assualt on Vision

[nelblu]

Ps. Rcl should have the attacker walk the plank into shark infested waters.

[Raptor2010]

....probably a "Cat" person.........................:cool:

 

You probably meant that as a joke but given the seriousness of the situation, not very funny :( Also, as an animal rescuer and "cat person", again, not very funny :(

[Dave85]

(just playing the devil's advocate here, not condoning whatever the person in question may have done...) So if YOU tried to book a cruise on, say, Carnival, and were told "Royal Caribbean told us you were involved in an altercation on one of their ships so we are not letting you board any of our ships" you would be ok with that? Keep in mind that Carnival would likely have no idea whether or not you were ever tried, let alone convicted of anything. They would simply be taking Royal's word that something happened. Suppose you were innocent, or charges were dropped, or it was a case of mistaken identity... you would just walk away saying "oh well, they have the right to bar me and don't need a reason." Or would you pursue it, possibly through legal channels? I'm guessing the latter.

 

My personal response would be who cares? I'm a lawyer Meg, and I'm just giving you my opinion based on the hypothetical circumstances posed. I say "who cares" because I never intend to commit (what would be in the U.S.) unprovoked felony assault on another passenger on a cruise ship -- or off a cruise ship, for that matter.

 

If we had "a case of mistaken identify" or a gross misunderstanding of the circumstances as you posit, I would convey that to Carnival and ask them what information I can provide them to clarify that it is indeed a case of mistaken identity or a gross misunderstanding and then provide it. I'm highly confident that would lead to a successful resolution without engaging in expensive expensive legal process... cruise companies are in business to make money, not turn away business.

 

This is all hypothetical of course and I realize you're just playing devil's advocate... but reality is reality.

[grand isle joe]

You probably meant that as a joke but given the seriousness of the situation, not very funny :( Also, as an animal rescuer and "cat person", again, not very funny :(

 

 

 

......you have no idea how serious the situation is at all....everything posted is hear say......:rolleyes:......But "cat people" have special instincts that can come to a conclusion from all the sketchy outlandish posts I guess. Hmmmm maybe I should have used hampster people but that would not work as well.....

 

 

Note to self..."No humorless people invited to New Year's party"......:cool:

[catty]

The attacker was probably drunk! I wish I could have been there, tired of these crazy people picking on the helpless.:mad:

[booze brothers]

......you have no idea how serious the situation is at all....everything posted is hear say......:rolleyes:......But "cat people" have special instincts that can come to a conclusion from all the sketchy outlandish posts I guess. Hmmmm maybe I should have used hampster people but that would not work as well.....

 

 

Note to self..."No humorless people invited to New Year's party"......:cool:

 

I usually respect your posts Joe, but not this time. There was no humor in this situation.

[Arizona Cruz Chic]

I don't think the OP was clear, put off the ship doesn't mean he walked off and flew home, he may have been turned over to local authorities.

 

 

I hope that is the case!!

 

***

[Trekker954]

I hear this information today from someone at the port. The victim was given an event number, but legally nothing will happen. The perpetrator won’t be arrested here in the U.S. because the local authorities can’t do an arrest warrant outside of their jurisdiction and the FBI will not do anything in this case. The victim was told this. The incident sounds like it happened at sea that is why Dominca wouldn't have jurisdiction either. This is why many numerous assaults including sexual assault against passengers as well as crew go unsolved.

[RCLcruiser2012]

This story brought tears to my eyes! How could anyone do this to another human and their service dog (?) Terrible. Was this idiot drunk? That is the only thing I could think of which of course does NOT justify his actions. Horrible. Just horrible.

[Ocean Boy]

I hear this information today from someone at the port. The victim was given an event number, but legally nothing will happen. The perpetrator won’t be arrested here in the U.S. because the local authorities can’t do an arrest warrant outside of their jurisdiction and the FBI will not do anything in this case. The victim was told this. The incident sounds like it happened at sea that is why Dominca wouldn't have jurisdiction either. This is why many numerous assaults including sexual assault against passengers as well as crew go unsolved.

 

So if one commits a crime at sea the only ramification is getting thrown off of the ship?

[Trekker954]

So if one commits a crime at sea the only ramification is getting thrown off of the ship?

 

Sad but true. I got it, maybe the Captain should keep a stash of child porn or a pound of cocaine for scenarios such as these. Toss these perpetrators in the brig after they assault innocent victims and then put drugs or porn in their stateroom. Invite the feds on board upon arrival and then they'll get arrested for the drugs or porn. Case closed throw away the key.

[grand isle joe]

I hear this information today from someone at the port. The victim was given an event number, but legally nothing will happen. The perpetrator won’t be arrested here in the U.S. because the local authorities can’t do an arrest warrant outside of their jurisdiction and the FBI will not do anything in this case. The victim was told this. The incident sounds like it happened at sea that is why Dominca wouldn't have jurisdiction either. This is why many numerous assaults including sexual assault against passengers as well as crew go unsolved.

