Criminal or Just Crass?

OrnotBitwise

OrnotBitwise

Watermelon
Right out front let me say that I've no dog in this fight, I'm just curious what our little clan here will say. Or maybe I should say that I like both dogs since I can see both sides' point. Whatever, these are some nasty pits here.

You may have heard about that morning radio show stunt in Sacramento that went horribly wrong? Conestants were urged to drink as much water as they could without urinating in order to win a Wii console. One young woman, a mother of three, ended up dying.
As participants in KDND-FM's water-drinking contest chugged bottle after bottle, a listener called in to warn the disc jockeys that the stunt was dangerous — and could be fatal.


"Yeah, we're aware of that," one of them responded.
Another DJ laughed: "Yeah, they signed releases, so we're not responsible. We're OK."


Those comments, and others made during the Jan. 12 "Morning Rave" radio show, appeared to give little regard to the risk of water intoxication — until a woman died just hours after imbibing nearly two gallons in that contest.
Click to expand...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/17/state/n162915S38.DTL

The organizers have been fired and no one seems to argue with that. I certainly don't. The thing is that now they may also face criminal charges.

Granted, we don't know the details. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that the newspaper and TV accounts are essentially accurate and complete. Do you think that these people were criminally negligent or just monumentally crass and stupid?
 
Well, given that the participants were adults and took part of their own free will, at the outset I'd say that they were monumentally stupid, organizers and participants alike. It seems to me that if you're going to undertake to do something like that you find out everything you can about it first, and don't trust in the judgment of some yahoo dj to make sure you won't be harmed.

On the other hand, given that a caller phoned in during the event and told them the stunt could be fatal, whereupon they just laughed it off after publicly acknowledging the danger, that in itself might make a case for criminal negligence. They proceeded with the stunt after being informed, and agreeing, that it was dangerous and potentially fatal. From the transcript, it's apparent that they failed to take that danger seriously, though. That doesn't diminish responsibility at all, however.
 
It took me ten seconds on google, to determine that this was a very high risk activity these DJs were promoting. I seriously doubt they did hardy ANY research on the risk, let alone consulted a medical expert - or they wouldn't have done it.

As such, I bet when they had those people sign the release, they didn't really impress upon them exactly how risky this activity is.


wikipedia:

"A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr[2]. Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet."
 
As for the legal perspective, I'll hazard my opinion.

I think people are responsible for their own behaviour, when they can reasonably be assumed to understand the risk.

Everyone knows what the risks are in playing a game of russian-roulette. Or, its reasonable to assume they do.

I don't think you can reasonably expect your average layperson to understand the medical risk of excessive water consumption. The radio station had a special responsibility to either steer clear of this risky behavior, or at a minimum, be very explicit in informimg people of the risk.


I've signed a ton of those "death" release forms. Its a formality. I seriously doubt those DJs took people aside and said: "Look man, I mean you could seriously, seriously DIE if you chug more than three liters of water!!!"
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think the radio station is doomed if they want to avoid damages. All one has to do is read why people die from ecstasy to know that too much water is dangerous.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Right out front let me say that I've no dog in this fight, I'm just curious what our little clan here will say. Or maybe I should say that I like both dogs since I can see both sides' point. Whatever, these are some nasty pits here.

You may have heard about that morning radio show stunt in Sacramento that went horribly wrong? Conestants were urged to drink as much water as they could without urinating in order to win a Wii console. One young woman, a mother of three, ended up dying.http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/17/state/n162915S38.DTL

The organizers have been fired and no one seems to argue with that. I certainly don't. The thing is that now they may also face criminal charges.

Granted, we don't know the details. Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that the newspaper and TV accounts are essentially accurate and complete. Do you think that these people were criminally negligent or just monumentally crass and stupid?
Click to expand...

They're stupid. They didn't believe the warning. It's like other warnings we get in our lives, you can die of alchohol poisening, you hear that when youre a teenager, but do you believe it? No way. These radio dj's, especially the shock ones, are your basic morons who never, ever, advance beyond the junior high school mentality. So, I don't think they really believed anyone would die. I hope not anyway.

I don't believe they are criminally responsible. Maybe if we got all of the black people out of jail who are in for having two joints on them, we would have room to start imprisoning the terminally stupid. And I could get behind that movement, trust me. But as things stand, I'd say no. Though, they should never get another job in radio.
 
