looks like the radio station fired several people involved with this incident...
 

Regarding my earlier thought about people not knowing about potential dangers in drinking too much water, I was talking about it in our network control room last night, and nobody there (all college graduates and pretty bright people) were aware that this could happen.

Re the DJ's involved and their comments -- pretty cold.

I don't know this station, nor have I ever heard any of their "personalities" on the air -- so I don't know if they could be considered "shock" jocks, but some folks on the air these days are way over the edge.

Amazing, The people signed a waver!:confused:

A nurse called in and said it could be bad, but they signed a waver?

It was bad and the women died.

It is sad what people will do to win items?

Survival of da fittest!!!! :confused: :) :p

NaturAl Selection is Failing! LOLol! :rolleyes::mad::confused::)

TEH DARWIN!!! IT DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!

I was thinking of that incident in Chico when I heard about this.. EVERYONE in the country let alone those in California ALL Heard about the hazing incident ESP. those in media... Those DJs KNEW there coudl be harm. :rolleyes: :confused: My friend heard the broadcast and said that there were nurses and docs. calling in saying it was dangerous.

The description of the tape here looks bad, but I wonder, if everybody there heard it, really why should the DJs be more responsible for stopping the participants than the participants themselves, in a criminal sense, at least?

These are people who aren't in the care of the station; they are voluntary contest participants.

Imagine

A: "Hey, you want to be in my dumb contest?"
B: "Sure."

Someone else: "That contest could hurt you.

A: "You want to be in my dumb contest?"
B: "Sure."

Why is A more responsible than B?

It amazes me that anyone who knew of a water intoxication death would allow people to guzzle enough water to kill themselves but it still seems goofy to say they were more responsible that the folks who chose to do it. Can one of you legal folks explain it?

I think it's interesting that at first they had to wait between bottles of water. It seems to me that they could have safely done this dumb-incredibly-poor-taste contest simply by making it about how long people could wait having consumed a uniform amount of water.

I totally agree that the contestants themselves should hold themselves accountable.

If the DJ's were talking about water intoxication, and people were calling in about how dangerous it might be, but in the end, they still competed, why is it the station's fault?

I realize they are the ones who created the contest in the first place, but given all the feedback about it, the contestants still went ahead with it to win a stupid game console.

Well, here's one thing to consider from a professional broadcaster.

On air radio stations are licensed by the Federal Government to operate in the public's best interest.

As I said early in the thread, it isn't likely that the FCC's mandate would specifically cover something like manslaughter, but the licensee of the station should be operating in the public's "interest, convenience and necessity," to quote the original Communications Act.

It is not in the public interest to run a contest that endgangers lives.

That makes sense, but under those circumstance it seem more appropriate to suspend the station's FCC license because they generally failed to deliver on that mission.


And I agree that the contest was stupid, but how could you reconcile the purpose you've given with the crappy alcohol ads, fake weightloss product ads, and random lewd but safe contests stations run generally?

Recent reports have shown that the D.A. is investigating manslaughter charges.

(what did I tell y'all?)

Uhh, prosecutors would charge Mother Teresa with manslaughter.

Typical criminal defense lawyer :)

I'll admit, it's in the news, so prosecutors will be hot to charge whoever with whatever so they can grab headlines and hopefully get better jobs.

Looking at the elements, there's a case here for *at least* negligent homicide. A deal will be made.

Kevin,

Again I admit up front that my info is based on wikipedia, but when I look up negligent homicide, there's either an expectation that one party be expected to provide care to another, like patients in a nursing home, or an expectation that the person accused failed to excercise the reasonable amount of caution that the average person would use.

Since the dangers of water poisoning seem to me to either A) be unknown by a large section of the public or B) explained in this case by help care professions to the DJs and the participants, and all continued to proceed, I don't get why the station is the responsible party.

Can you explain it to me?

When people are convicted, there's usually also been a failure to seek appropriate professional help after the fact, which doesn't seem to be the case here.