Woman Dies Holding Her Wee for a Wii [Archive]

Dingfod

01-14-2007, 09:29 AM

As I stated here: (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=60089&highlight=water+intoxication#post60089)
Water Intoxication & Hyponatremia (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm)are not to be trifled with.

A woman competing in a radio station contest drinks so much water she dies (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html?strange).

Jennifer Strange, 28, was found dead Friday in her suburban Rancho Cordova home hours after taking part in the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest in which KDND 107.9 promised a Nintendo Wii video game system for the winner.
Contestants were give 8 ounce bottles of water to be consumed every 15 minutes until they either quit drinking water or urinated. After the first contestant dropped out, saying "My bladder couldn't handle it any more." the remaining contestants were given larger bottles of water to consume at those quarter-hour intervals.

They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy. They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk.

I was talking to her and she was a nice lady. She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for her kids.

Dying helps her kids, how?

viscousmemories

01-14-2007, 02:40 PM

Dying helps her kids, how?
It increases their odds of getting a caretaker with a brain?

ChuckF

01-14-2007, 02:43 PM

Wow. That's gonna be a bigass lawsuit.

Shelli

01-14-2007, 02:44 PM

Dying helps her kids, how?
It increases their odds of getting a caretaker with a brain?:laughdie:

Tanda

01-14-2007, 03:28 PM

:bigtears: OMG, that's sad.

Ari

01-14-2007, 05:20 PM

While most people still don't seem to know about water intoxication, the radio station should have.

MonCapitan2002

01-14-2007, 05:48 PM

Dying helps her kids, how?
It increases their odds of getting a caretaker with a brain?
Ooh. That is just harsh.

viscousmemories

01-14-2007, 05:58 PM

Sometimes being unreasonably harsh is the only way to score the joke.

lisarea

01-14-2007, 07:27 PM

Is it really so egregiously ignorant for the woman not to have known that this could kill her?

Apparently, a lot of people knew about the contest. Did anyone bring up this possibility? I mean, all the radio station would have had to do was substitute Gatorade or something for the water at least to mitigate this risk, right? Seems there were probably a lot of people involved in this, many of whom should have known better. Was it really that unforgivably stupid of her to be unaware of the dangers, and/or to assume that the radio station wouldn't sponsor a contest that's likely to be fatal?

Those kids' mother died in horrible pain because she tried to do something nice for them.

JackDog

01-14-2007, 07:38 PM

Is it really so egregiously ignorant for the woman not to have known that this could kill her?
Yes it is.

[S]aid fellow contestant James Ybarra. "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."
[...]
"She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad," said Laura Rios, one of Strange's co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento.
I'm guessing that the radio station made them sign liability wavers explaining that this would be dangerous, and according to the other contestant they were told that this was potentially hazardous to their health. She also worked in the medical profession, so she should've been a little smarter about health-issues than the average Joe.

viscousmemories

01-14-2007, 07:45 PM

Well for the record, I don't think it was egregiously ignorant of her. I wouldn't have thought drinking excessive water could be fatal and (like this woman, apparently) I would've expected the radio station to investigate and inform the contestants of any health risks. I see no reason to assume that the radio station was aware of the danger and had the contestants release them of liability, but even if they did that hardly excuses it.

I just went for the easy joke.

ChuckF

01-14-2007, 07:47 PM

I'm guessing that the radio station made them sign liability wavers explaining that this would be dangerous, and according to the other contestant they were told that this was potentially hazardous to their health.
I wonder if they covered death from water intoxication?
She also worked in the medical profession, so she should've been a little smarter about health-issues than the average Joe.
All the article says is that she had "co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento." What's the source of your knowledge about what field she worked in and what she should have known?

Ari

01-14-2007, 07:47 PM

Jack I disagree, I've never been water intoxicated and thus I wouldn't know what it felt like or how much was too much (unlike say alcohol), although I know it's dangerous many people don't.

Wavers don't cover everything, without a water limit the contest was effectively Satan's price is right, who can get the closest to death without going over.

livius drusus

01-14-2007, 07:55 PM

I only know about water intoxication from seeing a recent HBO Real Sports story on marathon runners who've succumbed to it because they drank from too many water stations along the route.

If pro athletes and marathon organizers don't know about the potentially lethal effect of excessive water, why should this poor lady have known enough to protect herself? Working for radiologists hardly imbues people with special knowledge on Hyponatremia.

lisarea

01-14-2007, 07:56 PM

Is it really so egregiously ignorant for the woman not to have known that this could kill her?
Yes it is.

Maybe we should hunt down and kill all the other contestants as well, then.

It's egregiously ignorant to not know that you shouldn't leave a baby in a hot car. Not knowing that drinking too much water can kill you? Not so much. Particularly since most of the cases I've heard of prior to this primarily blamed ecstasy use, and subsequently downplayed the role of water.

I can't quite bring myself to blame a working mother of three children for missing that.

Mad props to you, though.

I'm guessing that the radio station made them sign liability wavers explaining that this would be dangerous, and according to the other contestant they were told that this was potentially hazardous to their health. She also worked in the medical profession, so she should've been a little smarter about health-issues than the average Joe.

That's a good guess, but I'd like to see the waivers first.

And lots of people work in the healthcare profession in some function. Hell, *I* do sometimes, and I don't know any more than the average Joe does, except about a few very specific topics.

Not everyone in the medical industry has medical training or any generalized medical knowledge.

Ari

01-14-2007, 08:34 PM

Yeah when it comes to things you do everyday I wouldn't expect people to know they can kill you.
I mean breathing too much oxygen can kill you to, yet there are oxygen bars set around the idea that more oxygen is good.

Veritas

01-14-2007, 08:37 PM

I wonder how long we could live without doing a poo?

California Tanker

01-14-2007, 08:42 PM

Shortly after we arrived in Iraq, we suffered a few cases of what we thought were heat casualties. Soldiers basically just keeling over. The Army always stresses 'drink water, drink water, drink water' when it's hot.

We soon figured out that the problem was people drinking water, but not eating anything.

NTM

roastelk

01-14-2007, 10:16 PM

I wonder how long we could live without doing a poo?

well quit eating, and you wont poo after few days. when you die of starvation, that will be how long you live with out doing a poo.

the other option, you can just try hold it in. assuming you can take the pain, youll wind up with impacted colon, and eventually a ruptured colon. Then a few day later you will die of infection. ive heard this is an excrutiatingly painful way to go, a friend of my dads almost did go this way.

feel free to try either way and, be sure to let us know how long you go wihtout taking a poo

The Lone Ranger

01-14-2007, 10:18 PM

I mentioned the danger of hyponatremia in my "Introduction to Human Anatomy and Physiology" articles ...

<pouts>

Cheers,

Michael

pescifish

01-14-2007, 10:33 PM

I know about it from some crime procedural or medical drama on tv. Kids in raves or bars or whatever, dancing all night while pounding down the water. And keeling over from the water poisoning.

"But these were Good Kids™! They would never have been doing drugs or booze!"

