Staffer @ KDND plans to turn over evidence on colleagues to prosecution...

[godofirony]

I have one word for all of this....

KARMA.

Flame away. ;D

 

[Element9]

Paul, I wasn't making light of the situation by calling out the rat.

I didn't think you were. Apologies if you perceived my post that way. Tough to interpret intent, or tone-of-voice via text. I do think ratting is weak. Guess it comes from upbringing. Come as a crew...go as a crew. If you knew it was wrong, and did nothing at the time, you're culpable.

I'm reading this thread and shaking my head. What the hell is the deal, ladies and gentlemen?

"Ratting out?"

How about "doing the right thing." What is this, the "omerta" and the mafia (which of course we all know does not exist) rules? Is the station GM Tony Sopprano?

How about some props for somebody who might have a conscience and a morsel of remorse, realizing somebody DIED as a result of a stupid, lamea$$ stunt. Even without debating the potential criminal and/or civil extent of the charges, how about giving somebody praise for stepping up? How is it that anybody can jump to a conclusion about one person's decision to offer testimony?

At the military academies, plebes are indoctrinated with the code to do the right thing in order to uphold the honor of the institutions. It may be a stretch to eqaute West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force academy with the radio business (pristine as we all know it to be), but I'd sooner give the person who's come forth with testimony credit for being a citizen, rather than calling him/her a "rat."

-9-

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Coming forward gets the inevitable subpoena out of the way.

You think whoever this person is wasn't going to compelled to provide information by subpoena?

Question for the panel: if the choice is tell what you know or go to jail for contempt, and you talk--are you still a rat? If so, does that mean that the station and your "friendships" come first, or does adhering to the law intervene?

 

[Neanderpaul]

It comes down to timing.

The sudden awareness of conscience is self-preservation.

In my opinion, if there were an issue, and this individual felt it to be wrong, they should have called whomever was in a position of authority at the time. Or, he/she should have walked away. There's no grey area. It's black & white.

Selective honor is not something that should be praised. Right and wrong are universal, and if you think something wrong, it should be wrong from the beginning. Waiting until after the fact makes one no less responsible for one's actions.

Hindsight is always 20/20...especially when you're staring down a lawsuit, and the end of your professional career.

Were this accident to not have happened, would this staffer have stepped forward and voiced their concern?

So yes...I think the term "rat" applies. This staffer is "jumping ship" to save their own skin. Not quite as opportunistic as Mancow, but just as self-serving.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

I just can't believe that a thread I posted to bring forth intellegent discussion about the latest developments has resulted in name calling once again. But the profile of a sociopath (which are the people that commit the most crimes in the world) is someone who blames others and never excepts responsibility for their actions. So I guess the past few responses should have been expected. And, those folks would have to agree with that opinion, because that is the stance they've taken in this arguement all along. So much for a discussion without back biting.

 

[Neanderpaul]

I believe I've been pretty clear in my stanc on taking responsibility for one's actions.

On both sides.

You did it. Live with the reuslts. No cutting deals to save your skin

 

[cabradio]

But, you're right about one thing, Paul. This isn't the Scott Peterson case. Here we have a cause of death, witnesses, and everything is on tape.

DE

Consider this: "everything on tape" was a PRODUCTION...part of a SHOW. They may not have been ACTUALLY making an admission. It may have been part of the HYPE, the EXCITEMENT to keep people listening.

It would be like having a "Gun" prop for a play...and the director is true to his art and wants a REAL GUN. A scene in the play calls for someone to be "murdered"...the actor pulls the trigger and BAM! A real bullet is fired and someone dies a tragic accidental death...we'll say for this example that everyone knew it was a real gun, because the "director" bragged to the press about it, etc...but no one had the sense to check it for real ammo. Logic would tell you the "director" should have, the "prop" person should have and the "actor" firing it should have, and ESPECIALLY the guy being shot should have (I know I would! - personal responsibility, take nothing for granted!)....but they all thought each other already had.

