I realize this is moot at this point but hear me out for a second:
Regarding responsibilty. The radio station should be solely responsible for damages caused as a result of their contest. The Dj's were just doing their jobs so they cannot be held accountable.
I actually watched another video on the subject and it stated the waivers the people were made to sign were only privacy waivers and had nothing to do with health.The family can seek damages against the radio station and probably win.
I believe they shAre the blame. If she signed a waiver she knew what she was doing, but they should definately have taken the warnings and should have had medical attention there. It was really a stupid conteat in the first place. And it puts more pressure on the djs thAt she had a family. They definately need to pay. But prison? I dont believe so.
here is the skinny if I join the army I sign a contract that says hey are you aware that you might get fuckin shot I say yes. she went to radio show and signed a contract / waiver that says you may get hurt doing this. she as a adult must then say to her self do I want this she said yes and died case closed its her fault
i think that lady who died is the same lady i saw at target two weeks ago and im not kidding this is kinda freaking me out and no guys she wasnt a ghost because she was holding a shopping bag and didnt drop it! ghosts can throw things but not hold them i think the lady faked death and is living somewhere in florida!
If that mother wanted to get a nintendo wii for her kids she should have bought them won. That mother should have quite when she couldn't handle drinking any more water. The radio station isn't to blame all the way it's also part of the blame on the mother, she choose to drink that much water.
No you're right they shouldn't be put to prison. But fuck me, it's become quite clear that those fuck tards are unfit for hosting anything, even a fucking radio show
im disgusted ! But she is to some blame as well! Nobody forced her to drink that much to win something? What if they said they would give her cookies for life if she took 1kg of coke over a period of one week or something. STUPID!
As far as the legal side of this is concerned, I support the DJs. They shouldn't be prosecuted for what someone else did to themselves. The contestants signed releases, and one drank herself to death. Thats terrible, but it would be an injustice to put these people away for something so stupid. What he said was morally wrong. "They signed releases, we're not responsible, okay?", but what he said was true
thought she signed the paper , she wasn't ware of the danger and so didn't those idiot Djs though there were numerous warning from the female DJ and a nurse calling in about the danger.....the station gets what they deserve....even 16 mil is not gonna bring her back.
the radio was encouraging people to perform an act that had a very real chance of death, obviously. thats like handing a guy a weapon who has never seen a gun and encouraging to put it to their head and pull the trigger. in my mind, at least.
A person that signs consent and is willing to something that could cause detrimental health to their body.....well I think that she was ignorant and stupid to continue when she felt health issues. I think it was an act of greed and I do not believe the radio station was accountable. BTW the new called greiving widower had a new girlfriend within a matter of a couple of months......Like he really cared about his wife or his lovelife.
I think you need to stop being so ignorant. She is deceased and you insist on calling her a bitch? This is a tragedy and I think you will one day pay for your sinful ways. May godbless you.
The recording shows the DJ's were at least vaguely aware of water intoxication, they were warned about it during the show, and it's not hard to look up. The only requirement for manslaughter that it could reasonably be argued they did not meet was whether they were the ones who killed her, it was almost entirely their fault, but the mother should have known the risk. But if they led her to believe that her health was being protected/not in danger, I would probably vote guilty as a juror.
For the record, you can call me elitist, but any adult who doesn't know water intoxication is possible is embarrassingly ignorant. I have no medical background and have known about it since grade school.
I remember listening to the audio recording on CP24 those years ago.
I don't think just because someone signs a waiver that the people in charge can't get in trouble.. Seriously.. common sense..
Nobody REALLY pays attention to the bad things that can happen especially when WINNING something [regardless of price] is involved.. She wanted to win her kids the Wii b/c she couldn't afford to buy them one.. Very sad.
I believe that the this kind of contest should be banned or at least remind everyone about water intoxication.
Anyways, one of the DJs did mention researching about the case of the college student and should have not make fun of the warning the woman gave, so I say it is a possible yes. However, the contestants did sign a waver (which I am sure they mentions some dangers of the contest; hoping it included water intoxication), so it means that they at least knew about the dangers.
I Feel The Radio Station & All Radio Stations Make, Have Made, And Will Continue To Make Very Poor Decisions, As Long As They Know That There Is A Market For The Stupidity They Peddle. I Think This Should Be A Reminder To Anyone In The Future, If A Radio Station Is Asking You To Sign A Waver ??? You Shouldnt Sign Unless Your Fully Aware Of all The Dangers That Are Associated With The Stunt You Are About To Attempt !!! Beware Radio Stations Are Out For Themselves And The Ratings Thats All......
What a stupid women! If she did not know the dangers from general knowledge then the reflex to throw up that she fought should have been enough to tell her to stop!
"without due caution". The Management and the DJ's are to blame. They should have properly researched what they were getting into. When someone enters a contest, especially one sponsered by such a public entity, they are assuming that it is safe. If they were warned before the contest that there was a risk of death, I thain that many of them would not have participated. If they were warned, but still participated, I think the blame should be shared.
The DJs aren't biology students; the average person does think its impossible to die from water poisoning. However, the managers of the station knew the risks very well. They should be the ones held accountable, not the DJs.
so what if they're not biology students... that's what google is for. Everyone has access to a plethura of information (via internet), so every single person associated with that contest should have googled "effects of too much water." It's always a series of unfortunate events that leads to a catastrophe. My heart goes out to Jennifer's family.
first of all, they all deserve a huge punch to the face for being such idiots and careless, and 2nd.. sure why not throw them in jail? they didnt care if a contestanant would die or not...
it is a difficult case. The contestants need to take full responsibility for reviewing and acknowledging the risks involved with any form of contest. The contest promoters need to be selecting contests which limit the harm that could be brought upon a contestant. Now, if a contestant cannot or are unable to judge for themselves what can be harmful to them, then there needs to be a policy in place to protect this being.
There's no way that the DJ's could have known about the high risks. The contestants didn't know about it. I never even heard of it before this happened and I've worked in IT for 10 years.
And besides, the DJ's didn't set up the contest. Typically, they have zero input.
The station should be held accountable for neglegent homicide. If it can be proven that there was general knowledge that death can be a possiable outcome and the contest was carried out with the acceptance of this knowledge. The DJ also stated that "we are aware of that" in terms of water intoxication potentially causing death.
I think the station should be held accountable. The DJs probably didn't really and truly understand the risks, the Station shouldn't have allowed this contest. They should have researched it.. At the very least provided medical care. It was stupid but a mistake, and that mistake shouldn't go without consequence on the part of the station.
I think I have to disagree with you on the homicide bit of your vid; I think the radio personnel would be dead ringer candidates for negligent homicide charges. Saying they chose to enter the contest willingly is null, since legally it would have to be proven that they had full, extensive knowledge of what may happen to them as a result of drinking the water, which is nearly impossible to prove, especially now that Mrs. Strange is dead. String the DJ's up, if you ask me.
That's an awesome Wii Video. If you don't have a wii yet, you can get one for free from wii.wantsDOTit(replace DOT with .) If you already have one you should get another, because this comes with 15 free games also.
This is a very limited time offer. You better got get it now.
The radio station is far more responsible than the fraternity. The station had the fraternity case as hindsight, and they did know of it. The key comment from the tapes is, "Maybe we should have researched this." Knowing someone died, then that's a definitive, YES you should have, and it wasn't too late at that point, either. It amounts to, "Gee someone died doing this last month, let's have a bunch of people do this in a contest." Why not just play Russian Roulette?
They were obviously knowledgeable of the effects of drinking too much water, and should have sent Jennifer straight to the hospital. Reports said she left the station crying and in pain; now, what kind of sick twisted people wouldn't take notice of that right away and do something to help her?
Did they even get the freakin Wii damit!!! Alot of radio station DJ's are mindless idiots from out of college. If you're aware of a cause of someone's death why the FREAK would you hold a contest like this?!?
Why should it matter what we think? Your screen name is 'liberalviewer' which suggests you're a liberal, and incapable of contemplating others opinions, ideas or ideals.