I feel badly for the woman and her kids; it's not something I think everyone would know. But I also agree that the radio station should have done the little bit of research that would have pointed out the real dangers of such a contest. :sadcheer:

The Lone Ranger

01-14-2007, 10:49 PM

Water toxicity isn't at all well known, and I've had students express outright disbelief when told that it's possible to die from drinking too much water.

Given that some people drink lots of water in order to lose weight, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people are hospitalized with hyponatremia every year. It's a real problem with marathon runners, and every now and then you hear about some marathoner who drinks too much water during the course of a race and becomes seriously ill or dies.

That water can actually be toxic just isn't something many people would think of, I suppose. Still, I think it was irresponsible of the radio station to hold such a contest without first seeking medical advice regarding the risks involved. [I'm presuming they didn't do so, anyway.]

Cheers,

Michael

Anastasia Beaverhausen

01-15-2007, 12:44 AM

I feel badly for the woman and her kids; it's not something I think everyone would know. But I also agree that the radio station should have done the little bit of research that would have pointed out the real dangers of such a contest. :sadcheer:

Seriously. Where were the station's lawyers?

Shelli

01-15-2007, 01:02 AM

I wonder how long we could live without doing a poo?:crap:

quiet bear

01-15-2007, 01:11 AM

At the risk of sounding like an unfeeling twit..had the thought of telling her kids 'no' ever crossed her mind?

It's really sad. A woman loses her life for a video game.

lisarea

01-15-2007, 01:29 AM

Shelli

01-15-2007, 01:35 AM

Well, I, personally, don't have a hostile reaction to her or her actions. I just think that it was incredibly stupid and if I feel bad for anyone, it's her kids and family that she's left behind.

lisarea

01-15-2007, 01:57 AM

Well, I, personally, don't have a hostile reaction to her or her actions. I just think that it was incredibly stupid and if I feel bad for anyone, it's her kids and family that she's left behind.

I think it's pretty hostile to assume the woman was stupid because she wasn't familiar with the phenomenon. If anyone is stupid, it's the radio station that did the promotion. They were the only ones who were familiar with the full parameters for the contest beforehand.

Ironically, on some other sites, people are saying she's dumb for not knowing that her bladder would explode.

All of which seems to indicate that it the problem is not all that well known or understood.

So I see no reason to assume that she was stupid or a bad parent or anything like that, and it disturbs me that so many people jump to those conclusions.

The most damning thing I have reason to believe about her is that she probably listened to a really shitty radio station.

Shelli

01-15-2007, 02:07 AM

Well, when I say, "incredibly stupid", I'm honestly not being hostile about it. I'm actually just bewildered as to how someone could not realize the potential health hazard of holding one's urine. However, I do concede that it is illogical of me to think that everyone would realize that and I do agree that the radio station should take the blame for this. And again, I do feel for her kids and family that she's left behind. I don't not feel for her because I think she was "stupid". I don't feel for her because she isn't here anymore to feel for. It's her family that's hurting at this point, not her. I'm not being hostile; that's just practical to me.

The Lone Ranger

01-15-2007, 02:09 AM

Ironically, on some other sites, people are saying she's dumb for not knowing that her bladder would explode.

All of which seems to indicate that it the problem is not all that well known or understood.

Really? Sheesh! The things people will believe! For the record, no, your bladder will not explode. When the bladder becomes sufficiently distended, you lose conscious control of the urethral sphincter and it opens -- whether you want it to or not. And so you pee. It's that simple.

But, to reiterate lisarea's point, the dangers of water toxicity are extremely poorly-known, and even many professional athletes die from it (people who certainly should know better, or should have heard about water toxicity from their physicians!). It doesn't seem to occur to people that water in sufficient concentration is toxic any more than it occurs to many people that oxygen in sufficient concentration is toxic (and it is).

I suppose it just isn't "natural" to think of things like water or oxygen as being toxic. (I still think the radio station had an obligation to consult medical professionals before undertaking such a stunt.)

Cheers,

Michael

lisarea

01-15-2007, 02:29 AM

The Lone Ranger

01-15-2007, 02:41 AM

People don't die from holding their urine.* She died from the imbalance caused by effectively diluting her system with water. She likely would have still died even if she'd been urinating freely.

* Many if not most experts, IIRC, say Tycho Brahe didn't die of that, either, just to head that off.

I'm sorry. I probably should have explained more clearly. By the time the urine reaches your bladder, it has already been filtered out of the blood. So holding your urine won't alter the water content of your blood. Holding it, at worst, will eventually result in an embarrassing situation when your urethral sphincter opens and you wet yourself.

That's in the short term. There's some evidence that consistently (like over months or years) holding your urine can damage the kidneys (due to backflow of urine into the ureters and then into the kidneys), but that's not the sort of thing that will kill you, and certainly not if you do it once.

So, it's not an especially good idea to constantly hold it in every time you have to go to the bathroom, until you simply can't hold it any longer. But, certainly, a one-time thing isn't going to be fatal or even harmful.

It's the excess water intake that's dangerous, not the holding of the urine.

Cheers,

Michael

lisarea

01-15-2007, 03:07 AM

I'm sorry. I probably should have explained more clearly. By the time the urine reaches your bladder, it has already been filtered out of the blood. So holding your urine won't alter the water content of your blood.

My bad. That wasn't your fault at all. I saw that somewhere else today and wanted to mention it in just in case, before I discounted that whole aspect. I stuck the caveats in because I didn't know if there was much truth to it or not.

I should've just asked you in the first place.

JackDog

01-15-2007, 03:09 AM

Shelli

01-15-2007, 11:29 AM

Well, when I say, "incredibly stupid", I'm honestly not being hostile about it. I'm actually just bewildered as to how someone could not realize the potential health hazard of holding one's urine.

It's my understanding that MAYBE holding her urine could have slightly exacerbated the problem, but that was not the cause. That's why I said it was ironic that people were calling her stupid for not 'knowing' that.

So your bewilderment is misplaced. People don't die from holding their urine.* She died from the imbalance caused by effectively diluting her system with water. She likely would have still died even if she'd been urinating freely.

* Many if not most experts, IIRC, say Tycho Brahe didn't die of that, either, just to head that off.Either way, I was bewildered that someone would not realize that doing what she did could be a potential health hazard regardless of the exact ramifications. It's just not something I would do. However, as I've previously stated, I also realize that it's illogical to think that everyone would think the same. Also, as previously stated, I do hold the radio station at fault.

Shelli

01-15-2007, 11:47 AM

On another note...

I told my husband about this last night and the first thing he asked was, "Did her kids get the Wii?" :stwitch:

Now, while I certainly don't hold hostility toward her, I did burst out laughing at that.. mainly because it wasn't what I expected to hear. :lol:

Dingfod

01-15-2007, 03:24 PM

At the risk of sounding like an unfeeling twit..had the thought of telling her kids 'no' ever crossed her mind?