So, we know it's not guns that kill people, but people kill people. And it isn't a bad idea to have a real gun in the play, as long as there is NO REAL AMMO...I'm sure real guns are used all the time. But...due to "negligence", or "stupidity" in this example...the gun wasn't checked, resulting in tragic death.

I see the tragic accident with Mrs Strange the same way...the morning show was doing their job, ENTERTAINING the audience. They made remarks that NOW are reckless about "people in the contest dieing, make sure he signs the waver...hahahahaha...." it's a sarcastic remark, very reckless and damning to who said it, but THEN it was all part of ENTERTAINING the audience. "We should have researched this...hahahahaha"...again, it elicits a response from the listeners. It was not an admission of how much or how little research was done. They are like the "actor" in my example, holding the gun but they don't know it's loaded. They were PLAYING THEIR PART for the audience. The audience would expect no less! And they WERE NOT EXPECTING SOMEONE TO DIE. The result was not foreseeable. How can their "SHOW" be used against them as admission of guilt? I don't see it. These people are ENTERTAINERS, maybe not "actors" per se as there is no script to memorize, but they were PLAYING TO THE AUDIENCE, or CALLERS in these examples.

And AGAIN...this HAS TO BE CONSIDERED (by this panel...I know legally it won't be): Nothing would have been said about the event being "deadly" if Mrs Strange had not died. This contest simply an event gone awry...

I know I am in the minority as far a popular opinion here. And I suppose it is possible that the staff "knew" death was a "probability" (not possibility, but PROBABILTY). And if they truly did this against each others better judgment, or without proper consultation from their supervisors, then there are deeper consequences to suffer. But I have a hard time believing that ALL 10 people "knew better" and did it anyway. That's alot of people to go against a "collective conscience" of right and wrong. If they did have "adequate knowledge" that death was a PROBABILITY, someone, at least ONE PERSON out of the 10 would have said something to a manager before the contest started. Wouldn't they have? I mean, considering the PROBABILITY???

 

[radioman78]

As far as I know, there is only 1 staffer that remains at 107.9, besides a couple jocks, and I seriously doubt that that person would "rat out" anyone. If it was a fired person, then you have to wonder if they are just saying what people want to hear to save their own ass.

Personal opinion.

 

[Chris_Rose]

Charlie,

With all due respect, your gun analogy does not apply well to this situation. For one thing, if someone were killed by a gun, whether in a play or not, it would IMMEDIATELY be considered a homicide investigation (as well it should be). Unless of course the death occurred in a Russian roulette type scenario, in which case it would have been a murder/suicide investigation (I watch alot of "The First 48 Hours").

Introducing a firearm into any situation dramatically changes things from a legal and "risk assessment" standpoint.

 

[cabradio]

Charlie,

With all due respect, your gun analogy does not apply well to this situation. For one thing, if someone were killed by a gun, whether in a play or not, it would IMMEDIATELY be considered a homicide investigation (as well it should be). Unless of course the death occurred in a Russian roulette type scenario, in which case it would have been a murder/suicide investigation (I watch alot of "The First 48 Hours").

Introducing a firearm into any situation dramatically changes things from a legal and "risk assessment" standpoint.

I think most people here will agree the SPIRIT of my analogy is fine.

You don't agree with me, so you find a reason to pick what I post apart. That's cool...it is what it is.

 

[radioman78]

quick legal question though... didn't the death at Chico State under simular circumstances set a legal precident that would make the KDND case a manslaughter case reguardless of intent? So it does not matter who you feel is to blame, in the end it will be KDND since they hosted the contest and did not disclose all the information on the contest or the posible health risks... just like that Frat at Chico State.

 

[Neanderpaul]

quick legal question though... didn't the death at Chico State under simular circumstances set a legal precident that would make the KDND case a manslaughter case reguardless of intent? So it does not matter who you feel is to blame, in the end it will be KDND since they hosted the contest and did not disclose all the information on the contest or the posible health risks... just like that Frat at Chico State.

