dont wii for a wii

[LyricistSoldier]

thank you LyricistSoldier! i know i was not tripping. Its sad she have to died but it was an accident. this will go know where if people was to sue. like i said before HOPELESS

i agree... its tragic.. yea it could of been handled better..
but taking it to courts and suing is just spreading it out.
society needs to not teach our children that just cuz somone affects your life in a poor or in this case a horrible way, doesnt mean u get to sue to ruin their lives and better your own.


also response to the dude on the other page...
Freethinking is ok, really. But liberal freethinking istnt. Why? Because they use their free thinking to go beyond moral boundary. Just to protect what their all about... free thinking... no matter how assinine or wrong their opinions get.

 

[hotpotato78]

Yea people just have to find someone to blame. plenty of times things can be aviod if we would pay attention....so the good thing about this is, now everybody know to much water intake can kill. So in the future no one could run on with foolishness. I would understand if the radio station was to give her kids a wii, but its not the station fault at all. Their contracts was like those yellow signs, that be in the mall and stores that says "floor is wet" so once that sign is up and you fall down, you can not sue.

 

[Kristi1696]

For the people who don't think that the radio station was at fault, I have a quick question for you...

If it had be YOU running the contest, and someone had informed you that drinking that much water could kill someone, would you inform the participants?

It's a simple question. What would you have done?

And, actually, an additional question. Before this incident, did YOU know that drinking too much water could kill? And if you did (and without googling this), how much water kills someone?

 

[hotpotato78]

yes i would have, why hide that information.

 

[LyricistSoldier]

no i didnt know drinking too much could kill you.. tho yes it seems logical now that i have hindsite

and if i was running the contest and people were alive having a good time (besides saying their gut hurt or they wanted to throw up, since thats part of the fun of drinking contests) and someone called saying that people could die doing it... i wouldnt have stopped the contest to tell them. 1 you cant be shure who someone is over the phone to know if they are ligit or not, 2 like I said everyone was having a ball with it there didnt seem any immediate danger so i'd let it keep going. Shure after it was over if they felt real bad i'd tell em to go to the doctor or if they asked id call them an ambulence. But it doesnt matter, hindsite doesnt make me qualified to say the station was wrong.

 

[Kristi1696]

yes i would have, why hide that information.

Why indeed? Yet they did hide it...they even mocked that information.

Check this out:
"There was a girl on the floor," says Campos, who made it to the final five. "She must have been there for an hour with her teeth chattering. They were heckling her."

"Your body is 98 percent water," one of the hosts remarked to his on-air audience. "Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"

And this:
Told by another DJ that "We got a guy who's just about to die," one of the jocks had a quick response.

"Make sure he signs the release," he chortled, setting off gales of laughter in the studio.

And this:
"No one was more sick than anyone else," Campos says. "We were so out of it, so disoriented. I felt like I was drunk. There was no way I could make a rational decision, especially with people egging you on."

Campos dropped out with two other contestants when one of them began to vomit. That triggered two others to throw up, although it didn't help when one of the DJs made retching sounds to encourage heaving.

"I had cold sweats, my head hurt, and I can't even guess how many times I threw up on the way home," Campos says. "I passed out in bed at 11 (a.m.) and didn't wake up until my husband shook me awake at 6 that night."

**Please note that this woman is lucky to be alive**

It's all right here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/18/MNGMMNKOHS1.DTL

Read the whole thing and tell me if you STILL think the radio station employees did NOTHING wrong.

 

[Kristi1696]

no i didnt know drinking too much could kill you.. tho yes it seems logical now that i have hindsite

and if i was running the contest and people were alive having a good time (besides saying their gut hurt or they wanted to throw up, since thats part of the fun of drinking contests) and someone called saying that people could die doing it... i wouldnt have stopped the contest to tell them. 1 you cant be shure who someone is over the phone to know if they are ligit or not, 2 like I said everyone was having a ball with it there didnt seem any immediate danger so i'd let it keep going. Shure after it was over if they felt real bad i'd tell em to go to the doctor or if they asked id call them an ambulence. But it doesnt matter, hindsite doesnt make me qualified to say the station was wrong.

But one of the DJ's admitted on the air, at the beginning of the contest, to knowing that this could happen (a college student in the area had died a couple of years ago from this). Yet, all of the participants who were interviewed say they weren't informed. If you had known this beforehand or heard at the beginning, would you have told them? Would you think, "hey, we should make sure they know about this"?

 

[PtonJalken]

Wow thats sad, what people would do for a Wii lol. (then again if i got the chance id probly do it, even tho i got 1)

 

[LyricistSoldier]

this is all very bad, but still the actual death was not caused by the radio station. enough said.

I'm not saying there is no fault there on the stations part... i'm shure there is a ton of it, heckling the contestants and allowing them to be in an impaired state yada yada... but its still not their fault she died. Yes its their fault they didnt say anything about death...maybe... since they had heard prior that someone had died.

But it is still not grounds to blame them for her death. Period. My point has never been they didnt do ANYTHING wrong, i just dont stand behind the death itself is their fault. Reason why i say the family suing for money is not an honorable decision.

