Radio Station Facing Homicide Probe And Lawsuit - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2007, 01:13 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:43 PM
I know. I never said they weren´t legally liable. I just think it´s kind of wrong to demonize the DJ´s who were completely clueless about the dangers of this contest.

I can´t really blame them because I could never imagine that somehting like that could happen with WATER enough to go check if you could die from it.
__________________

__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 01:18 PM   #32
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
I know. I never said they weren´t legally liable. I just think it´s kind of wrong to demonize the DJ´s who were completely clueless about the dangers of this contest.

I can´t really blame them because I could never imagine that somehting like that could happen with WATER enough to go check if you could die from it.
Apparently you didn't read the whole article. They were given warnings and laughed them off.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 01:22 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Apparently you didn't read the whole article. They were given warnings and laughed them off.
I did. I know they were given warnings. But I also know that in the heat of the moment you can get caught up in a train of thought and ignore things that are being said to you.

I´m going to take a wild guess and say that they weren´t planning on anybody dying that day, though.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:20 PM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


I did. I know they were given warnings. But I also know that in the heat of the moment you can get caught up in a train of thought and ignore things that are being said to you.

Quote:
I just think it´s kind of wrong to demonize the DJ´s who were completely clueless about the dangers of this contest.
Being clueless and ignorace are two entirely different things. Heat of the moment is no excuse. People kill people in the heat of the moment all the time and don't plan on it.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:26 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:43 PM
I didn´t say it was an excuse, either.

All I´m saying is that they´re not the "evil murderers" some people are making them out to me.

Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it or are you genuinely arguing something that you genuinely think is worth arguing over?
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:28 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy


I did. I know they were given warnings. But I also know that in the heat of the moment you can get caught up in a train of thought and ignore things that are being said to you.

I´m going to take a wild guess and say that they weren´t planning on anybody dying that day, though.

Sorry, but if a registered nurse calls you, tells you about the dangers, probably about the symptoms, you tell her that you already knew that, love at her, and ignore the woman expressing the very same symptoms of water intoxication you just hear about, and also admitted to knowing before, you are to blame.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:30 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega



Sorry, but if a registered nurse calls you, tells you about the dangers, probably about the symptoms, you tell her that you already knew that, love at her, and ignore the woman expressing the very same symptoms of water intoxication you just hear about, and also admitted to knowing before, you are to blame.

I´m sure the caller ID also stated that it was a "registered nurse" that was calling.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:34 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Listen, I´m not saying that don´t have some guilt (I also think the woman should´ve known better, after all, it was HER health). All I´m saying is that they didn´t intend to kill anyone and some of you should stop acting like they did.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 02:37 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 01:43 AM
I'm sure she said it when she called.
And again, they told her that they already knew about the dangers of water intoxication.
Either that was a lie, or they just didn't care. But still they weren't totally unaware.
And when the woman complaint about things that are clearly symptoms of something not being ok there's no excuse for doing nothing, but even joking about it.

So you can argue whether it is homicide or manslaughter (I would tend to manslaughter), but there's no question at all about whether this case should be ruled by a court.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 03:22 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
I didn´t say it was an excuse, either.

All I´m saying is that they´re not the "evil murderers" some people are making them out to me.

Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it or are you genuinely arguing something that you genuinely think is worth arguing over?
That's funny coming from you, I often feel like you argue just for the sake of it.

No one has labeled them as "evil murderers", where did you get this?

All we're saying is, they hold a lot of the responsibilty, and you seem to not want to hold them the least bit responsible.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 03:40 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
Listen, I´m not saying that don´t have some guilt (I also think the woman should´ve known better, after all, it was HER health). All I´m saying is that they didn´t intend to kill anyone and some of you should stop acting like they did.
I don't see anyone here who is. Most people have posted saying a charge of negligent homicide/manslaughter seems far more appropriate. It's possible to be convicted of certain forms of manslaughter and never serve jail time. They're not murders, but their negligence did result in the death of another person.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 05:52 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje
Isn't "negligent homicide" a type of manslaughter, or another word for it? I don't have my MCL book here but I can check when I get home. It's only for Michigan statutes, but it's probably similar if not identical in other states.
In Canada, the word homicide covers all deaths of human beings caused by something other than natural means. From that point on, if you establish culpable homicide, you are dealing with either manslaughter or murder (1st or 2nd degree). There is no such thing as negligent homicide, there is manslaughter by negligence or murder by negligence (in addition to other forms, obviously). If you prove culpable homicide has occurred but can't establish murder on the facts, then you by default have manslaughter.

I don't know what the MI criminal code states but I would be very surprised for it to be vastly different given that both our Codes originated from the same source.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 07:36 PM   #43
War Child
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ann arbor mi
Posts: 935
Local Time: 08:43 PM
The below is from, for instance, the Arkansas State laws codes regarding the definitions for negligent homicide and a more serious charge of 'reckless murder'. I have edited it for brevity's sake, and it was just the first instance that a yahoo search yielded on these issues. I also assume that codes vary from state to state, as these are definitions of degree of culpability.
Under these definitions below, I think the DJs definitely quality for 'reckless murder'.
The interesting twist is this release form deal perhaps.



