Radio Station Facing Homicide Probe And Lawsuit

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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 said:
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.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


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 said:


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 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.:|
 
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 said:


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 said:



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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
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?:huh:

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.
 
Last edited:
BrownEyedBoy said:
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 said:
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.
 
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.



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.
 
anitram said:


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 :reject:

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 :der:
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
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.
 
It doesn't make her stupid not at all, but it doesn't make the radio hosts more arseholey because they probably thought thats too. Oh it won't happen to us, and it did and shit, its a horrible horrible experience.

But i disagree with involuntary manslaughter. I think if you accidently kill someone, it was an accident! Why should you pay for it? IT just seems like revenge or something.

Now i do believe the radio station should be held in negligence because they obvioously didn't show a duty of care, but nothing more then that
 
Maybe it would have been an accident hadn't they known of water intoxication.

But, they did admit to knowing about the risk, they knew people can die and they didn't react in any way when the woman complaint about feeling very sick.

Sorry, but that's not an accident at all.
 
maycocksean said:

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.

If hearing about water intoxication once can make the DJs responsible, like you said, how can it also not make this woman responsible? Thinking it's never going to happen doesn't absolve her from being responsible for her decisions and is really a terrible way to make decisions in life.
 
dazzlingamy said:

But i disagree with involuntary manslaughter. I think if you accidently kill someone, it was an accident! Why should you pay for it? IT just seems like revenge or something.

Now i do believe the radio station should be held in negligence because they obvioously didn't show a duty of care, but nothing more then that

With your logic drunk drivers who acidentally kill someone would get off...
 
Amy, manslaughter is essentially killing someone when you didn't have the intent, which is what this case is. The law doesn't allow us to say "Oops, didn't meant for THAT to happen!"
That logic doesn't match, either, bvs. If the radio station promotions department knew, and as a result stated very publicly that entering involved risk, then yes. As a drunk driver must know that they are engaging in a very risky activity. The DJ, as you said earlier, did know when the nurse rang in to warn of the danger. He chose to ignore it and laugh it off showing not only his ignorance, but that of the station, too.

Maycocksean made a very good point about the lady who died in this. The fact that it happened shows that the radio station also didn't buy it - the DJ out of idiocy, and the promotions department out of utter lack of due care. The fact that this lady died is their responsibility. They asked her to place herself in a situation without themselves knowing what risks there were, and therefore not being able to inform her. The DJ then proceeded to ignore warning, and the higher powers failed to react and call the stunt off until they could at least clarify what the nurse was warning them of.
 
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)

BVS - i would never condone drink driving, obviously being drunk impairs your judgement, and therefore you are responsible if you hit someone.

Maycocksean made a very good point about the lady who died in this. The fact that it happened shows that the radio station also didn't buy it - the DJ out of idiocy, and the promotions department out of utter lack of due care. The fact that this lady died is their responsibility. They asked her to place herself in a situation without themselves knowing what risks there were, and therefore not being able to inform her. The DJ then proceeded to ignore warning, and the higher powers failed to react and call the stunt off until they could at least clarify what the nurse was warning them of.

I understand it better from this. I do think now that something should be done, because when you put it down in like that, it really does show how no duty of care was really taken. Even if they didn't believe it could happen to them, they still should have clarified or sent for a DR or something.
 
No one there could do even a basic google search of "drinking too much water"?
Before this happened, I'm sure the definition would have been in the first few links.

Now they'll be looking up:
From Wikipedia
Negligent homicide:
is a charge brought against persons, who by inaction, allow others under their care to die.
 
dazzlingamy said:
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)