It's really sad. A woman loses her life for a video game.She is not the first one to put their life on the line for a video game. (http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/4661551.html)

ceptimus

01-15-2007, 04:50 PM

I'm assuming that she parched herself in the run-up to the contest. I would have done, if I were entering a water drinking contest, in the (perhaps wrong) belief that starting off dehydrated would allow me to consume more water.

I agree the radio station was stupid. Encouraging people to dehydrate themselves carries obvious health risks. I didn't know about water poisoning (or whatever it's called) myself, but I would still have advised against such a competition, just on the dehydration angle.

What a tragic outcome - just because some marketing guy thought that exploiting the Wii / Wee pun would be good for the station's listening figures. :(

quiet bear

01-15-2007, 09:09 PM

At the risk of sounding like an unfeeling twit..had the thought of telling her kids 'no' ever crossed her mind?

She said she wanted to win it for them, but I haven't seen any indication that she was conceding to demands on their part, or even that they asked at all.

It's entirely possible that she was just trying to do something nice for them.

That's true, it is entirely possible she was just trying to do something nice for her kids.

But, I haven't seen any indication she wasn't conceding to the demands of her kids, either.

It's just as possible, as well, that in this have it now, keep up with the Jones world, that she was driven to be like everyone else on the block, and have the hot new gadget.

We'll never know for sure.

It's really disturbing how many people seem to have kneejerk hostile reactions to this woman. Why is that?

I hope you aren't referring to my statement. If it seemed hostile, it wasn't meant to be. My kneejerk reaction was 'will people do anything for a freebie?, followed quickly by sadness for her kids.

ChuckF

01-15-2007, 09:51 PM

Little update (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/108103.html):
James Ybarra, a Woodland man who gave up after drinking eight 8-fluid-ounce bottles of water, or half a gallon, said that Strange kept going.

Most contestants were hoping to get the console for their children, he said. Strange showed contestants photos of her two sons and daughter."It is sad that a mother had to lose her life to get something for her kids," he said. "None of us knew this could be a risk to our health."
...
Gina Sherrod, who competed with Strange in the contest, said her family listened to the radio show, and told her that a nurse was on air warning that drinking too much water is dangerous. Sherrod said a DJ rebuffed the nurse, saying the contestants signed waivers. Sherrod said the waivers addressed only publicity issues and made no mention of health or safety concerns.

lisarea

01-15-2007, 10:01 PM

I hope you aren't referring to my statement. If it seemed hostile, it wasn't meant to be. My kneejerk reaction was 'will people do anything for a freebie?, followed quickly by sadness for her kids.

No, I don't think anyone here is being intentionally or even all that overtly hostile. But I think there's a tetch more cynicism than is called for in a case in which a woman died as a result of someone else's negligence.

I just don't see a reason to speculate about her personal culpability unless there's some actual evidence of that.

quiet bear

01-15-2007, 11:56 PM

Well, it seems to me that no one involved actually knew just how badly a person could hurt themself doing that.

I know I didn't know it was possible until this thread.

Veritas

01-16-2007, 12:07 AM

I did.

Because of the 'ecstasy deaths' that were publicised in the UK a few years back. It's not the e that kills you, it's the water. So I heard, anyway.

So I reasoned it was okay to get E.O.M.T. as long as I didn't put the kettle on.

Dingfod

01-16-2007, 12:24 AM

Well, it seems to me that no one involved actually knew just how badly a person could hurt themself doing that.

I know I didn't know it was possible until this thread.Ignorance of this is widespread. I remember a few years back getting into an argument on an Atkins Diet board about this. Most did not believe it possible to drink too much water. Very few had ever heard of water intoxication. And there were nurses in the group that didn't know.

quiet bear

01-16-2007, 12:28 AM

You know, in the summertime, I drink a gallon of water a day, whether I'm thirsty or not. But, I work in a 120 degrees factory, and am constantly proccessing it.

Crumb

01-16-2007, 12:36 AM

Well you should eat something, too. :yup:

lisarea

01-16-2007, 12:40 AM

I saw a couple of followup stories on it today where they said that a nurse actually called in during the promo and warned them of the dangers, but they blew it off and didn't even inform the contestants.

If that's true, people need to go to prison.

quiet bear

01-16-2007, 02:14 AM

:yeahthat:

Dingfod

01-16-2007, 02:18 AM

Ari

01-16-2007, 06:26 AM

The local news reported the morning show has been taken off the air indefinitely and the family is possibly seeking legal action.
IMO the station should be taken off the air for no other reason then they play bad music, but then I don't like most pop stuff anyway.

seebs

01-16-2007, 01:51 PM

I can totally understand people being unaware of this. I've been posting links to articles on water intoxication at various sites so people learn about this.

But the thing with the nurse calling in? THAT is gonna come up in the lawsuit.

Zehava

01-16-2007, 02:33 PM

I mentioned the danger of hyponatremia in my "Introduction to Human Anatomy and Physiology" articles ...

<pouts>

Cheers,

Michael

There have also been some national new shows, I think 60-minutes or possibly Dateline, on water intoxication deaths of fraternity pledges. It is uncommon but not completely unknown.

Beth

01-16-2007, 07:40 PM

I knew a little about this, but not really that much. In fact, when I was trying to lose weight a few years back I was asked how much water I drink in a day. I stated that I drank about a gallon a day. I was then advised to increase the amount of water that I drank and to cut back on my salt intake. I could not cut back on it because without the salt, my thirst could not seem to be quenched. I began to remember some sort of pioneer accounts where they had to lick salt stones to keep from being too dehydrated because they were sweating all of their salt out of them. I figured that my body's sodium was leeching from my body from the water.

If anything, at least this woman's death has raised awareness of the dangers of drinking too much water.

wei yau

01-16-2007, 07:56 PM

Try as I might, I simply can't fault this poor woman in the least. Given the fact that most people see water as benign if not beneficial, I don't think the average person would even suspect that you could die from this stunt. I never would have suspected that such a contest would result in death. Some harmful health effects, maybe, but not outright death.

That being said, I'm surprised that the radio station didn't run this stun past their lawyers. It seems to me that a simple phone call to any general practitioner woud have turned up the health risks involved in this stunt. I would have suspected that the radio station would perform this minimal due diligence just to cover their asses.

I don't buy this whole thing that water poisoning has received some coverage in the media and therefore the woman should've been more aware. First of all, she wasn't the only one in this contest, so she wasn't exceptional in her ignorance. Secondly, even the damned radio station wasn't aware of the health risks or they would have been much more careful.

Beth

01-16-2007, 08:00 PM

I agree with you, wei. I think that the mother loved her kids a lot and simply hoped to win a game system for them. I was not able to get my kids a wii this year like they had wanted and I probably would have participated in a contest* to win one if I could have. Sometimes parents just want to give something special to their kids out of love.

* I doubt I would a wee holding one, though. Those kind of stunts seem kind of tacky to me.

wei yau

01-16-2007, 08:06 PM

Yup, I wanted to get a Wii this year, as well. Though more for me, not my daughter. Still, entering this contest would have seemed fairly trivial to secure a wonderful gift for your children. Had she known she might die, I highly doubt she would have entered the contest, nor would her children have wanted her to.