You just proved yourself to be a hypocrite sir, by badmouthing someone for having the word "liberal" in their name; thusly, since you think so lowly of liberals you are most likely unwilling to contemplate or accept his own opinions, ideas or ideals. Think before you insult.
I don't think this is a criminal matter but I agree this should be in civil court. Those three children lost their mother and nothing will make up for that, but there should be compensation for this.
figures a fucking white person would die doing some ignorant shit like that! i wish i knew where they buried the bitch so i could piss on her grave lol owned by herself!!! fuck all you whiters kill all whites!!
lmao one less white piece of shit on the planet! you white trash do anything for something free!hey why dont one of you redneck trash take over her empty trailor she has no use for it now lol
I'm sure we have all been guilty of laughing at similar radio shenannigans from our own local radio shows. "It's all fun & games until someone gets hurt," but unfortunelty in this case, dies. If she willingly participated & was not forced into it, then I don't see how the radio show is to blame. Regardless of the comments that only seem mean because of what happened, people would have thought those same comments were hysterical if nothing happened.
Hard to find a form of justice that restores the imbalance created through ignorance and stupidity on both sides. They owe her a life. She owes her children a life. Neither can be made right in the present.
Chances are that this lady was a fan of the show and by laughing at the risks, the dj's (whom she possibly trusted enough to listen to every morning) made them seem less than what they were.
This woman was an employee of the Radiological Associates of Sacramento. I'm curious how, working in the healthcare industry, she would put her life in danger for a toy. In this world, there is always someone dangling "incentive" in front of our noses to do pretty much anything harmful for entertainment value. Not to speak ill of the dead, but how can strangers, ie: the dejays, be expected to value her life and that of her husband and children, when she didn't value her own?
if there was a release form signed, there shouldnt be any criminal punishment. For example, if you go sky diving, you sign a wavier. As an adult they should have known of the bodily harm/risks that they would be putting themselves into. yes, this issue sounds almost like the fraternity issue in chico, except that was Hazing and without consent of the individual.
The radio station knew the risk, and went ahead. Having people sign waivers shouldn't protect the radio from an accidental fatality. Were there medical people on hand? There should be a trial. The mother who perhaps couldn't afford the Wii was probably attempting to win it for her kids.
Someone should go to prison, just like the fraternity case. The DJs knew enough to talk about seeking releases before they started the stunt. They were warned. The potential for danger was discussed. It wouldn't have taken much to do a little research or consult a doctor.
yea ok, did u even listen to the shit? they knew and should be held accountable for anything that happened.. people are so sick in this world yo damn!!!
People need to be responsible for their own actions. Just because a radio station tells you to jump off bridge you don't do it. While the radio dj's should not have been promoting such a contest or laughing at the callers remarks involving death they are not responsible for Ms. Stranges death. When you become an adult you are the only person responsible for your actions. People need to be accountable and stop blaming everyone else for their carelessness.
Of course if you are of normal intelligence (or even just mildly retarded) and are not severely mentally ill (and even then if you are med-compliant) then it is fair to say you are and should primarily responsible for your choices and actions.
But economic need and the exploitation of it, as in this contest, among many other factors, show how bad choices are seldom the result of just one person's bad or weak character.
if someone died by a punch to the head after a boxing match, whos fault would it be? I'd have to say the boxer. everyone would agree there is an inherent risk to boxing and he chose to box. The same is true here, she signed a contract and new the dangers. sad but true
Don't worry the dumb ladies family will win a huge amount of money...but NOBODY will spend anytime in jail. This is sue happy America...the place to make money off your own stupidity.
This lady is the type that would use a BBQ for a heater in her home and die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Duh...I didn't know you shouldn't do that?!
THE DJs WERE CONDUCTING THE CONTEST AS THEY WERE TOLD. THEY SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED. THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND PROMOTIONS DIRECTOR ARE TO BLAME. THE OWNER OF THE STATION ULTIMATELY HAS THE FINAL SAY, SO THAT PERSON IS ALSO TO BLAME.
It's not homicide, I agree. In the case of an adult engaging in risky behavior, regardless of who eggs them on, it is the adult's responsibility. But... geeze, LV, don't publically-licensed media have a responsibility to the public as a condition of their license? Those are *our* airwaves, not theirs. I'd hit that station with a big FCC penalty, perhaps confiscate their license, for misuse of public spectrum.
bottom line these people should pay. they knew enough information and went ahead without any care, no doctors on site, nothing. jail time, radio station pays huge for this, done.
Bottom line...if this ever turned into a criminal case>>>No jury in the world would ever convict this morning crew or the station itself of murder of any degree.
Both the lady AND the morning crew eat stupid flakes for breakfast. The morning crew is a threesome of immaturity...the lady>>she never grew up...I bet she never finished high school and was a lifelong pothead.
They wouldn't? Why not? Because the jurors are as stupid as you or the dj's? Who the fuck are you to judge this woman you never knew ? Get fucked HARD !
Individuals are responsible for there OWN actions. At her age...she should have more brains then get to get involved in a immature radio show. I judge by what I see and hear dumbass... I live in Sacramento and have seen many stories about this. How smart can she be to do what she did?
They are responsible for there own actions? The radio station never informed the contestants of the dangers of the what they were doing. THEY are responsible for that! You're too much of a dumbass yourself to understand just what the fuck "personal responsibility" actually is!
Actually she worked as a medical assistance. Thus contribute more too the world than a little creep like your self ever will! There's no evidence that she was "a life long pot head" so crawl back in your hole!
I understand the concept of self-responsibility. Perhaps you can tell me how the radio station isn't responsible for putting on the contest to begin with again.
If I were on a jury for a criminal case against these talkshow hosts (if it ever made it to a criminal case), at the very most I would ask for a reckless endangerment ruling. The radio was reckless by starting this contest in the first place, and even if they didn't expect anyone to be serious hurt or killed, they knew it was possible from the case they discussed on their show! I would sue the hell out of them for damages, but what does that accomplish? Money heals nothing, it can only numb.
Ever since I heard of the tragic death, I've been feeling a mix of sadness for the family of Jennifer Strange and a feeling of anger for the Morning Rave DJs who laughed off the warning calls... I honestly think they COULD be put in prison for this... No matter what happens, you know they'll have to live with the horrific knowledge of what they've done for the rest of their lives
this is a hardy, first there is the issue that he/she does it without coarcion(like in the fraternity case i think)and the part of the release form was that true right???. THe other day i had endoscopy exam and they made me firm this release form also, i tell you i didnt take the decision lightly, and it was a good hospital and i knew teh doctor well, in the same way why anybody would sign a release form for some stupid contest made by some DJs u dont even know??.
I have watched many of your videos and agree with most of them. However, I am thrown off by your intelligent dialogue in video versus using "chatspeak" comments. Why do you do this? I think the comments harm your credibility.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a pet peeve and it annoys me. Why don't you use full English in comments?
My chatspeak is mainly because of the 500 character limit on Youtube comments. Its not chatspeak that annoys me most, its the lack of html, links, or even urls. YouTube has a filter that stops u from posting web addresses.
Ive suggested to YT publicly and privately that they put some kind of message board here, buy YT has many probs and limited time
Until I get more space, expect chatspeak, sorry :-(
I don't know enough about the legal aspect of this situation to comment logically about it. So, I will speak on emotion. The radio has to be charged with something in this case. Even if its a civil matter. I cant imagine the radio station can go without no punishment
Don't underestimate the importance of emotional response. That's how many jurors make their initial decision too. And, its nearly impossible to get a juror to reach a verdict that doesnt "feel" right, tho I think most jurors think as well as feel
That's y I said in my vid that I thought a jury might convict someone of a crime here even tho I thought it shouldnt be
IDAs should NOT charge a case tho just because a jury may well convict
She was an adult that chose to enter this contest knowing the risks. Or at least signing a waiver you should be aware there are/is some kind of risk. Everyone is too sue happy these days.
I would say these DJ's will in big trouble just due to the fact they were warned ahead of time of this. Although I'm sure this was not intentional, just due to negligence/ignorance. What a way to lose your mother over some stupid video console. Although I'm not sure if the waiver she signed keeps the DJ's out of trouble.
you really made a different perspective of the news, which can never be seen in america's corporate media. I really applaud your skills. You are the next Michael Moore.