Yes, people are charged with crimes and punished all the time, for even lesser degrees of responsibility. My 7th grade bio teacher hit a patch of black ice on the way to a Thanksgiving dinner. The car crashed, his wife died, and he broke both of his legs in over 40 pieces. A peer from my high school was backing out of her driveway and hit a pedestrian and killed her. A man from a local church was backing out of his driveway and ran over and killed his own son. All of these cases were investigated because there was some degree of negligence leading to the death of another person. You can go to jail for these things, but in most cases won't. However if you're running lights or stop sings, driving recklessly or drunk, you'll probably go to jail if you kill someone, even though it's always and "accident." If you leave a baby or animal locked in a car and it dies form exposure to heat, you'll go to jail. This doesn't even touch on the types of civil suits that can arise from what other people accuse of being negligence. For example, my friend lives on a lake and one night, some kids sneaked onto their dock, dove into shallow water, and got hurt. Even though THEY trespassed, they brought suit against my friend's family for not having a "No diving" sign on their dock, indicating the water is shallow. Another example would be a friend of mine got into a car accident where she rear-ended another car. A woman passenger in the other car was pregnant at the time and miscarried. She blamed the miscarriage on the car accident and brought suit against my friend for $100,000.

The case of the water poisoning is even more compelling because they DID know of the dangers and decided to ignore them and laugh about them.
 
dazzlingamy said:
I just think its scary if you accidently kill someone (say running over a child who runs out in the road to get a ball) that you could go to gaol for that. It frightens me because it would obviously be an accident, and you didn't intend to kill anyone and you wern't in the wrong, so why should you be punished. (actually would you be punished? im a little sketchy on things like that, just scared of the whole damn thing!)


It depends on a lot of factors. Like, for example, was his driving negligent? Did he drive too quickly in a residential zone, etc.
 
randhail said:


If hearing about water intoxication once can make the DJs responsible, like you said, how can it also not make this woman responsible? Thinking it's never going to happen doesn't absolve her from being responsible for her decisions and is really a terrible way to make decisions in life.

I think it was a little bit more than "hearing about water intoxication once" on the part of the DJs and the radio station. They heard about water intoxication. They knew that someone had died from it. They acknowledged the risks openly in that they claimed protection because she signed a waiver. They warned by a caller that the person was in trouble, and acknowledged AGAIN that they knew of the risks before ignoring the caller's advice. Now if you can show me that Ms. Strange had the same level of information as the radio personalities had, well then maybe you have a case. I'll have to go back and visit the abc link again, but right now as far as I remember she had NONE of that prior knowledge, and at MOST may have heard only vague stories about someone dying from drinking too much water and that's all.

Obviously she is responsible for her decision. . .she made a bad one and has paid the ultimate price. But I don't accept that it makes her a "stupid" person, unless you define stupidity is simply not having enough information. And while it may be true that that "it won't happen to me" is a poor way to make decisions, the reality is that is exactly how almost every person on this planet makes at least some of their decisions on a daily basis. If you've never once failed to put on your seat belt "because it won't happen to you", or changed the radio while driving or talked on a cell phone "because it won't happen to you" or just about anything else well then maybe you can make your case.

I'm not arguing that she had no responsibility. She did and she reaped the consequences. But the radio station had an even greater burden of responsibiltiy because they had more information, and they too should shoulder some of the consequences.
 
from maycocksean

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."

What I don't get is how they believed that 'technically' someone could die from drinking too much water, but that somehow this situation, *where the whole point was to push to the extreme limits of human tolerance* for drinking water, was exempt?!

Did they believe that the person they'd heard of who died from drinking too much water had some special circumstances, like non-functioning body parts or some disease that made them specially vulnerable to death from water intoxication?

What, I'd ask, made them believe it couldn't happen again, or here, or if they asked people to drink water til they thought they would burst...
the chances of it happening, unless you have a theory about why it happened before that didn't apply now somehow, increase dramatically when you ask someone to actually *try* to drink too much water for the human body to handle.

It's like saying, hey, the chances of getting struck by lightning are really slight. So, hey, lets have a contest to see who is willing to stand the longest time out in lightning storm on a boat in a lake with a metal rod in their hands. Hey, technically, people can actually get struck by lightning in such a situation but haha like that's gonna happen on air during a radio show contest on thursday january 18th 2007.