I take exception to the notion that this woman simply could not say "No" to her children. I mean, if that were the case, she could simply buy one at inflated prices.

It seems to me that she entered a contest that was seemingly innocuous and probably kind of fun for the sake of getting a nice gift for her kids. I find no fault in that motive.

Ari

01-17-2007, 02:10 AM

For those interested in this the local news is reporting the morning show has been officially cancelled, the DJs fired and 7 other people (10 in all) involved in the contest have been fired as well. The Sherif and DA say there isn't a criminal case as of yet as no one has complained to them, however many expect at least a civil case. The news interviewed one women who said she vomited and felt drunk all day after the contest, showing signs of water intoxication.

ms_ann_thrope

01-17-2007, 05:39 PM

I read that she drank 224 ounces (6.62 liters, or 1.75 gallons) of bottled water during the contest.

I just used an online 'How much water should I drink today?' calculator and based on my personal input, it advised me to consume 4.1 liters. Anyone happen to know what the hourly tipping point for safe water consumption might be, for a person with normal renal functioning? I'm just curious. Obviously I would never try to drink it all in one sitting (and in all honesty, will probably never drink as much water as I "should"), but I'm just wondering.

I lack the math skills to be able to successfully calculate something like plasma osmolality. :shakefist:

viscousmemories

01-17-2007, 05:44 PM

Where's that calculator, ms_ann? I buy bottled water to make it more convenient to drink, and probably go through 3-6 litres a day.

seebs

01-17-2007, 06:18 PM

One of the sites I read gave about 1.8L fairly quickly as a practical lower end of risk, with a gallon or so being the kind of thing that puts you at real risk even if you're mostly healthy. Obviously, taking even just salt with this mitigates it hugely; thus the "electrolytes" in gatorade.

The Lone Ranger

01-17-2007, 06:21 PM

If you drink enough water during the course of a day to keep yourself from feeling thirsty, you're probably fine. If you're drinking so much that you feel full simply because of the water you're drinking, that may be a bit much.

Fortunately, it's actually pretty difficult to drink yourself into hyponatremia; you pretty-much have to be drinking more than is comfortable.

The reason why marathon runners and other athletes sometimes die of hyponatremia isn't so much because of overconsumption of water (though that's certainly a factor), but because they lose so much sodium from sweating. If you're engaged in strenuous activity and you're losing electrolytes through sweat which you don't replace when you drink (and, of course, pure water contains no electrolytes), you'll go into hyponatremia. That's why engaging in heavy exercise during hot weather and drinking water (as opposed to Gatorade or some such "exercise drink," which contains electrolytes to replace those you've sweated out) is just asking for trouble.

If you're engaged in strenuous activity, it's generally considered dangerous to consume more than a liter of water per hour, on average. Unless you're also consuming electrolytes to replace what you've lost in sweat, that is. So, stick to Gatorade or some such thing. [Some exercise physiologists recommend that you add a tablespoon or so of salt to each liter of drinking water if you don't like Gatorade or other such "sports drinks."]

For normal activity levels, up to a few liters of water per day is just fine and won't put you at risk. If you're drinking so much water that it's uncomfortable, it's probably a good idea to cut back a bit.

On a related issue, the reason people sometimes go into hyponatremia after taking MDMA is twofold. First, MDMA triggers release of Antidiuretic Hormone, which causes the kidneys to retain water instead of excreting it. That's bad enough, but not particularly dangerous unless you're drinking lots of water.

But some MDMA users drink lots of water on the theory that this will a.) allow them to continue longer in strenuous activities like dancing, and b.) "flush" the MDMA out of the system faster.

High levels of Antidiuretic Hormone coupled with high water intake is just a recipe for disaster.

Cheers,

Michael

ms_ann_thrope

01-17-2007, 08:01 PM

Where's that calculator, ms_ann? I buy bottled water to make it more convenient to drink, and probably go through 3-6 litres a day.I used this one (http://nutrition.about.com/library/healthydietquizparts/blwatercalculator.htm?terms=%22hydration+calculator%22). Starts about halfway down the page.

Ari

01-18-2007, 01:16 AM

The lazy sheriffs department has finally started an investigation citing the easy access to tape as the main reason. They say it's unlikely they will follow criminal charges however from the tape I've heard the DJs seem to admit they know the dangers, claiming they are aware of the dangers but that she will puke before she dies so it's ok and that they signed waivers so it doesn't matter.
If that isn't enough for a criminal investigation the civil suit seems like an easy win.

viscousmemories

01-18-2007, 04:03 AM

I used this one. Starts about halfway down the page.
Okay, I used the dehydration calculator and after answering 10 questions about my activity level, the weather, etc. it told me I should eat five servings of fruit a day. :confused:

Ensign Steve

01-18-2007, 04:08 AM

Well, you should!

Johnny Pneumatic

01-18-2007, 05:12 AM

lisarea

01-18-2007, 06:13 AM

Okay, I used the dehydration calculator and after answering 10 questions about my activity level, the weather, etc. it told me I should eat five servings of fruit a day. :confused:

The ATF's Food Pyramid has been saying that for years, where ya been?

I am totally going to make a helpful diagram illustrating the recommended daily allowances of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

Plus pornography, swears, and fisticuffs.

Anastasia Beaverhausen

01-18-2007, 07:54 AM

Ain't no one like our lisarea!

:lol:

California Tanker

01-18-2007, 05:12 PM

For what it's worth, the Army's maximum water intake standards are one quart an hour (One and a half in extreme conditions), to a maximum total of three gallons a day.

I can't see any grounds for criminal charges. Civil suits, on the other hand...

NTM

lisarea

01-18-2007, 05:26 PM

I can't see any grounds for criminal charges. Civil suits, on the other hand...

Apparently, they are investigating it as a homicide now.

Here. (http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/18/people/main2369761.shtml)

I was originally assuming the radio station employees didn't know how dangerous this was. It never even occurred to me that they knew and decided to do it anyway.

But...

On a tape of the Jan. 12 show, disc jockeys on KDND-FM's "Morning Rave" joke about the possible dangers of consuming too much water, at one point alluding to a college student who died during such a stunt in 2005.

During the contest, a listener - self-identified as a nurse - called the live radio broadcast and warned that the game was dangerous, CBS News station KOVR-TV reported.

"I want to say that those people drinking all that water can get sick and die from water intoxication," said the caller.

"Yeah, we're aware of that," one of them said.

Another DJ laughed: "Yeah, they signed releases, so we're not responsible. We're OK."

"And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, then they're going to throw up, and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right?" another one said.

The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department decided to pursue the investigation Wednesday after listening to the tape, obtained by The Sacramento Bee newspaper, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said.

Jennifer Lea Strange, a 28-year-old mother of three, was one of about 18 contestants who tried to win a Nintendo Wii gaming console by determining how much water they could drink without going to the bathroom. The show's DJs called the contest "Hold your Wee for a Wii."

