They were fired, but should the station have to pay millions? Were they criminally negligent?
This wasn't water torture, they gave the contestants water, and the contestants freely drank it.
If it is true that a nurse called the station privately, and told them the risks, and they didn't stop, that does change things considerably for me -- once you know the risks, you ARE culpable, although I guess they would argue they didn't believe the person was a nurse or knew what they were talking about.
If I believed for a second that any of the people involved KNEW this was dangerous and did it anyway, I would want them thrown in jail. But at the moment, if it is true that nobody at the station had any idea of the danger, I don't think a lawsuit is in order for an action that was not known to be dangerous. It seems nobody at the station had any idea drinking water could be harmful, and neither did ANY of the contestants.
I guess I just don't get the rush to blaming. There are food-eating contests sponsored all over the world, with people eating enough that it would seem to be able to kill the average person. I would guess that they have medical personnel at those contests in case a person needs medical attention on the spot, but do those medical people follow the contestants home? Do the medical people not simply say at the start that the contest is stupid and risky?
What if they had brought in a doctor and the doctor said that and the people still took part. The woman was not sick until she got home, would the station still be culpable?
OK, I've made my point, or at least argued it as best I can. I guess they wouldn't want ME on the jury.
>>>OK, I've made my point, or at least argued it as best I can. I guess they wouldn't want ME on the jury.
Right, because you've made up your mind without hearing ALL of the evidence. I would not want you on a jury either.
"OK, I've made my point, or at least argued it as best I can. I guess they wouldn't want ME on the jury."
I wouldn't want you any jury either, whether I was the radio station or the family. Making judgments like this based on limited facts and how you think things ought to be is just as dangerous as liberal judges searching for the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution.
> OK, I've made my point, or at least argued it as best I can. I guess they wouldn't want ME on the jury.
I think you have raised some excellent points. Maybe they wouldn't want you on the Jury, but the Defense might well have an opening...
Cheers, mate
*DieHard*