Damocles said:
Honestly, I think the radio station is doomed if they want to avoid damages. All one has to do is read why people die from ecstasy to know that too much water is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Oh, they should have to pay damages. I thought the question was, should they be prosecuted, and then if convicted would be imprisoned. I'd award damages to the woman's family for this, definitely.
 
to die for a wii ? Wow! it seems to me that all involved were very stupid. I feel that the organizers have some responsibility but not all. The participants were all resopnsible for their own stupid actions as well.
Another Darwin award nominee.
 
uscitizen said:
to die for a wii ? Wow! it seems to me that all involved were very stupid. I feel that the organizers have some responsibility but not all. The participants were all resopnsible for their own stupid actions as well.
Another Darwin award nominee.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too. The thing is that, at some point, if you're going to actively encourage people to do something, you have to have some culpability if what you're encouraging them to do -- bribing them to do, in effect -- is dangerously stupid. Where that point lies is very much open to debate, obviously.

I agree with Darla and Damo that civil damages, paid by the radio station too, are almost certainly in order. What I'm not sure about is the criminal liability.
 
I am not so sure about the criminal liability either. this is sort of like the teens that watched a movie and followed example by lying in the middle of a road and getting run over. I guess what I am not sure about is where does individual responsibility for ones actions end and criminal responsibility by someone else who encouraged their stupid actions begin.
I feel that all in this case were criminally stupid, after all suicide is illegal as well.
 
I think there's a difference between just showing something stupid and then having idiots imitate you, on the one hand, and actively trying to get idiots to do something stupid, on the other.

If some half-wit 16 year old gets himself killed while performing a stunt he saw in "Jackass: The Move" or something, that's the half-wit's problem. Or it's his parents' problem, since he's already dead.

If some unprincipled schmuck tries to get half-witted young jackasses to perform stupid stunts for money so that he can charge admission, however, I think a line has been crossed.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I think there's a difference between just showing something stupid and then having idiots imitate you, on the one hand, and actively trying to get idiots to do something stupid, on the other.

If some half-wit 16 year old gets himself killed while performing a stunt he saw in "Jackass: The Move" or something, that's the half-wit's problem. Or it's his parents' problem, since he's already dead.

If some unprincipled schmuck tries to get half-witted young jackasses to perform stupid stunts for money so that he can charge admission, however, I think a line has been crossed.
Click to expand...

Good point Ornot, if profit is a motive.....Then risk of loss falls right in there too.
 
I don't know where the criminality would be in encouraging people to perform a legal activity, unlike the Opie & Andy case which encouraged trespass and public obscenity. The criminal liabilty is simply not there.

Civil liability - is the radio station liable if the participant signs a release, provided the release discloses the risks sufficiently? The answer to that question will hinge on the definition of "sufficient disclosure." There will likely be a civil trial and "sufficient disclosure" will be the core issue.

I could see a jury nailing the defendant even in the event that sufficient disclosure was satisified. Suppose the disclosure recommended that the participant consult a physician before undertaking this activity, but did not allow adequate time for potential participants to do so (i.e., show up in the morning, sign the release, and immediately begin)?

Is it possible that we have become so overwhelmed with warnings about every possible situation that might incur a hangnail, that we simply no longer heed warnings?
 
Last edited:
I believe they are going to be found criminally negligent. They have a responsibility to their listeners to make sure they understand the risks involved with contests that they are promoting.

Does this mean the listeners who participated should be blame free? No. It doesn't take long in today's world to check into something like this via the internet.

Bottom line, everyone involved, from the radio station employees to the participants should be beaten senseless for their stupidity.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
I don't know where the criminality would be in encouraging people to perform a legal activity, unlike the Opie & Andy case which encouraged trespass and public obscenity. The criminal liabilty is simply not there.

Civil liability - is the radio station liable if the participant signs a release, provided the release discloses the risks sufficiently? The answer to that question will hinge on the definition of "sufficient disclosure." There will likely be a civil trial and "sufficient disclosure" will be the core issue.

I could see a jury nailing the defendant even in the event that sufficient disclosure was satisified. Suppose the disclosure recommended that the participant consult a physician before undertaking this activity, but did not allow adequate time for potential participants to do so (i.e., show up in the morning, sign the release, and immediately begin)?

Is it possible that we have become so overwhelmed with warnings about every possible situation that might incur a hangnail, that we simply no longer heed warnings?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top