Dihydrogen monoxide kills — and they knew it!

There seemed to be consensus among commenters on the original post that this was utter "stupidity", but now we have to look for more appropriate terms to describe what happened.

À propos an unhealthy life style, PZ, are you posting at 05.00 AM now to combine the web-log and your book?

This is so unbelievably callous it's disgusting. I certainly hope criminal charges are filed.

If it wasn't before, I think it's certainly gone up to some degree of murder now.

there is a great bit on "Penn and Teller's Bullshit" where they send someone to an enviromentalist's rally and get them to start signing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, claiming it is fed to our children and used on many crops by farmers. very funny.

If it wasn't before, I think it's certainly gone up to some degree of murder now.

I've read a bit about this and have come to the conclusion that, as much as I wish criminal charges could be brought, it's highly unlikely. There's a reason the Sheriff initially said he wasn't going to launch a criminal investigation and only launched one after the negative publicity.The reason is that Ms. Strange clearly participated voluntarily. Because criminal charges require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it wouldn't be too hard for a defense attorney to introduce reasonable doubt over whether Ms. Strange knew what she was doing was dangerous, etc. No matter how callous and idiotic the DJs are

However, civil penalties are another matter entirely, as the standard of proof is simply the preponderance of evidence. What will probably happen is that the station will settle with the family, rather than risk having to undergo discovery and then the negative publicity that a trial would result in.

Oops. Hit "post" too soon.

Should read: No matter how callous and idiotic the DJs are, proving that their actions were criminal and that the radio station management bears criminal responsibility would be difficult.

Great case for a civil suit, though, wouldn't you say?

People should check out.

It's audio excerpts from the radio show. Truly chilling. These DJs are idiotic and despicable human beings.

After listening to the audio Orac linked, those morons had to have violated some law. Criminal negligence, reckless endangerment, something. They were repeatedly told there was a risk, and not only did they do nothing about it, they misled the woman about the dangers. They repeatedly said she would throw up if she was in any danger, falsely reassuring her that she'd be ok.

After listening to the audio Orac linked, those morons had to have violated some law.

Translation: I'm outraged, so I'll just presume that what outrages me is illegal. Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb!

I'm not sure if it's criminally "illegal," but I'm pretty sure there will be civil penalties.

And there should be.

Caledonian, you really should read more than the first sentence of a post before sounding off.

I've read all of the posts. The poster in question doesn't know enough about the law to name the law the radio hosts violated, but is blithely sure they've violated something.

I don't know enough to determine whether they have or not. I do know enough not to presume that any of the precepts of our crazy legal system have been violated.

Best just to ignore Caledonian when he's in pedantic asshole mode.

Caledonian is *always* in pedantic asshole mode. In this instance the pendantic asshole is absolutely correct. The law is a hodepodge of arbitrary rules that needn't conform to anyone's notion of justice, much less right and wrong.

In this instance the pendantic asshole is absolutely correct.

I'll tell you a secret: pedantic assholes are not only usually correct, but it's usually best to presume that they're correct until demonstrated otherwise.

It's just one of the many cheerful consequences of living in reality.

Station owner: I'm shocked, shocked that my radio station pulls stunts like this!

Caledonian, you really should read more than the first sentence of a post before sounding off.

Don't hold your breath.

"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly".

I'll tell you a secret: pedantic assholes are not only usually correct, but it's usually best to presume that they're correct until demonstrated otherwise.

To be a pedantic asshole myself, I suspect the commenters are referring to that most assholes makes socially impolite sounds, obvious as they are. We mostly pretend we didn't hear anything.

If I induce someone to take a substance I KNOW to be poison, and fail to disclose that fact to the victim, even if I do not intend the person to die, it would most likely be murder in the first degree or capital murder(if the victim dies).

If I induce some to take a substance that I think, but do now KNOW, and do not check, because I just do not care enough about human life to be bothered, to be poison, and again fail to notify the victim, even if I have no intent to kill him, I could be guilty of depraved indifference murder, sometimes called murder in the second degree, or negligent manslaughter, sometimes called involuntary manslaughter.

