Next time you say "harmless prank" remember this: Nurse from Kate hoax dead

GenericID wrote:

You are going to rest your case on a distinction without a difference.

But there is a difference, and I feel sorry for anyone who is so stupid that they can't make the distinction.

10/10 - you've managed to troll just about everyone here for way too long. Well done.

feel free to lighten up the world with fun pranks

If you have to consult a lawyer before pulling your "prank", then you aren't lightening up the world.

How do you not understand that?

Can I assume that you can't tell the difference then?

Seems like the money spent on your education might have been wasted.

This thread could go on forever and it will wind up being split down the middle of whether the DJs were at fault or not.

To those defending them, here's hoping the next time you are dealing with a personal problem, stress or illness that you are keeping private someone pranks you and says "Duuuuude, lighten up you gotta laugh!"

eotg wrote:

This thread could go on forever and it will wind up being split down the middle of whether the DJs were at fault or not.

I've not been one to say that the DJs were at fault - IMO it was a poor taste prank (obtaining private medical information about an ill pregnant woman and her unborn child is funny how? I think a lot of posters should be asking themselves if they'd like that to happen to them), and they couldn't necessarily have foreseen the consequences (although, given the history of Prince William's mother, I think they might have understood that media intrusion might have been more than usually hurtful), but in terms of fault there is an interesting legal principle to be considered.

In English tort law there is a principle called the "eggshell skull rule", which says that you take your victim as you find him. This rule states that the person is liable for ALL injuries to the person wronged, even if those injuries are much worse than could normally have been anticipated due to a pre-existing fallibility on the part of the victim, and even if the aggressor couldn't have feasibly known or detected the problem.

So, in tort law at least, the DJs could conceivably be responsible for the nurse's death, even if not criminally liable.

I don't know if this principle exists in US law, but it may explain the differing attitudes to the culpability of the DJs.

GenericID wrote:

You are going to rest your case on a distinction without a difference.

But there is a difference, and I feel sorry for anyone who is so stupid that they can't make the distinction.

Brilliant argument! Truly brilliant!

Debating skills? You're a moron!!!! and not even worth a response. In addition, you're wrong.

Recognizer of Lameness wrote:

GenericID wrote:

But there is a difference, and I feel sorry for anyone who is so stupid that they can't make the distinction.

Brilliant argument! Truly brilliant!

Better than yours.

I did not see this possible explanation for the horrible turn of events. I have worked for and with hospitals for 25 years. There are some mid-level people who have power-hungry egos and protect their little departmental fiefdom through intimidation and threats to the staff.

It is possible that the nurse who sadly took her life was reprimanded severely by her supervisors. Maybe they wanted to pass blame onto her for the phone call transfer and subsequent release of information. Perhaps this nurse has already been in her supervisor's sights for some previous infringement. Perhaps she was going to lose her job or suffer some indignity publicly.

I have seen irrational supervisors and bureaucratic idiocy affect hard working, well-meaning people in hospitals. Perhaps this nurse was fragile already and suddenly the weight of her bosses was coming down on her.

Perhaps the DJs were not the direct cause of the death, and someone else is responsible and going to get away with it.

Flaggy, is this different than internet bullying? People have been prosecuted before for internet bullying that led to suicide.

How say you?

No, I think he beat ya and pretty good at that. Back to your parent's basement Generic Idiot.....hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Good question codger. I think the difference there lies in intent. The purpose of bullying is to cause stress and grief upon another person. I don't believe that was the intent of the DJs. If you've seen their video-taped response now, you can see that they are both distraught over this. They said they never dreamed anyone would believe their "silly voices". It wasn't live either...it was taped and then "vetted" by the radio station. If these two are fired over this, then they are just scapegoats for what the radio station sanctioned.Both DJs said they would meet face-to-face with the family if that would help the family in any way. Again, I'm no fan of pranks, but for them to be saddled with guilt over the death of a woman who had some mental instability...that's just too much for me to agree to.

the nurse was murdered. royal family is setting an example. don't f*** with them or get in their way. They can get rid of you quickly, and make it seem like an "accident" or "suicide" with no questions asked by the police. when your rich you can get away with breaking rules. when you are royal, you make, bend and destroy rules with no repercussion

yyyy wrote:

What if Heather Utrata or Jason Richardson were to commit suicide after a Let's Run thread attack?

Then they shouldn't have put themselves in the public eye if they couldn't handle the criticism. And let there be no doubt, those two have put themselves squarely in the public eye, none of us would have ever heard of either if they hadn't.