 

 

..What if????...the "victim" attacked the accused? What if the cruise line made a deal with the Perp. (the person accused in the board report) to refund their cruise, discount for a future cruise, and fly them home from the next port? How would the public relations look if they put off the ship a handicapped person with a service dog? How would that look splashed all over the news? If there was a crime with witnesses I would suspect that the cruise line would notify the local law enforcement to meet the perp at port and at the least have him in a hassel tough enough to make it difficult. To think at least the locals can wrangle some "fines" out of the perp to make it worth their while.Something does not smell right in this whole story but some already has the guy swinging from the gallows. But it is difficult to keep an open mind when emotions are involved.

[Dave85]

So if one commits a crime at sea the only ramification is getting thrown off of the ship?

 

Not positive but I always thought the FBI retained jurisdiction over the criminal conduct on cruises out of US home ports... The sexual assault cases that do end up getting prosecuted are always investigated by the FBI if my memory serves me.

[lovetocruiserccl]

How awful. I'm sorry this perpetrator was only removed from the ship. He should have been detained on board (I do believe they have some type of cell) and arrested once they docked in Florida. This person needs to do time for this crime.

 

I so agree. He should be locked up and made to pay restitution, fines and everything he possibly could incur for this crime. Everyone has a right to live a peaceful existence at home and especially on vacation. My heart goes out to him.

 

And he should have to swim home he does not deserve to ride along civil human beings

[poncho1973]

Sad but true. I got it, maybe the Captain should keep a stash...

 

Looks like we've found the hamster person in the group.

[Big Feet]

If this person, who was stomped, was/is a SEAL-- let's let the active SEAL's know about it. They have more then puppies to protect THEIR OWN.

(This story does sound a little bogus)

[waterbug123]

My personal response would be who cares? I'm a lawyer Meg, and I'm just giving you my opinion based on the hypothetical circumstances posed. I say "who cares" because I never intend to commit (what would be in the U.S.) unprovoked felony assault on another passenger on a cruise ship -- or off a cruise ship, for that matter.

 

If we had "a case of mistaken identify" or a gross misunderstanding of the circumstances as you posit, I would convey that to Carnival and ask them what information I can provide them to clarify that it is indeed a case of mistaken identity or a gross misunderstanding and then provide it. I'm highly confident that would lead to a successful resolution without engaging in expensive expensive legal process... cruise companies are in business to make money, not turn away business.

 

This is all hypothetical of course and I realize you're just playing devil's advocate... but reality is reality.

 

It wouldn't have to be a case of unprovoked felony assault (whether this particular incident was unprovoked or not seems to be a matter of speculation, by the way); I responded to a post that said a cruise line can bar you for any reason they choose. So in my example, you could go to book a Carnival cruise and hypothetically they could say "No, you are not allowed on our cruise line; we heard you were rude to a waiter on Royal." Yes, that is an exaggerated example, but I'm trying to make a point. Someone said Royal should let Carnival etc. know about this incident and I asked what they expect Carnival to do with the info, because the REALITY is that for all intents and purposes, a cruise line cannot just take the word of another cruise line that a passenger did something bad on another ship and then ban them from all of their own ships. I mean, I suppose they CAN, but it would no doubt eventually lead to a huge lawsuit. Maybe YOU would say "who cares?" but there are plenty of people out there who would be outraged if a cruise line banned them because another line shared info about something that was never adjudicated in a US courtroom, and thus never "proven" to be true or not.

[mcwebber]

Where the heck was RC's security or even just a worker for RC? Why would this perpetrator get so far as to repeatedly kick someone on the ground? Normally there are passengers out and about late in the evening getting food or just wandering around, why didn't' they offer to help?

 

WOW...if this truly happened, it's a good thing myself and my husband (Marine) weren't in the line behind the bad guy. I certainly would have no qualms about stepping in to help and I'm only 5'1".

An assault like that may last 30 seconds or less. Superman probably wasn't around.

[mcwebber]

[/color]

 

So, a passenger was attacked resulting in great bodily harm and you think RCL's act of simply removing this animal from the ship was a credit to the Corporation? What I'm I missing here?

 

Maybe that cruise ships are not in the law enforcement business? If they lock up the alleged perpetrator without trial they could probably be sued. They don't want the liability if the person is walking around the ship for the remainder of the voyage. The passenger contract does allow them to disembark anyone pretty much for any reason they choose. It's their safest option.

[mcwebber]

Like some others here, I don't understand why the perpetrator wasn't placed under guard or the brig and turned over to authorities in Fort Lauderdale when Vision returns.

 

The only thing I can imagine is that the person who committed the assault is a national of a country other than the US. As the crime was committed on high seas, the US wouldn't have jurisdiction, so the best thing to do was off load the perpetrator in the next port.

 

I believe the US has authority on any attack on a US citizen on board a cruise that originates in the US.