"Hey, Carter, is anybody dying in there?" a DJ asked during the show. "We got a guy who's just about to die," the other responded, and all the DJs laughed.

"I like that we laugh about that," another said.

"Make sure he signs the release. ... Get the insurance on that, please."

livius drusus

01-18-2007, 05:56 PM

Wow. I wonder how often prosecutors get an actual recording of people recklessly disregarding human life.

California Tanker

01-18-2007, 06:52 PM

At the absolute worst, I think you might be able to make a case for 'assisted suicide'.

I can't see how they can make a homicide charge stick: The radio crew had no active part in the actual drinking of water: It's not as if they held her down and poured water into he using a funnel. In the UK, this would be 'death by misadventure.'

NTM

Ari

01-18-2007, 10:16 PM

I could see negligence (or other similar term).
They knew it was potentially deadly and based their safety limits on bad medical advice while joking with the contestants to make it appear as if it was ok.
As I mentioned before, the game was basically "who can get closest to death without dying" and they knew it.

Also in an earlier report the station said the contest wasn't run past their lawyers as it included basic rules and a low cost prize.

wei yau

01-18-2007, 10:32 PM

The contest was stupid from the get-go. There was no need to drink that much water to test your stamina in holding in your pee. Certainly a safer amount of water would have been sufficient for such an endurance test.

Seems to me that it should have been more a test of time and not quantity of water.

foo fighter

01-19-2007, 12:23 AM

hello everybody!!!!!!:D :D

howdy yall:D

well, this is sad. i saw on the news where one guy said that they never heard the warning that the nurse gave. what i don't understand is what was the firing for? holding the contest or not heeding the warnings? i mean the powers that be was well aware that this contest was being held. and they had the people sign a waiver so they must have been privy to some kind of risk. imo they are just as guilty as the people they fired.

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 12:37 AM

I can't see how they can make a homicide charge stick

By proving they caused her death.

Freddy

01-19-2007, 02:00 AM

I can't see how they can make a homicide charge stick

By proving they caused her death.
I do not believe anyone else is responsible for her death. She signed a wavier. No one forced her to drink almost 2 gallons of water in several hours without releasing the fluid. However, the lawyers will have a field day suing everyone connected with the station. She caused her own death. Although it is sad for her and her family.

Ari

01-19-2007, 02:15 AM

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 02:29 AM

I do not believe anyone else is responsible for her death.

That's fine. I'm just saying how homicide charges could stick.

If there's any place in this country where these people might be charged with negligent homicide, it's California.

ChuckF

01-19-2007, 02:32 AM

I do not believe anyone else is responsible for her death. She signed a wavier.
Please post the contents of said waiver.

I am rather skeptical about how iron-clad this waiver could be. (If such a thing as an iron-clad waiver exists.) After all, if they had legal counsel preparing such a waiver, surely the legal counsel would have told them not to have the contest.

Freddy

01-19-2007, 02:33 AM

Waivers don't really mean much if something like negligence is found.
For example, on the show fear factor, if someone jumped funny and broke their foot that would probably be covered by the waiver. On the other hand if someone jumped funny and their safety rope broke because the show bought used and torn ropes to save money, I doubt it would be covered by the waiver.

Freddy: So basically you say it's her fault for dying from something she was told was safe and didn't know was deadly? Do you think the radio station should hold any blame for knowing the dangers and not warning or stopping her?
When did anyone tell her it was safe to drink 2 gallons of water hold it in within a few hours? I am 52 and have never witnessed anyone drinking that much water. Why? Because it is not natural. None of the other contestants died. She may have had a medical condition that made it much more dangerous for her. When I sign a wavier releasing someone else from liability bells go off in my head telling me that what I am about to do could be harmful.

ChuckF

01-19-2007, 02:36 AM

When I sign a wavier releasing someone else from liability bells go off in my head telling me that what I am about to do could be harmful.
Again, how do you know what was in the waiver? Has it been released somewhere?

Plus, can a waiver absolve a party of criminal liability?

Freddy

01-19-2007, 02:51 AM

I have not seen what the wavier said. However, another contestant said they were warned not to put their health at risk. Apparently, some contestants failed to heed the warning. That is why I believe the wavier may have contained a warning about the contest.

“They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy,” said fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland. “They told us if you don’t feel like you can do this, don’t put your health at risk.”

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html

ChuckF

01-19-2007, 02:52 AM

“They told us if you don’t feel like you can do this, don’t put your health at risk.”

Yeah, sounds pretty airtight to me.

Dingfod

01-19-2007, 03:00 AM

Plus, can a waiver absolve a party of criminal liability?I think the simple answer to that is "No."

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 03:01 AM

If somebody is so inclined, they can hunt down the CA negligent homicide statute and match up the required elements with the facts in the press record so far and I bet that, with a bit of massaging and a talented advocate, it won't seem so far-fetched.

livius drusus

01-19-2007, 03:03 AM

Freddy

01-19-2007, 03:11 AM

That's not even remotely a warning about the dangers of water intoxication. "If you don't feel you can do this" is about personal comfort, and the "don't put your health at risk" phrase is completely devoid of content. If anything it's a suggestion they not hold it longer than they feel they can, which, as TLR has pointed out, isn't even a medical danger.

If a company held a Russian roulette contest, would they be immune from criminal charges as long as the participants signed a waiver?
Why did they say,"don't put your health at risk"? Because the contestants were drinking water in large quantities. There was no other reason for saying that. Bottom line, no one forced her to drink almost 2 gallons of water in a few hours and hold it in. It was her decision to drink the water. A sad decision, but her decision.

foo fighter

01-19-2007, 03:15 AM

A Waiver is defined as "the act of intentionally relinquishing or abandoning a known right, claim, or privilege," and also as "the legal instrument evidencing such an act."

i know this is not exactly the same but can be in the same ball park

http://www.sinclairpremium.com/article-amusement-ride-waivers.asp

Ari

01-19-2007, 03:17 AM

When did anyone tell her it was safe to drink 2 gallons of water hold it in within a few hours? I am 52 and have never witnessed anyone drinking that much water. Why? Because it is not natural.
I assume you haven't watched many marathons. A number of runners become sick or die every year from drinking too much water.
How does what's "natural" matter here?

While we don't know all the details there are recordings of them laughing off medical advice claiming they would vomit first (and thus it was safe) as well as laughing off

None of the other contestants died. She may have had a medical condition that made it much more dangerous for her. When I sign a wavier releasing someone else from liability bells go off in my head telling me that what I am about to do could be harmful.
So does it only count in multiple people die?
You are right, we don't know the specific cause of death although it seems pretty likely it's water intoxication. While other contestants didn't die, at least one came close becoming drunk/dizzy and vomiting.