Quote:
A Comparison of Negligent Homicide and Reckless Murder

There have been various cases that have focused attention to the thin line between negligent homicide and reckless or "depraved heart" murder. The latter is defined as an act that results in death(s) as a result of a purposely or consciously creating substantial and unjustifiable risk(s) that someone will either die or suffer serious injury (537). Note that the negligent actor was unaware of the risks involved, whereas the reckless actor was aware of these risks. The Model Code specifies that under the general requirements of culpability that one of the previous two mental elements must be involved or purpose or knowledge. When defining negligently in subsection d of Section 2.02, the Model Code establishes that:

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offence when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists of will result from his or her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his or her conduct and the circumstances known to him or her, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in this situation (119).

According to Black’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, sixth edition, "criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently" (1992, p. 735). "The criminal offence committed by one whose negligence is the direct and proximate cause of another’s death" is also another version of defining negligent homicide. In addition, negligent manslaughter exists in "some jurisdictions consisting of an unlawful and unjustified killing of a person by negligence but without malice" (1992, p. 1035). Negligence specifically defined is "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do" (1992, p. 1032).

In comparison, recklessness is associated with rashness and heedlessness. Its definition is

the state of mind accompanying an act, which either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, through forseeing [sic] such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge. Recklessness is a stronger term than mere or ordinary negligence, and to be reckless, the conduct must to such as to evince disregard of or indifference to life or safety of others, although no harm was intended.

Depraved when used as an adjective such as in the phrase depraved-heat murder, "means marked by debasement, corruption, pervasion or deterioration" (1992, p. 440). This is also the basic definition for the extreme indifference to the value of human life.
__________________
ShellBeThere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 10:14 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


In Canada, the word homicide covers all deaths of human beings caused by something other than natural means. From that point on, if you establish culpable homicide, you are dealing with either manslaughter or murder (1st or 2nd degree). There is no such thing as negligent homicide, there is manslaughter by negligence or murder by negligence (in addition to other forms, obviously). If you prove culpable homicide has occurred but can't establish murder on the facts, then you by default have manslaughter.

I don't know what the MI criminal code states but I would be very surprised for it to be vastly different given that both our Codes originated from the same source.
I think they are similar, if not identical, but I don't have it in front of me and haven't opened it in almost two years

I know we have murder in the first and second degree. Colloquially, when someone says "homicide" they typically mean "murder", otherwise they'd say manslaughter. In MI "negligent homicide" is actually a term that when spoken refers to vehicular homicide because that's the most common occurrence, but obviously most of the other forms of manslaughter could be considered negligent homicide based on what those words mean. A website that I really can't follow as well as the statutes book lists the MCL types of homicide as murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter (a few variations), and negligent homicide (vehicular homicide/manslaughter). Like you said, in very simple terms it's one of the forms of manslaughter unless the specific statutes for murder 1 or 2 are all met or if someone is killed while other specific felonies are being committed.

Wow, it's been a while since I had to remember this
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 12:31 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownEyedBoy
I know. I never said they weren´t legally liable. I just think it´s kind of wrong to demonize the DJ´s who were completely clueless about the dangers of this contest.

I can´t really blame them because I could never imagine that somehting like that could happen with WATER enough to go check if you could die from it.
Of course, as has already been pointed out, they were not "completely clueless" about the dangers. They had heard of the risks. They said so themselves. They knew of a situation in which someone had died. They mentioned this on-air as well. What seems clear from listening to the recording of the broadcast is that they weren't taking that knowledge very seriously, so I agree as you said, that they didn't actually believe anyone would die as a result of their program. Their thinking was "Okay, yeah TECHNICALLY someone could die from drinking too much water, but come on, like that's really going to happen."

Sadly, it really did.

I think where the radio hosts and management etc get into real trouble is when someone calls in and warns them and they blow it off. I think that really increases their level of culpability.

I know a guy that faced the possiblity of going to jail for 10 years or more because he leaned over to change the radio station (something we've all done) while driving, rear-ended someone and the person in the other car was killed. (And this was in Michigan too). He was a decent guy, raising his kids, never, ever would have dreamed of hurting anyone and he faced jail time (I never heard what his sentencing was because I moved away from Michigan right about the time the news came out). Anyway if a guy like this could be held responsible these radio DJs, who had several opportunities placed right in front of them to stop this from happening, damn well better be.

Oh, and one other thing. I think the smug critcisms of this woman who entered the contest are really arrogant. If anyone truly did not know the risks, it may have been her. Like the hosts, she may have heard stories of water intoxication, but thoubht that was a "one in a million thing" that would never happen to her. Practically EVERY human being on the planet thinks "it won't happen to me" at least at some point in their lives so that doesn't make her stupid. And when 90% of the people posting here admit that they had never heard of water intoxication, I don't see she how she qualifies as some "stupid woman willing to do anything for a video game." It's the height of arrogance to say so.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com