I'd say give the organizers of this event the strongest penalty under the law, plus don't allow them to ever continue their jobs again. These people are worse than normal criminals because they're actually laughing about the whole thing like it doesn't matter that someone could die.
I think that where the lady did take par to the game willingly, she should have been informed of the risks involved by the Djs. Their lack of research and sloppyness did cause a death, and the radio, and themselves should be liable. Yet involontary manslauther is going a bit far.
well, there's something to that, 'case as a californian at the time of the frat case, it was ALL over the news. The lady who croaked should have done her due diligence for a f**king game...it's just tragic and pisses me off!
The contest would definitely be "a lawful act which might produce death", so the question is whether it was done without "due caution and circumspection". So, the real question is what precautions did the contest organizers take, and what level of precaution would have been reasonable? For example, did they bring in a medical professional to supervise the contest? Was the woman pressured to keep "holding it in" even after noting symptoms that should have indicated something was badly wrong?
First, thanks for sharing this video. It's very thought provoking. The DJ's words are poiniant in hind-sight....of course, they never expected anything tragic to happen, so I guess they shouldn't be blamed. But, it's a stupid thing to do nonetheless. Thoughts go to the family concerned. K
First of all, The radio djs were, however crude, not responsible for ANY of this. They do not write the show or make the ideas. Secondly Wouldnt it suck to say,"my mom died from drinking too much water in a radio contest to win a nintendo wii..."
But are they really the ones who committed the relevant act? Like I said, they convinced an adult to CHOOSE to do "a lawful act which might produce death...without due caution and circumspection"
The "Lawful act" I would refer to would be the contest itself, which did indeed produce a death, apparently due to lack of "due caution and circumspection" on the part of the organizers.
to put it another way, you are arguing that their convincing strange to do this stunt was a lawful act. But as a lawful act, it falls within the scope of your quote, it did result in her death, and it appears there was a lack of due caution, circumspection
inasmuch as the lady's own actions were likewise a necessary cause, perhaps she could be named as a codefendent. You cant get more fair then that, unless the rest of those faggots were already as dead as she is
Her CHOICE was not just a necessary cauase, but a more PROXIMATE cause. I dont know your legal knnowledge, but there are several legal concepts involved that are hard to explain in 500 char blocks. One is "Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention," with the relevant question being whether it was "INFORMED."
See tinyurl(.)com/yvmvqy
And, listening to them saying she would throw up and not die, the DJs were no more informed than she was
My legal knowledge is nil, it is interesting to hear a lawyers take on it. From the recordings Ive heard it sounds like the DJs had heard of at least one case of death by water intoxication, and thought they had taken sufficient precautions by getting the contestants to sign some kind of Fucking Release.
Which make the DJs NEGLIGENT (not reckless 4 other reasons) But if SHE was also negligent that can also be a factor in PROXIMATE cause (according to my copy of Dresslers tho I havent researched it in Calif specific)
Basically, in civil court its ok to split the blame and the damages, but to go to prison 4 homicide u REALLY need to be the 1 to blame I think
(remove the parentheses in the tinyurl I provided before pasting in browser)
Right. So are the victims of CON ARTISTS responsible for NOT KNOWING BETTER THAN TO BE FUCKING ROBBED?
Sorry to get so vehement btw. I really appreciate your putting your knowledge out here (I assume you really are a lawyer of course) Rest assured I would almost certainly never help to round up the whole tribe of lawyers at gunpoint and summarily incinerate them live in huge pits full of gasoline, w/o a really good reason.
I think it is manslaughter of some type. Who was running the contest? When you do run one, you have some responsibility. Even if it was her "choice", what was she choosing? Did they tell the woman that drinking too much water could make her die? Even so, it is reckless disregard because the assumption is that one isn't really risking death if the radio station is letting them do it.
The DJs themselves illustrate the way some people, especially those in the media, deny, rationalize the risk or the wrongs of certain things. (the contest was too important to stop even after they were given info that it was life threatening) MSM is doing this kind of thing all the time.
But we don't know if this woman knew anything about water intoxication. Seems to me the DJs were more informed than she was, heck they were warned well before she died. A quick google search at the time of the warning would have showed them that they just needed to get her to eat salty foods as a precaution. Instead they made jokes that they hope the waiver was signed. Someone there should have had enough sense to research this after the warning at least.
It also sounds from the tapes like they werent really aware and disregarding a substantial risk more, again, that they didnt think it was substantial and it may not be
Negligence yes, recklessness, not so sure
Remember, in a criminal case, every element INCLUDING INTENT must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
I said I practiced CRIMINAL law not NOT CIVIL law and I quoted California Penal Code 192(b) about 3 minutes into my video. Gross negligence is applicable to vehicular cases in 192(c) not 192(b)
LV, you're a criminal lawyer and yet, in a comment above state that "every element INCLUDING INTENT must be proved..." and yet, CA PC 192 deals most specifically with deaths that occur without intent. Care to explain that?
Hmmm, sorry LV, I'm now beginning to question your credentials. "in a criminal case, every element INCLUDING INTENT, must be proved..." Umm, we're discussing INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, a law soley and quite specifically about death sans intent, yet still a criminal act. And you're a lawyer?
I guess it was the part where you concisely said, "INCLUDING INTENT" that lead me to believe you meant INTENT. I guess had the sentence read "INCLUDING LEVELS OF INTENT" or "DEGRESS OF INTENT" or even "INCLUDING INTENT OR LACK THEREOF" I would have understood you to mean levels of intent or lack thereof.
Now u are quoting me out of context. U are quoting from a comment in which I was arguing that the elements of recklessness or negligence(as kinds of intent) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case and I even included a link to the page at tinyurl(.)com/35rcgh
I'm sorry, again, if I was not clear enuf 4 u, but, if u go back and read the whole sentence or, better yet, the whole comment, you'll see I am right.
Wow, you just made a negative generalizaton. That wasn't very open minded of ya. You were a public defender, you were paid to doubt and attempt to discredit those who enforce the laws and try to keep this land civil; it was your job to put criminals back on the street to do more harm. I don't debate with folks who make sweeping negative generalizations, it shows your mind has already determined what I'm like even though you know not one single thing about be.
I did NOT mean it must be done intentIONALLY. I was talking LEVELS of intent, meaning NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, KNOWING, PURPOSEFUL as LEVELS of intent that must be proved depending on the crime (except strict liability)
I also specifically said its hard to put legal concepts in 500 char msgs. Read EVERYTHING I wrote already and your questions r answered
Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing committed without malice. Penal Code § 192(b) defines two classes of involuntary manslaughter:(1) a killing "in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony;" or (2) a killing "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection."
The first category is sometimes referred to as misdemeanor-manslaughter; THE SECOND IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS MANSLAUGHTER DUE TO criminal (OR GROSS) NEGLIENCE"
"involuntary manslaughter (Penal Code Section 192(b)). Generally stated, involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing resulting from a reckless act that had a high risk of death or great bodily injury. More than ordinary carelessness is required." argue with her.
LV I want to know how a criminal lawyer, as you proclaim to have been, can make such a statement that in a criminal case intent must be proved when the state of CA has laws on manslaughter to deal with deaths that did not involve malice or intent. Really looking forward to your answer on this one.
while LiberalView debates from the Public Defenders Office, Calif. Penal Code 192(b)2 isn't 192(a) which requires "intent".. 192(b)2 is w/out intent.
Frankly, MURDER 1 is VERY POSSIBLE.
Noone denied her deathbed statement the DJ's told her she be ok. The DJ's practice medicine without a license.. committing malpractice. Take a plea for 192(b)2. 2,3, 7 yrs prison.
You're talking in circles and attempting to make it more complicated than it is. 192(b) states nothing about intent; it speaks most clearly about death during a lawful event, but without due caution or circumspect. The stuff you keep referring to applies to vehicular manslaughter, which is defined in 192(c).