[poncho1973]

Maybe that cruise ships are not in the law enforcement business? If they lock up the alleged perpetrator without trial they could probably be sued. They don't want the liability if the person is walking around the ship for the remainder of the voyage. The passenger contract does allow them to disembark anyone pretty much for any reason they choose. It's their safest option.

 

Maritime law isn't the same as US law. Quite simply, they follow Maritime law and the captain is ultimately the one who has to make sure that happens.

 

Whatever they did, they did because that's how the captain felt they should follow those laws.

 

Locking someone up "without trial" isn't the primary concern at sea. This isn't some city or county with judges & court systems that open the next morning. Anything the captain decides he needs to do to protect his passengers and keep his crew safe, while following those basic Maritime Laws, is what he's going to do.

[mcwebber]

(just playing the devil's advocate here, not condoning whatever the person in question may have done...) So if YOU tried to book a cruise on, say, Carnival, and were told "Royal Caribbean told us you were involved in an altercation on one of their ships so we are not letting you board any of our ships" you would be ok with that?

 

Yes. The cruise I was on two people were put off the ship in Nassau. One for pissing on the deck and the other got in an altercation with the head of security. I would have no problem if they shared that info and Carnival wouldn't allow them on board their ships. If they share that info and Carnival were to allow that person on board knowing the risk, they could have liability if the person caused a problem. (However I don't know if they share that info through CLIA or some other method.)

[Dave85]

It wouldn't have to be a case of unprovoked felony assault (whether this particular incident was unprovoked or not seems to be a matter of speculation, by the way); I responded to a post that said a cruise line can bar you for any reason they choose. So in my example, you could go to book a Carnival cruise and hypothetically they could say "No, you are not allowed on our cruise line; we heard you were rude to a waiter on Royal." Yes, that is an exaggerated example, but I'm trying to make a point. Someone said Royal should let Carnival etc. know about this incident and I asked what they expect Carnival to do with the info, because the REALITY is that for all intents and purposes, a cruise line cannot just take the word of another cruise line that a passenger did something bad on another ship and then ban them from all of their own ships. I mean, I suppose they CAN, but it would no doubt eventually lead to a huge lawsuit. Maybe YOU would say "who cares?" but there are plenty of people out there who would be outraged if a cruise line banned them because another line shared info about something that was never adjudicated in a US courtroom, and thus never "proven" to be true or not.

 

Statistically, very little gets "adjudicated in a US courtroom" anymore. Almost all civil matters settle on their own or through ADR (arbitration, non-binding mediation, etc.). I completely understand your concern but I don't think the dire slippery slope situation (completely innocent people getting caught up in all of this) you're outlining is realistic or would ever actually happen. I've stated my personal opinion on the matter, specifically pertaining to the circumstances of the perpetrator on the Vision), and that's that.

 

My point, the only one I'm making in this discussion, is a technical one: private companies can decline to provide services for a whole range of perfectly legal reasons. Try showing up at a top NYC steakhouse in a bathing suit and flip flops and see if you get served. You're asking another question entirely, which is would I be upset if this happened to me. I've already answered your question in my last post and told you exactly how I would handle the situation. If you don't accept my answer, that's perfectly fine, we can agree to disagree.

 

If you really want to continue this conversation (again, I'm perfectly happy letting it go and we can agree to disagree), please tell me what the legal cause of action would be for this "huge lawsuit" that would be filed if another cruise line took such an action against such a perpetrator, because I can't think of one. You can't file a lawsuit just becuse you think something is wrong or you're upset, there has to be a legal cause of action (well, I guess you could file it, but it would thrown out quickly). If not, then I wish you happy holidays!

[mcwebber]

because the REALITY is that for all intents and purposes, a cruise line cannot just take the word of another cruise line that a passenger did something bad on another ship and then ban them from all of their own ships. I mean, I suppose they CAN, but it would no doubt eventually lead to a huge lawsuit. Maybe YOU would say "who cares?" but there are plenty of people out there who would be outraged if a cruise line banned them because another line shared info about something that was never adjudicated in a US courtroom, and thus never "proven" to be true or not.

 

If the other cruise line disembarked a passenger in a foreign port, that action would be enough for another line not to want them on board. Read the cruise contract. I doubt there's anything in there to prohibit RCI from sharing such information and if they did, Carnival would be negligent to allow that person on board their ships.

[mcwebber]

Maritime law isn't the same as US law. Quite simply, they follow Maritime law and the captain is ultimately the one who has to make sure that happens.

 

Whatever they did, they did because that's how the captain felt they should follow those laws.

 

Locking someone up "without trial" isn't the primary concern at sea. This isn't some city or county with judges & court systems that open the next morning. Anything the captain decides he needs to do to protect his passengers and keep his crew safe, while following those basic Maritime Laws, is what he's going to do.

 

The question was locking them up to hand over to US authorities, not for the protection of other passengers.