When you sign a waiver you are signing away rights to sue if you are injured under reasonable conditions (the lawyers here could probably give the right terms) you are not excusing people from negligence and most waivers attempting to sign away negligence don't often hold up in court.
For example, if you go rock climbing, you probably wouldn't win a suit if a rock falls on you and breaks a bone, that's an expected danger. You might win if they didn't take care of their equipment and you fell from a worn line even if their waiver tried to get them out of it.

Ari

01-19-2007, 03:21 AM

Why did they say,"don't put your health at risk"? Because the contestants were drinking water in large quantities. There was no other reason for saying that. Bottom line, no one forced her to drink almost 2 gallons of water in a few hours and hold it in. It was her decision to drink the water. A sad decision, but her decision.
Am I correct in assuming you are saying it's her fault for not knowing the dangers and not their fault for not disclosing the full risks?

(you keep saying hold it in, as mentioned that doesn't lead to any serious danger in this case.)

livius drusus

01-19-2007, 03:28 AM

"Don't put your health at risk" is conditioned on how the participants feel. That is an empty statement, not a legitimate warning on a specific potentially fatal risk. Obviously if the contestant doesn't know there is such a thing as a water OD, they're not going to feel they're putting their life on the line.

Besides, companies can't go around offering to pay people to shoot at each other because that's crazy dangerous and therefore sure to catch a prosecutor's attention no matter how many waivers the participants signed.

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 03:30 AM

erimir

01-19-2007, 03:39 AM

That's not as bad as the grandmother who forced her young grandson to drink glass after glass of water until he died. He had woken her up during the night, and apparently that pissed her off, so she made him drink lots and lots, not knowing that it could be fatal.

Man oh MAN I bet she feels like a worthless piece of shit even tho it's now a few years after the fact.

And that story is why I knew that drinking too much water could be fatal. I did not know that too much oxygen could be fatal, however. I'm assuming you meant inhaling too much oxygen - I know it's dangerous to get oxygen in your body other ways (e.g. injection).

At any rate, those DJs seem quite likely to get convicted of some form of crime, in addition to quite likely losing all the wealth they had accumulated from their DJ positions in civil court.

foo fighter

01-19-2007, 03:59 AM

The attitude of the disc jockeys, and especially some of their recorded comments, are what will get them into legal hot water, given the fact that negligence revolves around a duty of care, which includes not only a requirement of action, but roughly equal culpability for failure to act. There is also the small matter of causation, which will no doubt be a difficult, but perhaps not insurmountable, burden for a prosecutor. The report of a homicide investigation tells me someone in the DA's office is taking it pretty seriously. The disc jockeys had best lawyer up.

this is exactly correct. i read another artical that said that the police saw no wrong but changed their minds after they heard the tape and launched an investigation. the artical also said that the family of the dead mother already has a lawyer and has filed suit with more to follow from the other contestants. it also said that the DA was watching closely while looking at what charges to file. "the morning rave" show has also been cancled.

MonCapitan2002

01-19-2007, 05:15 AM

Ain't no one like our lisarea!

:lol:
IIDB has a lisarea as well. Oh. Wait.

I happen to think that this woman is not to blame for her death. I think the ultimate responsibility is on the station for running this contest. Before reading this thread, I had never known such a thing as water intoxication existed. To assume a layperson would be aware that such an infirmity exists is unfair.

ms_ann_thrope

01-19-2007, 07:04 AM

Manslaughter

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds:

(a) Voluntary-upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

(b) Involuntary-in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

(c) Vehicular- ...

California Tanker

01-19-2007, 08:01 AM

Nope, I don't think it's any of those. They may have set the conditions for the lethal act, but they did not carry it out. The lethal act was the excessive drinking of water. The contestants were drinking the water on their own with nobody forcing them to do so, and it was plain and clear that they were permitted (and expected) to stop at their own discretion.

I really don't see how anything beyond criminal negligence could be proven, and even at that, I'd like to see the requirements.

As for the waiver question, oftentimes waivers and disclaimers aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

NTM

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 03:28 PM

They may have set the conditions for the lethal act, but they did not carry it out. The lethal act was the excessive drinking of water. The contestants were drinking the water on their own with nobody forcing them to do so, and it was plain and clear that they were permitted (and expected) to stop at their own discretion.

What's any of that got to do with the statute ms_ann posted and in particular the elements she emphasized?

I really don't see how anything beyond criminal negligence could be proven, and even at that, I'd like to see the requirements.

That is a criminal negligence statute, and those are the requirements.

California Tanker

01-19-2007, 08:07 PM

What's any of that got to do with the statute ms_ann posted and in particular the elements she emphasized?

Absolutely nothing, which is the point.

In order for the statute to be relevant, the radio show would have to commit an act, lawful or otherwise, which resulted in death. The radio show did not commit any such act, or force any such act to be committed. As such, I submit that the statute is not applicable, and a charge other than manslaughter would be required to secure a conviction.

NTM

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 08:26 PM

In order for the statute to be relevant, the radio show would have to commit an act, lawful or otherwise, which resulted in death.

Or fail to commit an act or acts. We're talking negligence here. Note the "without due caution" element.

Put your prosecutor cap on.

The Lone Ranger

01-19-2007, 08:30 PM

I think the woman can be forgiven for not knowing about water toxicity, given that few people have ever heard of it. As such, she probably figured that the "danger" of the contest was the remote possibility of a burst bladder or some such thing. I'm guessing that it never occurred to her that death might result as a result of excess water intake.

But the DJs were specifically warned that the contest could result in someone's death. So they can't plead ignorance. Did the contestants hear the nurse's warning?

Cheers,

Michael

California Tanker

01-19-2007, 08:56 PM

The chap wearing the prosecutor hat has to beat the guy wearing the defense hat.

Or fail to commit an act or acts. We're talking negligence here. Note the "without due caution" element.

Nope, I still don't buy it. The 'due caution' is a qualifier. The operative bit is "In the commission of a lawful act which might produce death"

What act did the radio station commit that caused death which could have been avoided by due caution? None, because no act of the radio station could have resulted in death. They bought the water. They put the water on the table in front of the victim. None of those actions will cause death no matter what lack of caution is exercised, unless, say, they put the water on a really wonky table, the bottle fell over, and the woman tripped on it and broke her neck. The act which produced death was the consumption of the water.

If merely providing water for someone to drink at their option is sufficient grounds, then every restaurant is going to start providing guidance and warning cards when you sit at their table. TV interviewees will be forced to buy their own water to bring into the studio. And so on.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see a charge of 'Manslaughter' sticking based on the extract provided by Ann.

NTM

Ari

01-19-2007, 09:10 PM

I would assume it's the same way bars can be held accountable for letting a drunk person drive away, or someone instigates violence, or a get away driver charged with crimes inside a bank, etc. A person doesn't have to directly commit an action to share responsibility. (otherwise It would seem a "how many people can you talk into jumping off the Golden gate" contest would be legally acceptable)

They may not have forced her to drink but they setup the conditions that got her to drink and apparently ignored the dangers and didn't inform her. As the holders of the event they share responsibility in the safety of an event
Now if they told her to stop and warned her of the dangers and she ignored those warnings and kept drinking, this would be a completely different case.