In the comment in which I said intent must be proved I was actually pointing out that RECKLESSNESS would have to proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case in which that was an element
Could u consider the possibility I know what Im talking about?
I certainly don't know what you mean. Where was the radio station's due caution and circumpection? Certainly wasn't found in the words of the DJs. In fact, quite the opposite - they admitted they should have done some research.
I am also a civil lawyer and as far as civil liability goes, it depends on the wording of the release the woman signed (assuming she could read and comprehend it).
Criminal charges? Don't think so. Stupid is as stupid does.
I did see a news report in which another contestant said the releases they signed were PUBLICITY releases that said absolutely nothing about health risks. I'm not sure even a generally worded health release should really protect against liability in this case, but I'm not a civil lawyer
LMAO, 98% water?
malevolomaniac 1 month ago
I realize this is moot at this point but hear me out for a second:
Regarding responsibilty. The radio station should be solely responsible for damages caused as a result of their contest. The Dj's were just doing their jobs so they cannot be held accountable.
I actually watched another video on the subject and it stated the waivers the people were made to sign were only privacy waivers and had nothing to do with health.The family can seek damages against the radio station and probably win.
Quickiezzz 8 months ago
I believe they shAre the blame. If she signed a waiver she knew what she was doing, but they should definately have taken the warnings and should have had medical attention there. It was really a stupid conteat in the first place. And it puts more pressure on the djs thAt she had a family. They definately need to pay. But prison? I dont believe so.
ccluvzdolphinz 9 months ago
"Your body is 98% water. Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"
Hahahaha oh wow. What a cockwit. These are some horrible times we live in.
LolitaSupreme 11 months ago
here is the skinny if I join the army I sign a contract that says hey are you aware that you might get fuckin shot I say yes. she went to radio show and signed a contract / waiver that says you may get hurt doing this. she as a adult must then say to her self do I want this she said yes and died case closed its her fault
benandtinagilbert 11 months ago
i think that lady who died is the same lady i saw at target two weeks ago and im not kidding this is kinda freaking me out and no guys she wasnt a ghost because she was holding a shopping bag and didnt drop it! ghosts can throw things but not hold them i think the lady faked death and is living somewhere in florida!
10bluedude1 11 months ago
I wonder if they informed their contestants of the case where someone had died? If they didn't I would say they are much more to blame...
AnonKarl1 1 year ago
your body is 70 percent water the fucking retard
mastercheifishere 1 year ago
jayde donovan aka trish the dish deserves to fucking DIE!
sylicone221 1 year ago
If that mother wanted to get a nintendo wii for her kids she should have bought them won. That mother should have quite when she couldn't handle drinking any more water. The radio station isn't to blame all the way it's also part of the blame on the mother, she choose to drink that much water.
Wolfbloodvamps171 1 year ago
this makes my city look horrible
mpattison10 1 year ago
No you're right they shouldn't be put to prison. But fuck me, it's become quite clear that those fuck tards are unfit for hosting anything, even a fucking radio show
Hreinn91 1 year ago
that female DJ1 is in my towns radio station. i hate her...she is a bimbo..
sadie0087777 1 year ago
@sadie0087777 Call in and ask her "arent you that DJ that killed that chick in Sacremento?"
mattigus 10 months ago
im disgusted ! But she is to some blame as well! Nobody forced her to drink that much to win something? What if they said they would give her cookies for life if she took 1kg of coke over a period of one week or something. STUPID!
lslinger 1 year ago
As far as the legal side of this is concerned, I support the DJs. They shouldn't be prosecuted for what someone else did to themselves. The contestants signed releases, and one drank herself to death. Thats terrible, but it would be an injustice to put these people away for something so stupid. What he said was morally wrong. "They signed releases, we're not responsible, okay?", but what he said was true
6soup6nazi6 1 year ago
Americans Citizens without access to a fortune 100 companies treasury have been raped by the supreme court
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
Your body is not 98% water, lol. its only 65% water.
seinfeldfan7898 2 years ago
thsoe stupid DJs needs to be in jail for acting so stupid
DJTEVAdotCOM 2 years ago
thought she signed the paper , she wasn't ware of the danger and so didn't those idiot Djs though there were numerous warning from the female DJ and a nurse calling in about the danger.....the station gets what they deserve....even 16 mil is not gonna bring her back.
DJTEVAdotCOM 2 years ago
the radio was encouraging people to perform an act that had a very real chance of death, obviously. thats like handing a guy a weapon who has never seen a gun and encouraging to put it to their head and pull the trigger. in my mind, at least.
BooMBooMitsMayhem 2 years ago
A person that signs consent and is willing to something that could cause detrimental health to their body.....well I think that she was ignorant and stupid to continue when she felt health issues. I think it was an act of greed and I do not believe the radio station was accountable. BTW the new called greiving widower had a new girlfriend within a matter of a couple of months......Like he really cared about his wife or his lovelife.
Jbalangue 2 years ago
@Jbalangue FUCK THAT DOUCHEBAG!!! wish he would have died!
sylicone221 1 year ago
Screw all of u!!! That stupaid bitch had it coming because shes stupaid enough to do that so its not the radio's fault for doing that
When u Place a bucket of poison on the floor , is it ure fault if somone drinks it??? no
alipdf 2 years ago
I think you need to stop being so ignorant. She is deceased and you insist on calling her a bitch? This is a tragedy and I think you will one day pay for your sinful ways. May godbless you.
akimbler2906 2 years ago
water intoxication is very rare and she signed a waiver. It was her fault
VIDEOTIMEMACHINE 2 years ago
The recording shows the DJ's were at least vaguely aware of water intoxication, they were warned about it during the show, and it's not hard to look up. The only requirement for manslaughter that it could reasonably be argued they did not meet was whether they were the ones who killed her, it was almost entirely their fault, but the mother should have known the risk. But if they led her to believe that her health was being protected/not in danger, I would probably vote guilty as a juror.
number154 2 years ago
For the record, you can call me elitist, but any adult who doesn't know water intoxication is possible is embarrassingly ignorant. I have no medical background and have known about it since grade school.
number154 2 years ago
I believe humans are moronic apes, and deserve death when they act stupid.
Next?
MrBruceWillis 2 years ago
I remember listening to the audio recording on CP24 those years ago.
I don't think just because someone signs a waiver that the people in charge can't get in trouble.. Seriously.. common sense..
Nobody REALLY pays attention to the bad things that can happen especially when WINNING something [regardless of price] is involved.. She wanted to win her kids the Wii b/c she couldn't afford to buy them one.. Very sad.
nerdofalltrades 2 years ago
I believe that the this kind of contest should be banned or at least remind everyone about water intoxication.
Anyways, one of the DJs did mention researching about the case of the college student and should have not make fun of the warning the woman gave, so I say it is a possible yes. However, the contestants did sign a waver (which I am sure they mentions some dangers of the contest; hoping it included water intoxication), so it means that they at least knew about the dangers.
asanchez1572 2 years ago
I Feel The Radio Station & All Radio Stations Make, Have Made, And Will Continue To Make Very Poor Decisions, As Long As They Know That There Is A Market For The Stupidity They Peddle. I Think This Should Be A Reminder To Anyone In The Future, If A Radio Station Is Asking You To Sign A Waver ??? You Shouldnt Sign Unless Your Fully Aware Of all The Dangers That Are Associated With The Stunt You Are About To Attempt !!! Beware Radio Stations Are Out For Themselves And The Ratings Thats All......
rubberduckey76 2 years ago
What a stupid women! If she did not know the dangers from general knowledge then the reflex to throw up that she fought should have been enough to tell her to stop!
SodaLovingScaly 2 years ago
"without due caution". The Management and the DJ's are to blame. They should have properly researched what they were getting into. When someone enters a contest, especially one sponsered by such a public entity, they are assuming that it is safe. If they were warned before the contest that there was a risk of death, I thain that many of them would not have participated. If they were warned, but still participated, I think the blame should be shared.
xxLextalionesxx 3 years ago 2
Also the use of somw jargon should have be "dumb down" so any person could read and understand the consent form
DaisyzAngelz 1 year ago
I can't remember the exact legal terms, but negligence & indifference are stuck in my mind.