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect that forced ingestion vs. coerced ingestion will play a significant role.

If it's ruled that she was somehow "forced" into continuing in the contest, they're probably screwed.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Forced? Coerced?

You are aware, of course, that whether the ingestion of water was "forced" or "coerced" makes absolutely no difference in the effect of water intoxication...

 

[cabradio]

Re: Forced? Coerced?

You are aware, of course, that whether the ingestion of water was "forced" or "coerced" makes absolutely no difference in the effect of water intoxication...

What matters is JUST EXACTLY HOW MUCH water was "forced" (the choice to stop was not available) and also whether any exertion (to the point of sweating) is involved, as that contributes GREATLY to the THREAT of water intoxication...death because of water intoxication outside of the standards quoted in various websites you quoted is still very rare. My interview with a Water Intoxication Expert happens Thursday...audio will be posted.

 

[mistermicrophone]

I'm reading this thread and shaking my head. What the hell is the deal, ladies and gentlemen?

"Ratting out?"

How about "doing the right thing." What is this, the "omerta" and the mafia (which of course we all know does not exist) rules? Is the station GM Tony Sopprano?

How about some props for somebody who might have a conscience and a morsel of remorse, realizing somebody DIED as a result of a stupid, lamea$$ stunt. Even without debating the potential criminal and/or civil extent of the charges, how about giving somebody praise for stepping up? How is it that anybody can jump to a conclusion about one person's decision to offer testimony?

At the military academies, plebes are indoctrinated with the code to do the right thing in order to uphold the honor of the institutions. It may be a stretch to eqaute West Point, Annapolis and the Air Force academy with the radio business (pristine as we all know it to be), but I'd sooner give the person who's come forth with testimony credit for being a citizen, rather than calling him/her a "rat."

-9-

[/quote]

I want to clear up what I meant when I used the term "rat". You are 100% correct that there should be remorse and they should do the right thing, but when push comes to shove, the person who turns over the evidence is going to get less punishment than the rest. So I don't think that person suddenly had the urge to make things right as much as they were looking out for me, myself and I.

In my opinion, the right thing would be for everyone involved to tell the truth and accept their punishment accordingly.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: Forced? Coerced?

You are aware, of course, that whether the ingestion of water was "forced" or "coerced" makes absolutely no difference in the effect of water intoxication...

No but it does matter in deciding who's ultimately responsible.

You have your opinion. I have mine. Never the two shall meet. I get it.

And we still don't know for sure that it was water intoxication. Autopsy results have yet to be released. What if it turns out she died from a lethal combination of her drinking water, and her ingesting a blood thinning medication? Or what if she popped a blood vessel in her sleep? We don't know. Yes, she drank a lot of water. Yes, it is possible that she could have died due to her actions. But, she also could've taken aspirin that accelerated the body's metabolism.

She very well could have died from whatever behavior she engaged in after this contest. Could the amount of water in her system contribute to it? Yes. But, had she not possibly done something in concert with over-ingestion of water that would contribute to her accidental death, she may still be here.

Remember, none of your citations have shown an example of this actually happening to a normal, healthy adult. They've all contained additional factors that contributed to the death. Until we hear otherwise, there's a much more likely scenario in which she did, or consumed something that caused this result than that she just overdrank water.

Your agenda is to slam the station, and find fault with those who created the environment in which she could do herself harm. You have never once held the individual accountable for their own behavior, or considered any other scenario than the one that meets your agenda.

When we see viable proof of your accusations, we can consider your point of view. Until then..nobody is guilty of anything. All possible scenarios must be viable.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Blah, blah, blah

Remember, none of your citations have shown an example of this actually happening to a normal, healthy adult. They've all contained additional factors that contributed to the death. Until we hear otherwise, there's a much more likely scenario in which she did, or consumed something that caused this result than that she just overdrank water.