Basically, it would boil down to how much the radio hosts knew, for example, how much did they know about H2O overdosing, how much they hid from or disclosed to the women, in addition to many other factors, such as jurisdictional factors I can't take into account since I am not a Cali. attorney.

If I was the prosecutor, I would try to get a charge/indictment of capital murder, and plea it down to involuntary manslaughter.

There are a lot of grey areas in the application of laws, and prosecutors, policemen, and courts have to make judgement calls about them all the time. Dorkafork was quite reasonably suggesting that someone look through the laws to see if one applies. Looks like a reckless disregard for human life or reckless endangerment to me to me.

Pedantic assholes are very frequently wrong. In Caledonian's case, he or she seems like a sort of jerk too.

Quoting Robert Heinlein (via Brent Rasmussen's site):
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity isn't a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

Best just to ignore Caledonian when he's in pedantic asshole mode.
Posted by: dorkafork

Which is to say, all the time.

The radio station's nickname is, "107.9 - The END."
No kidding. Darwin Award candidates.

http://endonline.com/home_content/index.php

I also assumed they had no idea that this could happen. When I learned that too much water can kill you, I went around the place asking people if they knew that, and nobody did (and many did not beleive it).

However, this throws new light on the situation.

Its strange to me that so many people dont know about it, because a lot of people I have talked to did know too much water could kill you. Maybe its just because there have been several hazing deaths like this in the past few years and one of them was in this area so it got a fair amount of media play.

There is a quaint little museum of torture through the ages in London that describes the way people were tortured and killed through the forced ingestion of too much water. The luck ones had their gut burst and bled to death.

// As an aside there were school kids at this museum and it appeared to be all in good fun for them -- I am often puzzled by that land of boiled food.

They probably have at least an involuntary manslaughter case, one worth investigating and sending to the DA. When someone commits involuntary manslaughter, they lack the intent to kill,but death results from reckless actions. Reckessness is "defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be throwing a brick off a bridge onto vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill, consequently a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject him to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of danger to others and willfuly disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

The last bit about CA is interesting. I know it's wikipedia, but it fits with the general preception of what manslaughter is. They knew there was danger and possible death could result, they encouraged people to partake assuring them there was little or no danger. They did not have a medical professional present, etc. Criminal negligence resulting in death = manslaughter.

My kids, much to my chagrin, listen to this radio station. This show is particularly obnoxious; they pull all kinds of stunts that I find pretty tasteless.

When nurses call the show, though, and tell the DJs that they could kill their contestants, and they simply choose to laugh at and ignore those warnings, I think they're criminally liable. The civil part is a no-brainer; the criminal part probably is, too.

Now, in the back of my mind, I remember hearing about water intoxication, but to be honest, I have no idea at all how much water it'd take to kill, say, me. I'm pretty sure I'd have stopped before 2 gallons, though.

This all could have been prevented by a little research. I find it hard to believe the DJs didn't run this past corporate management first. Wouldn't one of their crack staff have been aware of the dangers?

All this for a $250 game console. That's tragic.

Not a California Lawyer, but involuntary manslaughter appears to be the most likely potential criminal charge. Section 192 of the California Penal Code provides:

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

It could be argued that the promoting the contest was a lawful act "without due caution or circumspection"

Under the punishment section:

(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

Personally it seems to me that the case is more appropriate for the civil realm.

It's pretty clear to me that (b) applies to this situation. They committed a lawful act (holding a contest) that might produce death (in this case by water intoxication) without due caution and circumspection.

They knew it was dangerous, didn't tell the contestests, and did practice due caution by having medical staff on hand to address any health problems that could arise.

obviously should read "did NOT practice due caution by having medical staff on hand to address any health problems that could arise."

proof reading FTW

Aren't we looking to the standard of the "reasonable person" here? A reasonable person would have done any of the following:

1) Not held such a dangerous contest
2) Warned contestants about the danger
3) Had medical staff on hand to monitor contestants condition
4) Heeded warnings from callers and stopped the contest or warned contestants at that point
5) Taken contestants who were feeling unwell to the hospital
6) Once the contest had gotten to such a dangerous point, withdrawn the prize to remove the incentive for contestants to continue

Since it's pretty clear that the DJs knew full well that water intoxication could be deadly, I'd say they could easily be found criminally negligent. I mean, can't you be found negligent for, e.g. contributing to an accident by failing to show due diligence in maintenance of your car?