I'm over this, i'm not knowledgable enough on the situation to make exact accusations or to say exaclty what the station is liable for. I'm just saying that I belive to sue for the womans death is a wrong and dishonorable thing to do. Thanks, for reading, lol and thanks kristi for being respectful :thumbsup: You make a lot of sense, just i dissagree with that small part.

 

[Kristi1696]

this is all very bad, but still the actual death was not caused by the radio station. enough said.

I'm not saying there is no fault there on the stations part... i'm shure there is a ton of it, heckling the contestants and allowing them to be in an impaired state yada yada... but its still not their fault she died. Yes its their fault they didnt say anything about death...maybe... since they had heard prior that someone had died.

But it is still not grounds to blame them for her death. Period. My point has never been they didnt do ANYTHING wrong, i just dont stand behind the death itself is their fault. Reason why i say the family suing for money is not an honorable decision.

I'm over this, i'm not knowledgable enough on the situation to make exact accusations or to say exaclty what the station is liable for. I'm just saying that I belive to sue for the womans death is a wrong and dishonorable thing to do. Thanks, for reading, lol and thanks kristi for being respectful :thumbsup: You make a lot of sense, just i dissagree with that small part.

So the odd thing here is that it's not just about what they DID do, it's about what they DIDN'T do. It's definitely not murder, no question about that. But negligence and recklesssness are about a FAILURE to act when other people would have. I think we all agree that we would have made sure that the participants knew about the risk, because as HotPotato put it, "why would you hide that?". But the radio station employees didn't act.

From a civil standpoint, a waiver isn't valid unless you know why you're signing it. You can't waive away risks you're not informed of (and I don't think the radio station could have assumed that everybody knew about water poisoning).

From a criminal standpoint, let me give you the definition of recklessness and you can see if you think it fits.

Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt.

(from Wikipedia, again)

 

[LyricistSoldier]

Yep, your right, the stations in for some bad court time. I got a question...

So how much can this family sue for and get out of this radio station? Because most likely this station is owned by a larger corporation (meaning big $) who really i'm suprised hasnt made nice with the family already.

The law says the station is in deep, but I still dont think that its a free pass for the family to get a ton of $ over it.

 

[Kristi1696]

Yep, your right, the stations in for some bad court time. I got a question...

So how much can this family sue for and get out of this radio station? Because most likely this station is owned by a larger corporation (meaning big $) who really i'm suprised hasnt made nice with the family already.

The law says the station is in deep, but I still dont think that its a free pass for the family to get a ton of $ over it.

So the ironic thing is that I think that the "shock" nature of the radio program is what is going to hurt them the most. They said what they said during the program (i.e. mocking water poisoning and how sick the people looked) to be "shocking" and that's exactly how the jury is going to find it. How much money the family gets is up to the jury, but I think that given the senselessness of the death and the possible criminal recklessness, I'd be surprised if it wasn't AT LEAST tens of millions of $$$ we're talking about here. Still not worth growing up without a mom.

By the way, I heard that the family filed a wrongful death suit today.

And I think they have tried to make nice with the family. They fired everybody, they sent grief counselors and put out some huge apology. Basically, they are already begging for a settlement. If this went to trial, I would not be surprised in the least if a jury gave them 100s of millions of $$$ .

 

[290]

I think its so easy for people to say its the mothers fault is because they dont bother to put themselfs in the situation. If this was someone close to you, I doubt you would be so eager to blame this person. I agree that her actions were a little suspect, she had good intentions. Its also easy to judge her after the fact and you now know what water intoxication is. The reason there is a waiver is because when you have a contest like this, The people responsible for the contest are also responsible for its contestants and their saftey. I bet many people had no idea that this could happen and warnings were ignored. This woman was thinking of her kids more than she was thinking of herself, I dont see how this is a shamefull act.

 

[hotpotato78]

I think its so easy for people to say its the mothers fault is because they dont bother to put themselfs in the situation. If this was someone close to you, I doubt you would be so eager to blame this person. I agree that her actions were a little suspect, she had good intentions. Its also easy to judge her after the fact and you now know what water intoxication is. The reason there is a waiver is because when you have a contest like this, The people responsible for the contest are also responsible for its contestants and their saftey. I bet many people had no idea that this could happen and warnings were ignored. This woman was thinking of her kids more than she was thinking of herself, I dont see how this is a shamefull act.

I have to disagree with you because i'm an individual that does not take the side of who was wrong. If i'm wrong i admit my wrong, when my friends and family are wrong, i tell them they are wrong, i don't try to find excuses for why they did it. If you wrong, your wrong. We are all our own person, whatever happens to you is most likely your fault. 90% of the time its your fault and 10% because of stray bullets or someone knock you down or someone ran into your car. So she fell under the 90% fault. So if it was my family, i would have been hurt but then i would say why she had to been so senseless. So i'm a person who don't take sides.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

you think people in the cotest read ALL the waiver?

i don,t think so.

''yeah , i'll sign your sh!t , i want my Wii''

Drizzt