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 09:10 PM

The 'due caution' is a qualifier. The operative bit is "In the commission of a lawful act which might produce death."

There are no "operative bits" vs. "qualifiers" in criminal statutes, at least in this particular instance. An element is an element.

Anyway, suit yourself. I'm not suggesting criminal charges will stick either. I don't know that. All I'm saying is there very well may be a criminal case here. Criminal negligence or negligent homicide (as it's known in Wisconsin) can be surprising terrain indeed.

I expect this water toxicity business, and the question as to whether a reasonable person would be aware of its potential medical effects, will be an important part of whatever calculus the DA is performing in evaluating the evidence and deciding whether to press criminal charges.

California Tanker

01-19-2007, 10:01 PM

I would assume it's the same way bars can be held accountable for letting a drunk person drive away, or someone instigates violence, or a get away driver charged with crimes inside a bank, etc. A person doesn't have to directly commit an action to share responsibility.

I'm not arguing that no criminal statute can apply, or that there is no shared responsibility. I'm saying that I believe that the charge of manslaughter, as quoted by Ann, does not apply. Some other charge probably would, it's a question of figuring out which. You could, for example, make an argument for the rather generic S401: "Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony." (Though you might have an argument over if the 'deliberate' bit was 'deliberately aids someone in doing something which happened to result in suicide', or 'deliberately aided someone with the known intent of suicide')

NTM

wei yau

01-19-2007, 10:09 PM

What act did the radio station commit that caused death which could have been avoided by due caution? None, because no act of the radio station could have resulted in death. They bought the water. They put the water on the table in front of the victim. None of those actions will cause death no matter what lack of caution is exercised, unless, say, they put the water on a really wonky table, the bottle fell over, and the woman tripped on it and broke her neck. The act which produced death was the consumption of the water.

If merely providing water for someone to drink at their option is sufficient grounds, then every restaurant is going to start providing guidance and warning cards when you sit at their table. TV interviewees will be forced to buy their own water to bring into the studio. And so on.

Here's an excerpt from an AP interview (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html) with one of the other contestants:

Initially, contestants were handed 8-ounce bottles of water to drink every 15 minutes.

"They were small little half-pint bottles, so we thought it was going to be easy," said fellow contestant James Ybarra of Woodland. "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."

Ybarra said he quit after drinking five bottles. "My bladder couldn't handle it anymore," he added.

After he quit, he said, the remaining contestants, including Strange, were given even bigger bottles to drink.

I suppose they weren't forced to drink the water, but it certainly seems that the radio station did more than simply provide the water. The contestants could opt out of the contest at any time, but the contest doesn't seem to be one in which you simply have to endure a full bladder. The contest seems to be structured to specifically require the consumption of large quantities of water at regular intervals. And it was precisely this consumption of large quantities of water that resulted in death, not "holding your wee".

seebs

01-19-2007, 10:47 PM

How about the act of holding a water-drinking contest without informing people that there was a genuine risk to healthy adults from drinking too much water? That could result in death.

D. Scarlatti

01-19-2007, 10:52 PM

Why in the world is it more appropriate to charge under a statute that requires deliberation than merely negligence? Oy vey.

ms_ann_thrope

01-20-2007, 12:49 AM

CT, the statute I quoted is the criminal statute that best applies in CA for the situation we are discussing, i.e., where two or more parties were involved in some activity or adventure and at least one of those parties ended up dead as a result. The section of the Penal Code that deals with crimes against the person, at least where death is involved, is really quite short! Seriously, it takes up 8 pages out of a total of 1360 (2007 edition).

If wearing my prosecution hat, I argue that the process of the radio station's organization, facilitation, and administration of the contest constitutes a single 'event' or 'action,' thus hopefully meeting the "in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death" part of the statute.

If wearing my defense hat, I take the position that the contest was not a single, continuous event or enterprise, but rather a collection of many smaller, discrete acts that involved a constantly-changing set of actors. Though my client may have been a party in some of the acts occurring both before and after the woman's death, I will argue that the tragic accident occurred during one of those 'events-within-an-event' where my client was not a party.

I think you would have a hard time proving up the elements of 401, most particularly (as D. Scarlatti points out) the requirement of deliberate action.

livius drusus

01-20-2007, 01:06 AM

Oh c'mon, you don't have a prayer. Jack McCoy will see right through that shit.

California Tanker

01-20-2007, 01:13 AM

Why in the world is it more appropriate to charge under a statute that requires deliberation than merely negligence? Oy vey.

Because in the case of the deliberate action, it is easy to show that the radio station deliberately and consciously provided the materials which ended up the cause of the ensuing suicide. In the case of negligence, you are attempting to meet the explicit requirement of 'committing an act' by trying to show that an amount of non-acts results in the same thing. The one is less of a leap of logic than the other.

NTM

ms_ann_thrope

01-20-2007, 01:17 AM

Lucky for me, Mr. McCoy is in New York. :giggle:

For the record, I don't think any criminal prosecution in this case is going to be nearly as compelling as the civil litigation. Much lower burden of proof in civil vs. criminal proceedings. No way is this family not getting any money.

ms_ann_thrope

01-20-2007, 01:28 AM

Because in the case of the deliberate action, it is easy to show that the radio station deliberately and consciously provided the materials which ended up the cause of the ensuing suicide.But... I think you would also need to prove that the woman committed suicide. AFAIK, there have been no reports that she had suicidal ideations, much less that the radio station was aware of them and so was able to "deliberately aid or advise" her in her plans...

chick

01-20-2007, 01:33 AM

I was gonna say... how can you call it "suicide"? The woman intended to win a Wii. She had no intent of killing herself.

California Tanker

01-20-2007, 01:59 AM

The definition of suicide is simple: Killing one's self. It doesn't necessarily require an intent to end it all. Just like homicides are not necessarily illegal, a suicide can be accidental. Unless there's a legal definition of suicide which is different from that of the English language.

Logic is as follows: What was cause of death? Drinking lots of water. Who drank the water? The victim, of her own free will. If someone causes his or her own death, what is it? A suicide. Who aided or encouraged the act which caused death? The radio station or its employees. Ergo, the shoe fits.

I personally think it would be a stretch to gain a conviction on it as well, but I think it's a better bet than manslaughter. There may not actually be a statute which covers this at all. Not everything which is actionable in a civil suit is automatically going to be a criminal offense.

NTM

lisarea

01-20-2007, 02:06 AM

That's a really funny definition of suicide, CT, and not one that I've ever seen used before.

ms_ann_thrope

01-20-2007, 03:35 AM

The definition of suicide is simple: Killing one's self. It doesn't necessarily require an intent to end it all... Unless there's a legal definition of suicide which is different from that of the English language. For the purpose of establishing cause of death, suicide is legally defined as the intentional act of self destruction committed by someone knowing what he is doing and knowing the probable consequences of his action. Also known as felo de se, 'the act of malicious self-murder.'