I don't see how this is any different than a fraternity hazing. In both cases, the only coercion is the threat to withhold some reward (a Wii in this case, fraternity membership in the hazing case). Frat members often get tagged with involuntary manslaughter charges/convictions for hazing deaths.

' The radio station's nickname is, "107.9 - The END." '

I just went to their website and, to compound the irony, the most recent song played on the station was "How to Save a Life" by The Fray.

Caledonian, you said:

I've read all of the posts. The poster in question doesn't know enough about the law to name the law the radio hosts violated, but is blithely sure they've violated something.

I don't know enough to determine whether they have or not. I do know enough not to presume that any of the precepts of our crazy legal system have been violated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your initial comment was:

After listening to the audio Orac linked, those morons had to have violated some law.

Translation: I'm outraged, so I'll just presume that what outrages me is illegal.

But the post you were replying to included the passage:

They were repeatedly told there was a risk, and not only did they do nothing about it, they misled the woman about the dangers. They repeatedly said she would throw up if she was in any danger, falsely reassuring her that she'd be ok.

Now call me a fool, but that rather sounds like dorkafork was suggesting that persuading someone to do something fatal while misleading them about how dangerous it was must be illegal - and of course he's probably right. I can't actually see anything about dorkafork thinking that outraging him should be illegal; can you?

It's hydrogen hydroxide, not dihydrogen monoxide, damn it!

What I don't understand is WHY people even think this makes for interesting listening, or good radio. Hearing two morons yuck it up over toilet humor, butcher current events, and talk about their personal lives isn't slightly appealing to me. You want better radio? Find your local independent station-- or check one out online. The difference is amazing.

Ugh, right in my back yard. Ignorance and stupidity kills, sometimes not always the right people.

but that rather sounds like dorkafork was suggesting that persuading someone to do something fatal while misleading them about how dangerous it was must be illegal - and of course he's probably right.

You keep using that word - 'must'. It does not mean what you think it does.

"If the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice."

Hmm. For a while now, I've been saying "any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." I'm amused to see that the point was already "officially" recognized. ;-)

Okay, Delicious-Meat-Sack-Boy.

I tell you diving headfirst into the gutter won't give you more than a headache. I know that it will probably break your neck, and indeed I have personal knowledge that it has broken necks and killed people. You're a little wary, and I heckle you and taunt you into doing it anyways.

You believe me about the dangers and dive headfirst into the gutter, break your neck and die. You are an idiot, there's no disputing that, but you trusted me. I coerced you into an act I knew was deadly that you wouldn't have attempted otherwise.

That's the equivalent situation here. You would be alive had I not lied about the danger and coerced you to your death. Criminally negligent homicide, at the least. Certainly liable for civil suit, as well.

Maybe 'must' is the wrong word, but 'ought' and 'is' are well and truly accurate in its stead.

coerced

There's another word that doesn't mean what you think it does.

You keep using that word - 'must'. It does not mean what you think it does.

You paraphrase Inigo Montoya to support your Humpty Dumptyisms.

Yeah, Delicious-Meat-Sack-Boy, leave Inigo alone. Stop ruining the greatest movie of all time.

What, exactly, does your Merriam-Webster's Definition say that coercion means?

Delicious meat sack? Are you by chance referring to haggis?

Putting that aside, the definition I get is as follows:

1.to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.
2.to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3.to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Double-dog daring someone to stick their tongue on a freezing cold lamppost is not coercing them. Excluding someone from a social club if they don't do stupid things is not coercing them.

Do you have a different definition?

For a while now, I've been saying "any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice."

How long? because one of us owes the other royalties.

Has Caledonian ever made a post of any worth? Is it always Inigo Montoya dictionary cites?

Seems to me that the coomentators above who quote the text of the Calif statute got it right. But the next question is whether the victim assumed the risk in consuming so much water.