That red herring has already been answered several times. Yes, there are examples cited in previous posts that normal, healthy adults have died from consuming too much water. Your perception of "additional factors" is self-serving, and not based on fact. One simple example is the Army trainee. He simply drank too much water, his blood was diluted, and he died during treatment. Your contention that he was "forced" makes no difference to the physiology of the condition, which has been outlined several times.

None of this has anything to do with the "ratting out" discussion, and whether offering valid, truthful testimony as to the actions of others is heroic or heinous.

 

[DeadElvis]

You know, I continue to read with a degree of pause this discussion attributing Ms. Strange's death to "additional factors." I am not sure what sort of factors we are talking about (and, really, neither do the posters) but, there is an important legal issue here.

Every first year law student leans that, "a Defendant takes a Plaintiff as he finds him." What that means is that even if Ms. Strange had some sort of unusual susceptibility to excessive water loading, it just ain't that important. The Defendant is still responsible, and should be. If, for instance, Ms. Strange took some medications that slowed her metabolism, or had strenuously exercised prior to the event, legally, it just doesn't matter.

And, again, despite what posters may find by searching the Internet, the ill effects of excessive water loading are simply basic (so basic, in fact, it was on an E.R. episode once, if memory serves). It's something every medical professional learns about (I know... ending a sentence in a preposition. Sorry). This is why when you get IV fluids, you get saline, NOT plain sterile water. Did I get this from Wikipedia? No; I got this from real professionals with letters after their names. And, again, as has already been pointed out, ingesting such unreasonable amount of water as Ms. Strange was given could have brought other nasty outcomes, but again, we'll leave that for another day.

Now, I understand these can be weighty, difficult issues. So, confusion here is understandable; it's OK. But, it does illustrate why such discussions are often best left to those with the backgrounds to understand what is actually going on.

It's pretty clear to this disinterested observer that some posters have hidden agendas. I am just sure what those agendas are.

DE

 

[Chris_Rose]

I am just sure what those agendas are.

DE

NOT!

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Now, I understand these can be weighty, difficult issues. So, confusion here is understandable; it's OK. But, it does illustrate why such discussions are often best left to those with the backgrounds to understand what is actually going on.

I'm a midday jock in Buffalo. No initials after my name now, although I did a stretch in purgatory as Production Director, PD and Ops Mgr at a moderately successful news-talk station for ten years.

No disrespect to the people who burned the midnight oil through three years of law school or 12 years of med school, including internships and residencies, but it might surprise some people as to how lucid a bunch of average men and women (without initials after their names) can be when considering evidence and returning a just verdict.

Having been on a jury in a case where the defendant was charged with murder in the second degree (killing one of her children, no less) I know the gravity of such an assignment. No written notes are allowed for jurors in NY state. The law can be abstruse, but the jury did a commendable job deliberating and returning a verdict that was based on consideration of the facts as presented by the prosecution and defense. It wasn't L-A Law, Law & Order or CSI. It was reality.

In NY state, convictions in such cases are subject to appeal by an appellate court, which affirmed the original verdict. Ironically, my oldest son is an attorney who clerked at the appellate level (but did not review this case.)

The opinions and arguments expressed on this board, for the most part, are well-reasoned and the stuff of which juries are made.

I believe KDND conceived this promotion not with the intent to harm or injure. The station and it's employees may have been unwitting dupes and dolts, but they are nonetheless responsible for their actions which resulted in the death of a mother and wife. To what degree these employees are culpable, only a court, judge and jury will determine.

I'd suggest Entercom establish a trust fund to benefit the family members. It cannot replace the life that has been lost. I'd also recommend that a considerable portion of the cluster's pre-tax (EDITDA) be directed to that fund for a period of at least ten years. In all probability, there will be an substantial settlement.

As to the license of KDND, the offense is egregious, but revoking the license seems extreme. Perhaps the greatest and most fitting punishment is the damaged reputation the station and frequency will always bear, somewhat like the city of Dallas, "where Kennedy was killed."

As to Mancow? Clearly transparent posturing. Laughable, if it weren't so pathetically lame.