LikaLaruku 3 years ago
them stupid ass radio ppl thank dat shit is okay...i can't find nothin about that funny..stupid bitches
cjblood380 3 years ago
The DJs aren't biology students; the average person does think its impossible to die from water poisoning. However, the managers of the station knew the risks very well. They should be the ones held accountable, not the DJs.
FixedFantasy89 3 years ago
so what if they're not biology students... that's what google is for. Everyone has access to a plethura of information (via internet), so every single person associated with that contest should have googled "effects of too much water." It's always a series of unfortunate events that leads to a catastrophe. My heart goes out to Jennifer's family.
gth216a 3 years ago
@FixedFantasy89 jayde donovan, that bitch trish the dish.....should DIE for what she did
sylicone221 1 year ago
first of all, they all deserve a huge punch to the face for being such idiots and careless, and 2nd.. sure why not throw them in jail? they didnt care if a contestanant would die or not...
NationalPro 3 years ago
it is a difficult case. The contestants need to take full responsibility for reviewing and acknowledging the risks involved with any form of contest. The contest promoters need to be selecting contests which limit the harm that could be brought upon a contestant. Now, if a contestant cannot or are unable to judge for themselves what can be harmful to them, then there needs to be a policy in place to protect this being.
deeliciousplum 3 years ago
The Contests should be over viewed by the higher ups at the radio station, it could have been avoided. =/
Katzblager 3 years ago
There's no way that the DJ's could have known about the high risks. The contestants didn't know about it. I never even heard of it before this happened and I've worked in IT for 10 years.
And besides, the DJ's didn't set up the contest. Typically, they have zero input.
Asherdude 3 years ago 2
The station should be held accountable for neglegent homicide. If it can be proven that there was general knowledge that death can be a possiable outcome and the contest was carried out with the acceptance of this knowledge. The DJ also stated that "we are aware of that" in terms of water intoxication potentially causing death.
MouthforWar78 3 years ago
lol totally the radio stations fault. theyr proly 2 poor to buy a wii themselves so that would be too tempting to drink all that water
smallvllleowns 3 years ago
i say they both should go to jail.
somerdaleboy 3 years ago
GUILTY!!!!!!
VIKING33NY 4 years ago
I think the station should be held accountable. The DJs probably didn't really and truly understand the risks, the Station shouldn't have allowed this contest. They should have researched it.. At the very least provided medical care. It was stupid but a mistake, and that mistake shouldn't go without consequence on the part of the station.
Wildflowers01 4 years ago
I think I have to disagree with you on the homicide bit of your vid; I think the radio personnel would be dead ringer candidates for negligent homicide charges. Saying they chose to enter the contest willingly is null, since legally it would have to be proven that they had full, extensive knowledge of what may happen to them as a result of drinking the water, which is nearly impossible to prove, especially now that Mrs. Strange is dead. String the DJ's up, if you ask me.
Pillowchii 4 years ago
Is that Joe Rogan?
Niops 4 years ago
o_O Bwuh?
Pillowchii 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
That's an awesome Wii Video. If you don't have a wii yet, you can get one for free from wii.wantsDOTit(replace DOT with .) If you already have one you should get another, because this comes with 15 free games also.
This is a very limited time offer. You better got get it now.
wii.wantsDOTit(replace DOT with .)
Kanustep6338 4 years ago
The radio station is far more responsible than the fraternity. The station had the fraternity case as hindsight, and they did know of it. The key comment from the tapes is, "Maybe we should have researched this." Knowing someone died, then that's a definitive, YES you should have, and it wasn't too late at that point, either. It amounts to, "Gee someone died doing this last month, let's have a bunch of people do this in a contest." Why not just play Russian Roulette?
tobiasaurusrex 4 years ago
They were obviously knowledgeable of the effects of drinking too much water, and should have sent Jennifer straight to the hospital. Reports said she left the station crying and in pain; now, what kind of sick twisted people wouldn't take notice of that right away and do something to help her?
Pillowchii 4 years ago
98% water in our body? tat dj thinks we're jellyfish or something?
vibravibra 4 years ago
i wonder how those kids feel. very uberly guilty?
ReizaBimu 4 years ago
who to blame? i really think these ppl who host it has to research about things before they make someone do it.
ReizaBimu 4 years ago
Did they even get the freakin Wii damit!!! Alot of radio station DJ's are mindless idiots from out of college. If you're aware of a cause of someone's death why the FREAK would you hold a contest like this?!?
Darkviron 4 years ago
Why should it matter what we think? Your screen name is 'liberalviewer' which suggests you're a liberal, and incapable of contemplating others opinions, ideas or ideals.
muskypuckers 4 years ago
You just proved yourself to be a hypocrite sir, by badmouthing someone for having the word "liberal" in their name; thusly, since you think so lowly of liberals you are most likely unwilling to contemplate or accept his own opinions, ideas or ideals. Think before you insult.
Pillowchii 4 years ago
Those fucking smug sons of bitching DJ's. Dirty, stupid assholes.
muskypuckers 4 years ago 2
I don't think this is a criminal matter but I agree this should be in civil court. Those three children lost their mother and nothing will make up for that, but there should be compensation for this.
TheNewYorkFloridian 4 years ago
figures a fucking white person would die doing some ignorant shit like that! i wish i knew where they buried the bitch so i could piss on her grave lol owned by herself!!! fuck all you whiters kill all whites!!
jonathan321987 4 years ago
Oh, just overdose and die, already. I swear, bigots of any kind need to be round up and treated with a bullet to the back of the head.
Pillowchii 4 years ago
lmao one less white piece of shit on the planet! you white trash do anything for something free!hey why dont one of you redneck trash take over her empty trailor she has no use for it now lol
jonathan321987 4 years ago
I'm sure we have all been guilty of laughing at similar radio shenannigans from our own local radio shows. "It's all fun & games until someone gets hurt," but unfortunelty in this case, dies. If she willingly participated & was not forced into it, then I don't see how the radio show is to blame. Regardless of the comments that only seem mean because of what happened, people would have thought those same comments were hysterical if nothing happened.
nyprg515 4 years ago
Hard to find a form of justice that restores the imbalance created through ignorance and stupidity on both sides. They owe her a life. She owes her children a life. Neither can be made right in the present.
peterwilson69 4 years ago
Chances are that this lady was a fan of the show and by laughing at the risks, the dj's (whom she possibly trusted enough to listen to every morning) made them seem less than what they were.
LyndseyTS 4 years ago
Obviously Nintendo is to blame for creating such a desirable prize.
Darkhawk1234 4 years ago
This woman was an employee of the Radiological Associates of Sacramento. I'm curious how, working in the healthcare industry, she would put her life in danger for a toy. In this world, there is always someone dangling "incentive" in front of our noses to do pretty much anything harmful for entertainment value. Not to speak ill of the dead, but how can strangers, ie: the dejays, be expected to value her life and that of her husband and children, when she didn't value her own?
fmnstbear 4 years ago
jack mccoy on law and order would not let this sit... someone has to go down
jmcdougal05 4 years ago
Wouldn't it be awesome is they ripped an L&O episode from this?
Angrynight 4 years ago
if there was a release form signed, there shouldnt be any criminal punishment. For example, if you go sky diving, you sign a wavier. As an adult they should have known of the bodily harm/risks that they would be putting themselves into. yes, this issue sounds almost like the fraternity issue in chico, except that was Hazing and without consent of the individual.
In2gmdstoday 4 years ago
The radio station knew the risk, and went ahead. Having people sign waivers shouldn't protect the radio from an accidental fatality. Were there medical people on hand? There should be a trial. The mother who perhaps couldn't afford the Wii was probably attempting to win it for her kids.
Avidsh21 4 years ago
the radio knew the danger.... fuck that charge them
lexbubble010 4 years ago
Of course a Wii is not a necessity, but the participation of a mother of three in the contest brings up other ways people get influenced.