If a 'victim' knowingly assumes the risk of an activity, then it will absolve the 'perp' of liability. From the audio, it's fair to assume that she signed a waiver. Of course, we don't know what that says but it was probably pretty well written. So, assuming that the defense of assumption of risk applies in the criminal context (it certainly does in the civil), the DJs might get away scott free.

But wait! The A/R defense will not apply in certain cases, such as where the 'perp' fraud or where the 'perp' acts in bad faith.

After listening to the audio, the DJs knew or should have known (they clearly and unequivocally were told by a caller) that this was dangerous and then they proceeded to tell her that she would 'just throw up'. It seems that the 'victim' was induced to continue based on the statements of DJs, which they knew (or should have known) were false or misleding. Hence fraud, therefore no A/R defense.

Also, courts do not condone 'perps' that act in bad faith. For example, people that organize street fights aren't afforded the A/R defense. While there is case law to this effect, I don't know the specifics in Calif. Given the way the DJs mislead her and refused to help her even though should said that she was in bad shape and that her abdomen was distended, these DJs acted in bad faith.

After listening to those tapes, those DJs should be punished. The DJs should not be allowed to defend themselves based on the fact she signed a waiver because the fraudulently induced her to participate.

The DJs are not good people and even if the criminal or civil charges don't stick, I hope their lives are miserable for the next several years. I know that the childen of this victim will certainly be distraught and heart broken..

I recall reading in the comments on Shelley's thread on this that in California a person cannot sign away certain rights, so the waiver may not be legally binding. Anyone have more detail on that?

A waiver would only protect them against civil liability, not criminal prosecution.

Excluding someone from a social club if they don't do stupid things is not coercing them.

And yet the fraternity members who convinced their pledge to drink water until he died under threat that he would not be allowed to join their social club were criminally prosecuted.

Seems the laws are different in the United States than they are in Caledonian Land.

No one can legally waive their right to live (if that's what personal survival can be called in Sacramento). The waiver signed by Ms. Strange was only the boilerplate right to have her participation exploited by the radio station, waiving no rights to sue for wrongful death and etc.

If juries are involved, and the audio is played, I would not want to be a defendant:

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/109112.html

Leaving 3 descendants before you die a stupid death may disqualify one for a Darwin Award, unless the descendants fail to reproduce. My bet is that her children will have access to devastatingly deep pockets, unless they are legally represented by utter incompetents.

Seems the laws are different in the United States than they are in Caledonian Land.

Were they prosecuted for coercing him, or for involuntary manslaughter for requiring a life-threatening stunt?

A 'Darwin Award' is a notion promoted by people who appear to believe that their own cleverness is the pinnacle of evolution, despite the evidence that (a) evolution does not have a pinnacle, (b) Darwin himself would likely have been offended by the promotion of such an award, and (c) relatively stupid creatures like beetles and bacteria are far more numerous and successful than the relatively intelligent groups of mammals, cephalopods, etc.

Were they prosecuted for coercing him, or for involuntary manslaughter for requiring a life-threatening stunt?

But I thought you said there was no crime committed here, Caledonian. You even insisted that:

The poster in question doesn't know enough about the law to name the law the radio hosts violated, but is blithely sure they've violated something.

You keep insisting that no law was violated, even though others have been prosecuted for the same thing.

I'm just looking for consistency here.

It's pretty clear to me that (b) applies to this situation. They committed a lawful act (holding a contest) that might produce death (in this case by water intoxication) without due caution and circumspection.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Alcohol is a poison. Consumption can kill you. If someone drinks themselves to death, are the people who served him or her criminally responsible?

I'd be very dubious about a criminal prosecution, although I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

I don't know about California, but where I live, you are liable if you serve someone enough alcohol to kill them. Usually this applies to drunks who get behind the wheel. However, servers are required to cut people off before they get too drunk.

There was a case where a woman was drinking heavily at an office party and refused a ride home, instead going to a bar near by. After drinking there, she got behind the wheel and crashed her car. Her employer was held liable for allowing her to get that drunk in the first place.