I think it bears reiterating...people trust folks in 'authority' to take their welfare seriously. If this were a drug trials study, the company would get shut down (okay, with big Pharma, maybe not...but they'd be scolded seriously!) if they didn't warn people specifically of the risks of death associated with whatever treatment they were getting as subjects when they signed consent forms. If all she had to do was sign a general purpose form, that didn't offer the specific warnings about how one could die from water intoxication, etc., then I think she reasonably assumed that there was no undue risk here.
They had a duty to take her health very seriously given that they were the ones asking her to possibly compromise it. And they surely knew, it seems, they were asking her to possibly seriously compromise it.
 
Last edited:
I saw this story on Huffington Post and remembered this case. All kinds of lawsuits.

Sacramento Bee

Survivors say stunt left them twisted

By Sam Stanton
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Aug. 10, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Monday, Aug. 10, 2009 - 9:33 am

One woman who took part says the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest left her with a fear of water, and that she can no longer listen to the radio.

Another contestant says she has gained 60 pounds and suffers from irrational mood swings.

A third worries about her own mortality, "like I am destined to die young, maybe at my own hand."

Fallout from the January 2007 contest that left one contestant dead sparked media coverage worldwide – notoriety that's likely to resume Aug. 31, when a civil trial is set to begin.

The trial centers on the death of a 28-year-old mother of three, Jennifer Strange, who died after drinking massive amounts of water during a contest on Sacramento radio station The End (KDND, 107.9 FM) to win a Nintendo Wii game console.

Court documents show how the case unfolded.

Since the contest, the radio station's owners have fired 10 people, including the DJs involved; Strange's fellow contestants developed what they say is an irrational fear of water and sued the broadcaster; Strange's husband and children filed their own wrongful-death suit; and lawyers involved have submitted thousands of pages of claims and counterclaims.

After three of Strange's fellow contestants sued the broadcaster for emotional distress, Entercom Communications Corp. sought mental exams and questioned why their alleged problems after Strange's death "magically changed" and began "affecting their ability to drink water, impacting their families, causing sleeplessness and generalized anxiety, and depression."

One had weekly thoughts of suicide, according to court documents.

The winner of the contest, Lucy Davidson, said she was terribly sick afterward and vomited while still at the station. Now, she says, she can't listen to the radio because she is afraid of contests, and in her job at Wal-Mart she experiences "an inappropriate emotional reaction" when she sees someone put bottled water in their carts.

"I have come to realize that in a way I fear water," she said in a June declaration.

And she was never able to use the Wii at the center of the contest. Instead, it sat in a hall closet for more than a year until she turned it over to her attorney and "felt a huge weight fall off my shoulders."

Fired program director sues

After being fired from his $151,200-a-year job as program director, Steven Weed sued his former employer for wrongful termination.

When Entercom offered in October to renounce any attorneys' fees if Weed would drop what it saw as a meritless case, he refused. A judge ruled in favor of Entercom in March, and the company subsequently said it wanted Weed to pay $4,746 in filing and deposition fees. He was ordered to pay $225,144.50 more in attorneys' fees.

The court eventually approved $49,997.50 in fees, and Weed later abandoned his appeals in the case.

Because the case drew so much attention, the Strange family attorneys asked the court to have jurors in the case sign declarations before and after reaching a verdict swearing they had not researched it on the Internet.

The attorneys said temptation for juror misconduct is too great in a case with such notoriety.

"For example, if an individual were to use the Yahoo search engine and typed in 'Jennifer Strange water intoxication,' it will yield 63,500 Web sites and blogs which provide detailed information concerning the death of Jennifer Strange," the motion stated. A Google search would find 63,700, it added.

Roger Dreyer, the family's lead attorney, also said in a letter to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Phillps Jr. that because of the "tremendous amount of pretrial publicity" in the case, an initial jury panel of at least 200 potential jurors will be needed. He estimated the case could last seven weeks, with jury selection beginning Sept. 8.

The contest required participants to drink water without urinating over a three-hour period on "the Morning Rave" program. They were asked to drink 8-ounce bottles every 10 minutes. After they had consumed eight of them, they were given 16-ounce bottles to drink every 10 minutes.
 
While I definitely held the radio station responsible for Strange's death, the legitimacy of these other claims seems highly suspect.

Sounds to me like some people want to get on the gravy train.
 
Back
Top Bottom