to rehabilitate, I doubt he will be dropping any more kids off of cruise ships. It can cost up to $60,000 a year to house an inmate.

He still committed a horrible crime. To say he will pay over the rest of his like is a joke.

 

[nkereina]

Prison is not just for rehabilitation. Many people spend a lifetime there and die there. There are life sentences for a reason. It's a punishment. In this case, I absolutely feel he should have done some jail time because if he can't seem to admit fault and liability here, he is a continued danger to himself and others. But this is how our justice system fails. How can you admit guilt while not "admitting to facts." Makes no sense.

You're right that it's also for punishment, but there are many forms of punishment a judge can order. Prison is a punishment that's ordered with the intent to rehabilitate a person who commits, has committed, and/or has a propensity to criminal acts that endangers society. This is also part of the reason why marijuana is being decriminalized - we're clogging up the system and tax payer dollars with nonviolent offenders that don't necessarily need rehabilitation to re-enter society (but I totally digress, sorry for the tangent). In the case of life sentences, its determined these people cannot be rehabilitated because of the criminal and egregious crimes they have committed, and cannot re-enter society because of that. The grandfather has no prior record (to my knowledge), and while what he did is totally reckless and negligent, I think is reasonable for a judge to conclude it will be an isolated incident in this man's life, all things considered. So that's why I just don't see how prison would have done any good in this case.

 

[nkereina]

He still committed a horrible crime. To say he will pay over the rest of his like is a joke.

He was charged with negligent homicide, which is the death of another through negligence or without malice. While the whole thing is absolutely horrible, you have to consider it through the eyes of the law. Negligent homicide is not on par with murder, so probation was appropriate. The court of public opinion is an entirely different scenario.

 

[tzolkin]

...I think he's not admitting fault simply because of the civil case, NOT because he honestly thinks he did nothing wrong.

I actually think this is worse. It would be bad enough if he was really just that delusional that he believed he did nothing wrong. But to know exactly what he did and then purposely not admit to it so his family can get a huge payout in a lawsuit based on his lies makes him even more despicable in my view.

 

[Deb]

Jail/prison exists to rehabilitate criminals. Probation was the right course of action in this scenario. He deserved some form of punishment from the law for his criminal negligence, but prison wasn't the answer here.

Is probation really a punishment? He has to check in with his probation officer, big deal.

 

[fly girl]

Is probation really a punishment? He has to check in with his probation officer, big deal.

I don't think this man is heartless, he loved her. He just made a horrific and tragic mistake. Was it stupid, of course! Was it intentional, no. I think he is living his punishment everyday knowing his granddaughter is dead because of his actions. I don't believe there is a punishment worse than that. YMMV

 

[sam_gordon]

I actually think this is worse. It would be bad enough if he was really just that delusional that he believed he did nothing wrong. But to know exactly what he did and then purposely not admit to it so his family can get a huge payout in a lawsuit based on his lies makes him even more despicable in my view.

Don't disagree with you. I honestly think part of the plea bargain (in order to just get probation) should have been him admitting he held her out of the window.

 

[ENJDisneyFan]

Don't disagree with you. I honestly think part of the plea bargain (in order to just get probation) should have been him admitting he held her out of the window.

I agree with you . And it also should have included them dropping the civil suit.