Kids and all of us get marketed to more and more agressively. Kids, even basically good kids, are hard to say no to.
gloryoski 4 years ago
Someone should go to prison, just like the fraternity case. The DJs knew enough to talk about seeking releases before they started the stunt. They were warned. The potential for danger was discussed. It wouldn't have taken much to do a little research or consult a doctor.
bumboodc 4 years ago
they didn't know...manslaughter and a wrongful death civil suit
turnerj41 4 years ago
yea ok, did u even listen to the shit? they knew and should be held accountable for anything that happened.. people are so sick in this world yo damn!!!
lexbubble010 4 years ago
People need to be responsible for their own actions. Just because a radio station tells you to jump off bridge you don't do it. While the radio dj's should not have been promoting such a contest or laughing at the callers remarks involving death they are not responsible for Ms. Stranges death. When you become an adult you are the only person responsible for your actions. People need to be accountable and stop blaming everyone else for their carelessness.
staley1982 5 years ago
Of course if you are of normal intelligence (or even just mildly retarded) and are not severely mentally ill (and even then if you are med-compliant) then it is fair to say you are and should primarily responsible for your choices and actions.
But economic need and the exploitation of it, as in this contest, among many other factors, show how bad choices are seldom the result of just one person's bad or weak character.
ldom about just the person who made them.
gloryoski 4 years ago
if someone died by a punch to the head after a boxing match, whos fault would it be? I'd have to say the boxer. everyone would agree there is an inherent risk to boxing and he chose to box. The same is true here, she signed a contract and new the dangers. sad but true
roryallen1 5 years ago
No, she didn't know the dangers. Neither did the radio station .
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
Don't worry the dumb ladies family will win a huge amount of money...but NOBODY will spend anytime in jail. This is sue happy America...the place to make money off your own stupidity.
This lady is the type that would use a BBQ for a heater in her home and die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Duh...I didn't know you shouldn't do that?!
Spectres 5 years ago
You sure of that, cunt? I think the dj's might spend some time in jail. By the way enjoy that demon dick up your ass in the lake of fire!
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
THE DJs WERE CONDUCTING THE CONTEST AS THEY WERE TOLD. THEY SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED. THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR AND PROMOTIONS DIRECTOR ARE TO BLAME. THE OWNER OF THE STATION ULTIMATELY HAS THE FINAL SAY, SO THAT PERSON IS ALSO TO BLAME.
mysteriousperson69 5 years ago
i read about this in the bee and i just thought what a horrible and stupid unnecessary reason to die....
chicelias 5 years ago
It's not homicide, I agree. In the case of an adult engaging in risky behavior, regardless of who eggs them on, it is the adult's responsibility. But... geeze, LV, don't publically-licensed media have a responsibility to the public as a condition of their license? Those are *our* airwaves, not theirs. I'd hit that station with a big FCC penalty, perhaps confiscate their license, for misuse of public spectrum.
Urgelt 5 years ago
bottom line these people should pay. they knew enough information and went ahead without any care, no doctors on site, nothing. jail time, radio station pays huge for this, done.
DigitalVirus 5 years ago
Bottom line...if this ever turned into a criminal case>>>No jury in the world would ever convict this morning crew or the station itself of murder of any degree.
Both the lady AND the morning crew eat stupid flakes for breakfast. The morning crew is a threesome of immaturity...the lady>>she never grew up...I bet she never finished high school and was a lifelong pothead.
Spectres 5 years ago
They wouldn't? Why not? Because the jurors are as stupid as you or the dj's? Who the fuck are you to judge this woman you never knew ? Get fucked HARD !
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
Individuals are responsible for there OWN actions. At her age...she should have more brains then get to get involved in a immature radio show. I judge by what I see and hear dumbass... I live in Sacramento and have seen many stories about this. How smart can she be to do what she did?
You need to grow up yourself fucktard.
Spectres 5 years ago
They are responsible for there own actions? The radio station never informed the contestants of the dangers of the what they were doing. THEY are responsible for that! You're too much of a dumbass yourself to understand just what the fuck "personal responsibility" actually is!
Suck my fucking dick!
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
Actually she worked as a medical assistance. Thus contribute more too the world than a little creep like your self ever will! There's no evidence that she was "a life long pot head" so crawl back in your hole!
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
If you need someone to tell you that drinking two gallons of water is dangerous....then you're a bigger retard then I imagined.
Spectres 5 years ago
I hope hell is fun for you!
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
I hope you will one day understand the concept of self-responsibility.
Spectres 5 years ago
I understand the concept of self-responsibility. Perhaps you can tell me how the radio station isn't responsible for putting on the contest to begin with again.
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
If I were on a jury for a criminal case against these talkshow hosts (if it ever made it to a criminal case), at the very most I would ask for a reckless endangerment ruling. The radio was reckless by starting this contest in the first place, and even if they didn't expect anyone to be serious hurt or killed, they knew it was possible from the case they discussed on their show! I would sue the hell out of them for damages, but what does that accomplish? Money heals nothing, it can only numb.
bernlin2000 5 years ago
This also makes me wonder if i tell a guy "hey you should try heroin", and then he does...am i responsable if he becomes an addict?.
Where do we drew the line?, its like taking away all the responsability of judgement off adults.
In any case i hope that the radio station gives money to the family but am not sure about the criminal charges.
kulgan18 5 years ago
Well, if the radio station said "have some heroin " then they would be guilty of selling drugs to that person. So your analogy is flawed.
5oAvQj3 5 years ago
Ever since I heard of the tragic death, I've been feeling a mix of sadness for the family of Jennifer Strange and a feeling of anger for the Morning Rave DJs who laughed off the warning calls... I honestly think they COULD be put in prison for this... No matter what happens, you know they'll have to live with the horrific knowledge of what they've done for the rest of their lives
MeowthRocket 5 years ago
this is a hardy, first there is the issue that he/she does it without coarcion(like in the fraternity case i think)and the part of the release form was that true right???. THe other day i had endoscopy exam and they made me firm this release form also, i tell you i didnt take the decision lightly, and it was a good hospital and i knew teh doctor well, in the same way why anybody would sign a release form for some stupid contest made by some DJs u dont even know??.
kulgan18 5 years ago
LiberalViewer,
I have watched many of your videos and agree with most of them. However, I am thrown off by your intelligent dialogue in video versus using "chatspeak" comments. Why do you do this? I think the comments harm your credibility.
This isn't a personal attack, it's just a pet peeve and it annoys me. Why don't you use full English in comments?
happydanceman555 5 years ago
happydance,
My chatspeak is mainly because of the 500 character limit on Youtube comments. Its not chatspeak that annoys me most, its the lack of html, links, or even urls. YouTube has a filter that stops u from posting web addresses.
Ive suggested to YT publicly and privately that they put some kind of message board here, buy YT has many probs and limited time
Until I get more space, expect chatspeak, sorry :-(
Thx 4 feedback :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
PS Chatspeak also makes me hip with the kids ;-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I don't know enough about the legal aspect of this situation to comment logically about it. So, I will speak on emotion. The radio has to be charged with something in this case. Even if its a civil matter. I cant imagine the radio station can go without no punishment
hollyhoodjoe123 5 years ago
hollyhoodjoe,
Don't underestimate the importance of emotional response. That's how many jurors make their initial decision too. And, its nearly impossible to get a juror to reach a verdict that doesnt "feel" right, tho I think most jurors think as well as feel
That's y I said in my vid that I thought a jury might convict someone of a crime here even tho I thought it shouldnt be
IDAs should NOT charge a case tho just because a jury may well convict
Thx 4 your feeling :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Dude, you have the tape(s).. the woman is ON-AIR.
These pseudo-doctors committed "malpractice"
Paraphrasing her words
(THAT HAVE BEEN ON ALL LOS ANGELES NEWS STATIONS)
They said it was the water.. the water would tell my brain to puke. (need I get the quote? Or, shall you?)
1) station manager & FCC RULES
2) "water intoxication" homicide preKnowledge
3) RN Nurse warning
4) Made FACT she'd "puke" when her body had too much
This is a Homicide & station is as guilty.
dentalomental 5 years ago
The whole thing is just awful. An especially sad way for a person to lose their life.
rwsmith29456 5 years ago
She was an adult that chose to enter this contest knowing the risks. Or at least signing a waiver you should be aware there are/is some kind of risk. Everyone is too sue happy these days.
