Originally posted by dgtempe
All the parties involved should be drowned.

That would be an eye for an eye and just.

Would this include her children who may have pressured and insisted and even coerced her into doing this for them so they could have the Wii?

[edit on 19-1-2007 by 2l82sk8]

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas
The reason so many people we're fired and the main reason charges are being filed is that there is tape recording of the DJ's joking about the dangers and talking about the kid in Chico who had died from water intoxification. The played the tape on the news here last night and one of the hosts is asking the other one "isn't this dangerous, didn't like some kid die from this last year?" to which he replied "yeah but we'll stop them once they throw up and besides they signed a relase so it's not our problem" (quotes paraphrased).

This again shows the Dj's bad taste, ill-timed dark humor, and a cavalier attitude toward the possible risks, but it also implies the DJ's probably did not think there was any real risk of death in their specific contest that morning.

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas The sheriff's office also got information that the radio station received several calls from people warning the DJ's about the dangers of this contest and that someone wouldn't neccessarily throw up prior to having irreversible complications.

They laughed these off and went on with the scheduled contest.

Most likely these Dj's humor, and the fact they seem to ignore, or mock the warning phone calls were because they were sure the station, those involved in conceiving of the contest, rules etc had everything under control-even any medical risks-thus there were none for them to worry about.

Their jokes about "they signed a waiver" is a show of that really, not that they wouldn't care if anyone died-but to joke and mention a waiver is to have faith the station wouldn't do anything that would actually potentially have leathel risks or would bring the station under condemnation or financial ruin. You know, that all the bases were covered-even medical risks.

Their attitudes and jokes are bad taste and timing retrospectively now that someone actually died, however their humor shows a faith that there really wasn't a risk I would think.

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas So here you have a group of people who have some questions as to the safety of their event but fail to properly investigate how to safely conduct this type of event. These same people disregard several calls that warn them explicitly of the dangers involved. They conduct their event and someone dies.

I don't think the DJ's had any questions, that hadn't been appeased by other's ivnolved in the contest, nor is it their job or responsibility to research the safety. Their disregard of phone in warnings isn't as malicious as some would think-I really think they simply didn't think anyone was really at risk-for whatever reason. Ignorance, misinformation etc.

Some could argue the people who called in to the DJ's should have called into other areas of the station and finally to the police department. Actually, since the callers just went on-air warning the DJ's maybe those callers are partially responsible themselves. Clearly they did know with a certainty the imminent risks more than the DJ's, but did they call the police? The way one would if they saw a person endangering or threaning a life of another in other circumstances?

Originally posted by SmallMindsBigIdeas We will never know for sure what the deceased knew about water intoxification ...

Oh I hope thats not true. I'd like to know if the contestants were warned of any potential risks, including but not limited to death. I'd like to know who conceived of the contest, who approved it, and who was responsible for researching the safety of it, etc.

[edit on 19-1-2007 by 2l82sk8]

Originally posted by clearwater
I saw on one of those entertainment tabloid shows that the station had been warned. The DJ responded to info on toxic water death with - 'It's OK, they've signed liability forms.'

Cavalier, and I assume he just felt confident that nothing was going to happen.

That has been my point of view as well.

Originally posted by clearwater
It reminds me a bit of the week long dance-a-thons of the Depression era, when people also risked toxic exhaustion or shock for a few bucks.

The coliseum.

Tragic all around.

Ah yes, entertainment for the masses- at all costs. Love the coliseum comparison.

Makes me also ponder a more conspiratorial view of this incident...

Maybe they fed the contestants to the lions.

I mean, maybe everyone knew the risks at the station, but didn't care. Maybe they figured "Yeah, if a death occurs it's still good publicity, and we'll simply fire all of you for a show of regret and recompense and will just re-hire/reassign you all to other stations of our parent company.

We'll let the insurance pay for our liability and will claim deep regret and remorse in the negligence of a few here at the station who have been fired and we'll revel in the publicity, afterall even bad publicity is publicity!"

One never knows though...

Originally posted by euwhajavb
Now what? You're going to hate me because I have an opinion? Are you going to try and define how inhuman I am, and at the same time define what it is to be human? (snip)

Their comments should not be taken into consideration

I agree, and good examples btw.

Thanks for your post.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is a coercion factor in this case.

People were offered a prize in a seemingly harmless contest that, in fact, was dangerous.

That doesn't equal coercion though. Coercion is to imply that she was forcefully made to take part in the contest, or threatened even. If you use it to mean compelled to do it by the prize, then I think that word itself-compelled-would be a much more preccise and accurate word.

Although she could have been coerced by her children...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
That's beyond callous. That's gross negligence.

There was a degree of negligence, but if the one to whom the warnings were made had already been assured the contest was actually safe in the way they were running it, then it is not their negligence, and their words, even if seemingly callous, were only then in jest, not malicious or meant to be callous.

Originally posted by whitewave
As a legal nurse consultant I can tell you what issues will be brought up.

And so you did!

Thank you for your contribution.

Most of it would be what I would expect, but it's nice to have the information come from someone who actually has knowledge on the subject.

Boy I feel like I'm talking to myself today, but there was just so much I felt compelled to respond to.

Originally posted by 2l82sk8

There was a degree of negligence, but if the one to whom the warnings were made had already been assured the contest was actually safe in the way they were running it, then it is not their negligence, and their words, even if seemingly callous, were only then in jest, not malicious or meant to be callous.

Obviously there will be a lot of finger pointing in this case. But unless their waiver included warnings on the dangers of water intoxification then the station is going to be paying out a lot on this one.

It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, the Sherriffs' manage to find criminal responsible for the crime. Their investigation is going to hinge on the fact of who organized the contest and failed to research the dangers of this competition.

I think the DJ and his comprades who took phone calls from concerned people, including medical professionals, and disregarded them (ie if they didn't pass the info onto management or contact whoever was running the competition with the concern) may be facing involuntary manslaughter via reckless disregard.

For the most part that is what I can see most people being charged with ... for them to go to homicide would require the ability to prove that someone organizing this contest implicitly knew of the dangers and did not inform the contestants or take precautions to prevent problems.

The radio station has stated that the employees were fired for violating the terms of their employment contract. My guess is that this was probably a result of what insurance companies call an "unreasonable increase in risk". Whatever the case, I think the termination of employment makes sense. As things stand right now, they could have MUCH bigger problems, depending on the outcome of the criminal investigation into possible negligent homicide.

This could result in penalties up to and including prison time.

Originally posted by Flatwoods
This could result in penalties up to and including prison time.

Now, that I think that would be rediculously severe. Prisons should be to house those who are a threat to society as proven by their volent acts.
Nobody willfully or violently killed this woman.

If they fired 10 people because they all had to go down with the ship as a team...fine...so be it-I can accept that. It stinks though.

I do think there is someone who was negligent in their duties of ensuring a safe contest, and they should be held accountable, but I still hold that the woman also was responsible for her actions and this is just one of those tragedies in life.