Personally, I find that to be a little heavy handed myself.

Apart from any prosecution, I think what needs to be thought about is how to get this case (and hopefully the prosecution of those responsible) as much publicity as possible so that radio (or TV stations) never repeat this or any other similarly dangerous activity again.

Is it possible to take the broadcasting license away from the station?

This blog is doing a great job of publicising this, but obviously only to the people who read this blog - whom I suspect are a tiny minority of those who need to know about the consequences of this.

The county sheriff has launched a criminal investigation into the incident:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_re_us/water_intoxication

"Authorities decided to pursue the investigation after listening to a tape of the show, obtained by The Sacramento Bee, during which DJs joked about the possible dangers of consuming too much water, sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said."

Silly sheriff. He should have consulted with Caledonian.

But I thought you said there was no crime committed here, Caledonian.

Ah, I begin to see the problem. (It's remarkably you-shaped.)

Please point out where I said there was no crime committed here. Not a criticism of particular people who claimed there was a crime, or a criticism of their particular claims.

Caledonian is being a pedant for the sake of pedantry; nothing more. Note the thrust of Caledonian's points:

1. When an act has been committed that society deems "bad," the law should be selectively applied, rather than rifling through the law books to find something, anything that applies. Most of us would generally agree with this position; the alternative invites abuse of power.

2. When confronted with reasonable arguments, Caledonian harps on technical definitions of words like "must" and "coerce." There is little or no effort to address the thrust of the other commenters' points.

This is the work of a pedant. The proper response to is to ignore the pedantry and return the discussion to the subject at hand.

For the record, Caledonian: Suppose that I offer you a sum of money, or a commonly desired object, or a position of some status in exchange for pointing a revolver at your head and pulling the trigger. I tell you that there are only blanks inside (for the sake of argument, let's imagine a world where blanks at short range do not kill), but I know that I have induced you into a game of Russian roulette. Five chambers are empty; the sixth holds a live round. You die. Am I legally responsible for your death?

Caledonian is approaching Clintonian levels of backpedaling, equivocation, and waffling.

I've read a bit about this and have come to the conclusion that, as much as I wish criminal charges could be brought, it's highly unlikely. There's a reason the Sheriff initially said he wasn't going to launch a criminal investigation and only launched one after the negative publicity.The reason is that Ms. Strange clearly participated voluntarily

A regular commentator/reporter on MSNBC who is a former lawyer was practically drooling over this yesterday, saying a) with respect to civil law, the radio station might as well turn over their entire business to this family now and save themselves the trouble and b) with respect to criminal law, if she was a prosecutor she'd go with total confidence after the DJ's. She was not so sure how a criminal charge against others (i.e., owners etc) at the station would go.

You mean people still listen to the radio? I listened to it the other day, because I spilled coffee all over the receiver and couldn't shut it off. Yep, radio DJ's are still as asinine as ever. It's a shame that it took something this tragically idiotic to make people realize that.

I warned you guys. Christ, Caledonian's first post was a straw man. Come for the intellectual dishonesty, stay for the argument over dictionary definitions.

Quick pop quiz shows that most folk hereabouts (UK) are familiar with the idea that too much water can kill you from the publicity garnered by the case of Leah Betts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leah_Betts

A few years ago posters bearing her photo were all over the place proclaiming that even one ecstasy tablet could kill you. Somehow the publicity for this message also carried with it the counter arguments "Yeah right of COURSE it was her first ever tablet because her DAD said so" and "but really she was killed by drinking too much water - ecstasy was at most a contributory factor in this tragic death"

In this case the contributory factor was the ignorance of the DJs and the participants of the dangers that they were facing. When they were called by a nurse to who warned of the dangers this ignorance become willfull ignorance.

If willfull ignorance contributing to the death of another isn't a crime then it bloody well should be.

I'll tell you a secret: pedantic assholes are not only usually correct, but it's usually best to presume that they're correct until demonstrated otherwise.

To be a pedantic asshole myself, I suspect the commenters are referring to that most assholes makes socially impolite sounds, obvious as they are. We mostly pretend we didn't hear anything.