FartherAway420 5 years ago
FartherAway,
Are you that naive of the facts?
The DJ's told her that the water would tell her brain to "puke" it out. They gave her Pseudo-Expert testimony as doctors.
Essentially, her ON-AIR statement they gave her expert assurance was NEVER contradicted.
That is a "death bed confession".
No, she didn't have all the facts.
To say so would be ignorant of fact or a lie.
dentalomental 5 years ago
I would say these DJ's will in big trouble just due to the fact they were warned ahead of time of this. Although I'm sure this was not intentional, just due to negligence/ignorance. What a way to lose your mother over some stupid video console. Although I'm not sure if the waiver she signed keeps the DJ's out of trouble.
Tim17Fan 5 years ago
Dear Liberal Viewer,
you really made a different perspective of the news, which can never be seen in america's corporate media. I really applaud your skills. You are the next Michael Moore.
schizotypicalgay 5 years ago
Sir,
I agree with you..
Liberal Viewer, your recitation as being a Civil (not Criminal) Lawyer stifles debate on a FOX NEWS level.
Chico State Hazing had no "malice" to commit homicide, but it passed the "malice" test.
The DJ HAZED the woman & others with a Chico State objective. No intent to committ a homicide, but confessed death was possible.
Lib. Viewer, what you sign off on is that if you have money, you can kill an American if you have the money for a Civil Case.
dentalomental 5 years ago
In the USA you are never resposible for your own actions. Just sue who is..the American way
Kingwarren 5 years ago
I'd say give the organizers of this event the strongest penalty under the law, plus don't allow them to ever continue their jobs again. These people are worse than normal criminals because they're actually laughing about the whole thing like it doesn't matter that someone could die.
Wantabanana 5 years ago
just cancel the radio show, or fir them. that's better than jail.
frenchcheeky 5 years ago
I think that where the lady did take par to the game willingly, she should have been informed of the risks involved by the Djs. Their lack of research and sloppyness did cause a death, and the radio, and themselves should be liable. Yet involontary manslauther is going a bit far.
frenchcheeky 5 years ago
as a wise man once said" stuiped is as stuiped does."
intrepid213 5 years ago
well, there's something to that, 'case as a californian at the time of the frat case, it was ALL over the news. The lady who croaked should have done her due diligence for a f**king game...it's just tragic and pisses me off!
skinnychef 5 years ago
The contest would definitely be "a lawful act which might produce death", so the question is whether it was done without "due caution and circumspection". So, the real question is what precautions did the contest organizers take, and what level of precaution would have been reasonable? For example, did they bring in a medical professional to supervise the contest? Was the woman pressured to keep "holding it in" even after noting symptoms that should have indicated something was badly wrong?
L33tminion 5 years ago
First, thanks for sharing this video. It's very thought provoking. The DJ's words are poiniant in hind-sight....of course, they never expected anything tragic to happen, so I guess they shouldn't be blamed. But, it's a stupid thing to do nonetheless. Thoughts go to the family concerned. K
kangtheconqueror 5 years ago
First of all, The radio djs were, however crude, not responsible for ANY of this. They do not write the show or make the ideas. Secondly Wouldnt it suck to say,"my mom died from drinking too much water in a radio contest to win a nintendo wii..."
eppinizer 5 years ago
I'm sorry but if you're hosting a show like this, and people tell you it's a dangerous idea, and you laugh at them... you're responsible.
cpnjack 5 years ago
Well, they may have some responsability, but they are not to blame
eppinizer 5 years ago
"...or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death...without due caution and circumspection..."
Yes, by all means these faggots deserver arrest, trial by due process, and if found guilty, a good long spell of prison time...
mranenome 5 years ago
mranemone,
But are they really the ones who committed the relevant act? Like I said, they convinced an adult to CHOOSE to do "a lawful act which might produce death...without due caution and circumspection"
Know what I mean?
Thx 4 your thoughts :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
The "Lawful act" I would refer to would be the contest itself, which did indeed produce a death, apparently due to lack of "due caution and circumspection" on the part of the organizers.
mranenome 5 years ago
to put it another way, you are arguing that their convincing strange to do this stunt was a lawful act. But as a lawful act, it falls within the scope of your quote, it did result in her death, and it appears there was a lack of due caution, circumspection
mranenome 5 years ago
inasmuch as the lady's own actions were likewise a necessary cause, perhaps she could be named as a codefendent. You cant get more fair then that, unless the rest of those faggots were already as dead as she is
mranenome 5 years ago
mranemone,
Her CHOICE was not just a necessary cauase, but a more PROXIMATE cause. I dont know your legal knnowledge, but there are several legal concepts involved that are hard to explain in 500 char blocks. One is "Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention," with the relevant question being whether it was "INFORMED."
See tinyurl(.)com/yvmvqy
And, listening to them saying she would throw up and not die, the DJs were no more informed than she was
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
My legal knowledge is nil, it is interesting to hear a lawyers take on it. From the recordings Ive heard it sounds like the DJs had heard of at least one case of death by water intoxication, and thought they had taken sufficient precautions by getting the contestants to sign some kind of Fucking Release.
mranenome 5 years ago
(cont). which to me makes them sound INFORMED. I am arguing merely on the basis of the logic you throw at me.
I am guessing their only real defense might be the nature of that release.
mranenome 5 years ago
"And, listening to them saying she would throw up and not die, the DJs were no more informed than she was"
I don't think that is necessarily true. We heard the DJ's discuss that this could cause death and they had all heard something about it previously.
lionssmile 5 years ago
MORE:
Which make the DJs NEGLIGENT (not reckless 4 other reasons) But if SHE was also negligent that can also be a factor in PROXIMATE cause (according to my copy of Dresslers tho I havent researched it in Calif specific)
Basically, in civil court its ok to split the blame and the damages, but to go to prison 4 homicide u REALLY need to be the 1 to blame I think
(remove the parentheses in the tinyurl I provided before pasting in browser)
Thx 4 your thoughts :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Right. So are the victims of CON ARTISTS responsible for NOT KNOWING BETTER THAN TO BE FUCKING ROBBED?
Sorry to get so vehement btw. I really appreciate your putting your knowledge out here (I assume you really are a lawyer of course) Rest assured I would almost certainly never help to round up the whole tribe of lawyers at gunpoint and summarily incinerate them live in huge pits full of gasoline, w/o a really good reason.
mranenome 5 years ago
No seriously I appreciate it anytime people with actual knowledge get on these forums and talk, thanks a lot
mranenome 5 years ago
Liberal V.,
They acted as her doctor (her "Life Guard")
Guarranteeing, sure your brain WILL tell her to "puke" the water out AND OVER-Rode a Nurse's warning.
L.Viewer, you stipulate "DJ NEGLIGENT"
California Penal Code 192(b),her unintentional homicide was committed with MORE than gross negligence.
you just stipulated "Involuntary Manslaughter".
dentalomental 5 years ago
I think it is manslaughter of some type. Who was running the contest? When you do run one, you have some responsibility. Even if it was her "choice", what was she choosing? Did they tell the woman that drinking too much water could make her die? Even so, it is reckless disregard because the assumption is that one isn't really risking death if the radio station is letting them do it.
representativepress 5 years ago
The DJs themselves illustrate the way some people, especially those in the media, deny, rationalize the risk or the wrongs of certain things. (the contest was too important to stop even after they were given info that it was life threatening) MSM is doing this kind of thing all the time.
representativepress 5 years ago
representativepress,
The facts Ive seen make negligence look pretty clear, but I'm not so sure about recklessness. There are various definitions, but see
tinyurl(.)com/35rcgh
"recklessness requires proof that the defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he was aware"
Water intoxication death is not very likely I even heard this contest had been done other places b4 (I heard it on talk radio so it may not be true)
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
But we don't know if this woman knew anything about water intoxication. Seems to me the DJs were more informed than she was, heck they were warned well before she died. A quick google search at the time of the warning would have showed them that they just needed to get her to eat salty foods as a precaution. Instead they made jokes that they hope the waiver was signed. Someone there should have had enough sense to research this after the warning at least.
lionssmile 5 years ago
MORE:
It also sounds from the tapes like they werent really aware and disregarding a substantial risk more, again, that they didnt think it was substantial and it may not be
Negligence yes, recklessness, not so sure
Remember, in a criminal case, every element INCLUDING INTENT must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
Thx 4 comments
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Liberal Viewer, you stipulated you are a "Civil" case "lawyer" - not a "Criminal" lawyer.