California Tanker

01-20-2007, 03:38 AM

For the purpose of establishing cause of death, suicide is legally defined as the intentional act of self destruction committed by someone knowing what he is doing and knowing the probable consequences of his action. Also known as felo de se, 'the act of malicious self-murder.'

Well, if for legal purposes intent is required, so be it. But that's not what the word means etymologically.

NTM

lisarea

01-20-2007, 04:00 AM

The meanings of words are not dictated by etymology, and the 'intentional' distinction is not some obscure legal point.

Suicide is an intentional act according to every serious use of the word I've come across.

viscousmemories

01-20-2007, 04:04 AM

I just checked Oxford, Merrimam-Webster, Dictionary.com and tfd.com and they all include 'intentional' in their first definition.

California Tanker

01-20-2007, 07:02 AM

Hmm. Maybe I've just been working off the wrong definition for all my life. It's possible.

NTM

D. Scarlatti

01-20-2007, 07:07 AM

Because in the case of the deliberate action, it is easy to show that the radio station deliberately and consciously provided the materials which ended up the cause of the ensuing [death].

Well, there's your commission of a lawful act which might produce death. And it did produce death. And that lawful act was committed without due caution and circumspection, as evidenced by the DJs' own professed understanding of the dangers and failure to take any precautionary steps whatsoever. Book 'em, Danno.

California Tanker

01-20-2007, 05:12 PM

No, you're not seeing what I'm driving at. (Although apparently it's now moot going on the definition of suicide). Providing water did not result in death. Drinking water resulted in death. The radio station did not drink the water.

NTM

erimir

01-20-2007, 09:28 PM

I see what you're driving at, I just don't think that it

A. necessarily matters legally

B. absolves them of having any responsibility anyway, regardless of what the law says

I don't think other people are convinced either.

JackDog

01-20-2007, 09:39 PM

seebs

01-20-2007, 09:54 PM

Okay, let's try an example.

You have a headache. I offer you a pill, telling you it cures headaches. You take the pill.

You die horribly, because in fact the pill is lethal.

You intentionally took the pill. The pill was lethal. You did not, however, intentionally take a lethal pill.

The problem here is equivocation on intention. Intent has to do with what you believe you are doing, not with the outcomes of your actions. If you believe you are doing something which could, at worst, make you puke a lot, but that there is no actual danger of serious injury, then you are not intentionally doing something which could kill you, even if the actions you are taking could kill you.

It seems very clear that the woman did not know that there was a risk of death, and furthermore, that the DJs told her incorrectly that she would puke if she was in danger, and gave the impression that this would prevent her from dying from overconsumption of water. It seems quite likely that they believed this, too... But they were told by a nurse that it was potentially lethal, and they didn't research it. I think that's their fault.

She was making a decision based on false information; I place the blame on the people who gave her that information.

seebs

01-21-2007, 05:39 PM

Am I alone in expecting that, a few years from now, the DJs from this story will be reported to be up on charges for breaking into a rich guy's fortress-like house to steal a swimming trophy?

foo fighter

01-26-2007, 01:20 AM

here is the suit

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125073wii1.html

Freddy

01-26-2007, 01:41 AM

All I'm saying is there very well may be a criminal case here. Criminal negligence or negligent homicide (as it's known in Wisconsin) can be surprising terrain indeed.

Providing water did not result in death. Drinking water resulted in death. The radio station did not drink the water.

I agree with CT, but the law seems to take a different view. This kinda reminds me of the case where a bartender was charged with the death of one his customers from alcohol poisoning. He wasn't forcing her to drink, she made the decision to keep buying drinks, and her death occurred after she got home and passed out...but he was still convicted.
In most states laws specifically state bartenders, hosts and hostesses, and property owners are responsible for people in their establishments and homes who are consuming alcohol. I doubt there are any state laws that specifically state that those same people are responsible for the amount water people consume.

JackDog

01-26-2007, 03:50 AM

Well...I was just pointing out the bartender thing because of the free-will similarities. Anyway, it's kinda funny that you can overdose on water, but not on marijuana.
:bong:
:bonghit:
:bsmoke:

California Tanker

01-26-2007, 04:29 AM

Anyway, it's kinda funny that you can overdose on water, but not on marijuana.

There is a movement to regulate this dangerous substance...

http://www.dhmo.org/

NTM

Anastasia Beaverhausen

01-26-2007, 05:20 AM

Anyway, it's kinda funny that you can overdose on water, but not on marijuana.

There is a movement to regulate this dangerous substance...

http://www.dhmo.org/

NTM
I hope this was a sarcastic post.

godfry n. glad

01-26-2007, 05:55 AM

erimir

01-26-2007, 06:17 AM

Dihydrogen monoxide is certainly a dangerous chemical when consumed in large quantities, and most especially when inhaled.

Anastasia Beaverhausen

01-26-2007, 06:30 AM

Um, yeah, godfry, I know. I was being sarcastic to CT.

California Tanker

01-26-2007, 09:16 AM

I'm not sure how that post could be taken in anything other than a humorous context.

NTM

JackDog

01-26-2007, 05:35 PM

I'm not sure how that post could be taken in anything other than a humorous context.

You forgot to use smilies...and with over 3,000 to choose from, you don't have a good excuse not to use them.

:muttley:

California Tanker

04-03-2007, 05:39 PM

http://www.kcra.com/news/11497976/detail.html?subid=22100408&qs=1;bp=t

Per the Sac DA, no charges are being filed.

Scully's office said in a prepared statement that given the circumstances of the case, it appears that no criminal activity took place.

"The facts and circumstances of this ill-fated event do not support the filing of criminal charges against the radio station or any of its employees," the district attorney's office said in a statement. "Based on the evidence, no duty or special relationship existed or was created between the radio station and/or its employees and Jennifer Strange because of the contest."

"Jennifer Strange was an adult who was voluntarily participating in the radio contest," Scully's office said elsewhere in the statement. "She knew what the contest involved when she entered it, and had the option to stop or discontinue her participation in the contest at any time.

The civil suit continues.

NTM

erimir

04-03-2007, 09:08 PM

But there still remains the question of a civil case being brought against them for wrongful death or what have you.

seebs

04-05-2007, 01:20 PM

Burden of proof is much lower for a civil case.

viscousmemories

10-30-2009, 09:00 PM

It's been a while since we've heard anything about the tragic case of Jennifer Strange, the mother who died from water intoxication during an attempt to win a Wii in KDND-FM's "Hold your Wee for a Wii" radio contest. Yesterday, a California jury finally ruled on the wrongful death suit filed by the victim's family back in 2007. Entercom Sacramento LLC, subsidiary of Philadelphia-based Entercom Communications Corp., must pay Strange's family $16.5 million after being found liable for the actions of its employees at KDND-FM.

Court awards $16.5m in 'Hold Your Wee for a Wii' radio stunt death (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/10/30/court-awards-16-5m-in-hold-your-wee-for-a-wii-radio-stunt-dea/)