L.Viewer, you stipulate "DJ NEGLIGENT"
California Penal Code 192(b),her unintentional homicide was committed with MORE than gross negligence.
you just stipulated "Involuntary Manslaughter".
dentalomental 5 years ago
Liberal Viewer, you stipulated you are a "Civil" case "lawyer" - not a "Criminal" lawyer.
L.Viewer, you stipulate "DJ NEGLIGENT"
California Penal Code 192(b),her unintentional homicide was committed with MORE than gross negligence.
you just stipulated "Involuntary Manslaughter".
dentalomental 5 years ago
dentalomental,
I said I practiced CRIMINAL law not NOT CIVIL law and I quoted California Penal Code 192(b) about 3 minutes into my video. Gross negligence is applicable to vehicular cases in 192(c) not 192(b)
Thx 4 your comments :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
LV, you're a criminal lawyer and yet, in a comment above state that "every element INCLUDING INTENT must be proved..." and yet, CA PC 192 deals most specifically with deaths that occur without intent. Care to explain that?
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Hmmm, sorry LV, I'm now beginning to question your credentials. "in a criminal case, every element INCLUDING INTENT, must be proved..." Umm, we're discussing INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, a law soley and quite specifically about death sans intent, yet still a criminal act. And you're a lawyer?
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Michelle,
LOL! Well, I'm not questioning your credentials. U seem 2 jump 2 conclusions like many I remember in law enforcement ;-)
Sorry if I was not clear (YT msgs r limiting), but I did include a URL to a web page which was much more clear at:
tinyurl(.)com/35rcgh
remove parens and paste in browser
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I guess it was the part where you concisely said, "INCLUDING INTENT" that lead me to believe you meant INTENT. I guess had the sentence read "INCLUDING LEVELS OF INTENT" or "DEGRESS OF INTENT" or even "INCLUDING INTENT OR LACK THEREOF" I would have understood you to mean levels of intent or lack thereof.
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Michelle,
Now u are quoting me out of context. U are quoting from a comment in which I was arguing that the elements of recklessness or negligence(as kinds of intent) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case and I even included a link to the page at tinyurl(.)com/35rcgh
I'm sorry, again, if I was not clear enuf 4 u, but, if u go back and read the whole sentence or, better yet, the whole comment, you'll see I am right.
Thx 4 your feedback :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Wow, you just made a negative generalizaton. That wasn't very open minded of ya. You were a public defender, you were paid to doubt and attempt to discredit those who enforce the laws and try to keep this land civil; it was your job to put criminals back on the street to do more harm. I don't debate with folks who make sweeping negative generalizations, it shows your mind has already determined what I'm like even though you know not one single thing about be.
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Michelle,
I know u started off claiming I was "not aware of CA PC 192" when I actually quoted it in my video
I know you falsely accused me of being a fraud and then, when I responded politely and jokingly, YOU claimed to be offended
What else do I need 2 know?
Thx 4 your opinions :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
MORE:
I did NOT mean it must be done intentIONALLY. I was talking LEVELS of intent, meaning NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, KNOWING, PURPOSEFUL as LEVELS of intent that must be proved depending on the crime (except strict liability)
I also specifically said its hard to put legal concepts in 500 char msgs. Read EVERYTHING I wrote already and your questions r answered
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing committed without malice. Penal Code § 192(b) defines two classes of involuntary manslaughter:(1) a killing "in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony;" or (2) a killing "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection."
dentalomental 5 years ago
The first category is sometimes referred to as misdemeanor-manslaughter; THE SECOND IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS MANSLAUGHTER DUE TO criminal (OR GROSS) NEGLIENCE"
dentalomental 5 years ago
SACRAMENTO District Attorney Office Jan Scully
(November 9, 2006) phone number: (916) 874-5907
Special Assistant: Lana Wyant
I quote in Death of Gary Marcy,
"involuntary manslaughter (Penal Code Section 192(b)). Generally stated, involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing resulting from a reckless act that had a high risk of death or great bodily injury. More than ordinary carelessness is required." argue with her.
dentalomental 5 years ago
you are a 'criminal' public defender & in Sacramento County..
How many days does the D. A. have to file?
dentalomental 5 years ago
P.S. - "gross negligence" is valid in Manslaughter (2).
It isn't just for vehicular manslaughter.
(contradicting you above)
dentalomental 5 years ago
dentalomental,
LOL! "SOMETIMES REFERRED TO?" Well, I guess u just proved that one right since that's how u just referred 2 it. And u accuse me of Fox News tactics?
Read the ACTUAL statute at tinyurl(.)com/3mkg9
"Gross negligence" does appear in the statute but not in 192(b). If the legislature wanted to say "gross negligence" in 192(b) why didnt they?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
LV I want to know how a criminal lawyer, as you proclaim to have been, can make such a statement that in a criminal case intent must be proved when the state of CA has laws on manslaughter to deal with deaths that did not involve malice or intent. Really looking forward to your answer on this one.
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Michelle, bingo!
while LiberalView debates from the Public Defenders Office, Calif. Penal Code 192(b)2 isn't 192(a) which requires "intent".. 192(b)2 is w/out intent.
Frankly, MURDER 1 is VERY POSSIBLE.
Noone denied her deathbed statement the DJ's told her she be ok. The DJ's practice medicine without a license.. committing malpractice. Take a plea for 192(b)2. 2,3, 7 yrs prison.
dentalomental 5 years ago
dentalomental,
There is no Calif Penal Code 192(b)2 because 192(b) has no subsections. Read the actual statute yourself at
tinyurl(.)com/3mkg9
And again, to clarfy, LEVELS of intent include: NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, KNOWINGNESS, and PURPOSEFULNESS
MORE:
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
You're talking in circles and attempting to make it more complicated than it is. 192(b) states nothing about intent; it speaks most clearly about death during a lawful event, but without due caution or circumspect. The stuff you keep referring to applies to vehicular manslaughter, which is defined in 192(c).
Michelle5451 5 years ago
MORE:
In the comment in which I said intent must be proved I was actually pointing out that RECKLESSNESS would have to proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case in which that was an element
Could u consider the possibility I know what Im talking about?
Thx 4 your opinions :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
I certainly don't know what you mean. Where was the radio station's due caution and circumpection? Certainly wasn't found in the words of the DJs. In fact, quite the opposite - they admitted they should have done some research.
Michelle5451 5 years ago
Emmis fired 10 people including the Morning Rave crew. A civil lawsuit has been filed and there are at least two investigations ongoing.
dougt02 5 years ago
Boy, I'd be shittin' bricks if I represented the radio station. Or one of the DJs.
sukatra 5 years ago
I am also a civil lawyer and as far as civil liability goes, it depends on the wording of the release the woman signed (assuming she could read and comprehend it).
Criminal charges? Don't think so. Stupid is as stupid does.
rscowboy 5 years ago
rscowboy,
I did see a news report in which another contestant said the releases they signed were PUBLICITY releases that said absolutely nothing about health risks. I'm not sure even a generally worded health release should really protect against liability in this case, but I'm not a civil lawyer
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago
Even if the release protects them against civil liability, it can't give them immunity to criminal prosecution.
JiveDadson 5 years ago
JiveDadson
That part I DID know, having spent several years practicing criminal law. I was talking about civil liability.
I seem to remember that waivers dont even protect against civil negligence, but that was never my area of practice
Thx 4 comment :-)
LiberalViewer 5 years ago