Manslaughter Legal In Utah?

[RandFan]

This is really bothering me.

Man Dies of Thirst During Survival Outing (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/man-dies-of-thirst-during-survival/20070502141309990001?cid=842)

Pale, wracked by cramps, his speech slurred, the 29-year-old New Jersey man was desperate for water and hallucinating so badly he mistook a tree for a person.

After going roughly 10 hours without a drink in the 100-degree heat, he finally dropped dead of thirst, face down in the dirt, less than 100 yards from the goal: a cave with a pool of water.

But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness.


And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day.

...

Noting Buschow signed liability waivers, the school said: "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating."

Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?

[Cylinder]

One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person.

[slingblade]

This is really bothering me.



Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?

I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to. :mad:

[RandFan]

One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person.That's what I figured.

From the article.

Garfield County authorities declined to file charges, saying there was insufficient evidence the school acted with criminal negligence. The prosecutor said participants knew they were taking a risk.Ok, so? And how is their insufficient evidence? Isn't it prima facie? What does "experts with water" and a guy exhibiting dehydration and then dying of dehydration add up to?

[shuize]

Prosecutorial discretion. I've seen plenty of cases charged that I thought were crap and probably as many dropped by prosecutors that I thought had merit.

My first question as part a the civil suit might just be, "So, why were you carrying emergency water again?"

[KingMerv00]

Sounds like a malpractice case to me. Considering their line of work, the experts should know what dehydration looks like.

The guides had a legal duty to their clients and failed to follow through. As near as I can tell from the story anyway.

[davefoc]

I"m inclined to see this as the right decision based on the facts as they were presented. For me it is a close call and a more detailed understanding of the facts might make me change my mind.

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.

I have some experience hiking and mountain bike riding in high temperatures and the conditions described in the article are worse than anything I would have voluntarily taken part in. Low humidity, 100 degree temperatures are not much of a problem for most people if they aren't moving. But that situation changes very quickly if somebody is walking. Ten hours of walking without water in that kind of environment would be extremely dangerous so I am also sympathetic to the view that the organizers of this thing should at least be subject to some kind of civil penalties.

[Beerina]

On the other hand, the customers have a right to expect their guides to behave in a reasonable manner within the bounds of law and the contract. If they can't tell dangerous dehydration, they have no business doing that kind of work.

IANAL, I, too, wonder if you can waive away civil penalties for the portion that are criminal activities.

[Miss Anthrope]

I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to. :mad:

Exactly my thoughts. Carrying water and choosing to allow someone to die is absolutely appalling, and it should be criminal.

[ponderingturtle]

I am thinking about this vs the Hold your Wee for a Wii case. In this they clearly knew of the danger had prepared for it, and did not act to prevent a death. In that one they ignored the danger, where not prepared to act.

Is one more reprehensible than the other and why?

[Tmy]

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

[KingMerv00]

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

(Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...)

They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure.

Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations?

[Tmy]

(Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...)

They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure.

Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations?

Well they DID have water with them.

Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water?
Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

[Lonewulf]

Well they DID have water with them.

Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water?
Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

This example is relevant how, again?

Let me quote the relevant bits again, just in case you missed it.

But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness.


And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day.

Here's an answer that's relevant: You have a heart attack in front of a doctor, and he sits and watches you amusedly without trying to save your life. Is he okay then?

[Miss Anthrope]

Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

No, but they would most likely be held liable if they refused to call an ambulance using those phones they have installed in the amusement park.
There are warning signs outside of most roller coasters, so the person took the risk. Refusing the man reasonable assistance once something bad happened is another issue altogether. And a more appropriate analogy.

[slingblade]

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

[Miss Anthrope]

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

I hear ya.

[derail]
Hey, did your stuff happen today? Everything ok?
[/derail}

[Lonewulf]

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

Agreed.

[RandFan]

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.?

"Wuss", is that a medical term? How does dying make one a wuss? I though wuss was a mental thing. This guy was pushed to the point of death. He went on a death march. That's not being a wuss. Oh, and BTW, they made him dump out extra water he got from a stream.

What the hell does it mean "they probably thought he could hang"? One would think that "experts" would be able to recognize garden variety dehydration severe enough to cause death. If not, did the organization warn potential customers that their "experts" were incapable of rudimentary first aid? Absent that I think most reasonable people would conclude that the experts wouldn't push anyone to the point of death. And let's be honest here, forcing the victim to empty his water bottle was pushing him to the point of death. Not giving a severely dehydrated man water is pushing that person to the point of death.

In any event, your post is an excellent example of depraved indifference. Thank you. Object lessons are the best kind.

[casebro]

Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water.

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.

[Earthborn]

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death:They wanted him to dig deep, push himself beyond his known limits, and make it to the cave on his own. (...) "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating." (...) BOSS emphasizes personal growth through adversity, and using your wits to survive. (...) The course is intended to push people "past those false limits your mind has set for your body." (...) "Somewhere along the many miles of sagebrush flats, red rock canyons, and mesa tops of Southern Utah - somewhere between the thirst, the hunger and the sweat - you'll discover the real destination: yourself," (...) Some people vomited that day, including a man who got sick three times - a typical misery on the rigorous course, according to BOSS. (...) "One thing that BOSS offers you is an opportunity to push yourself physically into the red zone.I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers. :mad:

[quixotecoyote]

Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them?

[slingblade]

I know enough to know that thirst is the first sign of dehydration, and even if we're doing a survival course, I know enough not to let that thirst go on too long.

But, hey, the moron got what he paid for, isn't that right? He went out to see if he could survive, and he didn't. Myth busted, or something. :mad:

[Earthborn]

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"?I think expert guide should at the very least mean "knowing that making people walk for hours in blazing heat without a drink is very unhealthy".

[RandFan]

Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water.

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.I can only keep repeating myself. You are asking the wrong questions.

It is reasonable for a person entering such a program to assume that the "experts" would have some modicum of ability to provide emergency treatment AND understand the inherent risks DIRECTLY related to the activity. Dehydration was without argument directly related. Anyone entering such a program would absolutely have an expectation of such a rudimentary understanding of perhaps the greatest threat of the entire ordeal. Hell, try googling dehydration and see if you can't get enough information to diagnose dehydration? Is it really too much to expect that these Einsteins would have some knowledge for such a risk?

So, the question becomes, did the experts know how to recognize dehydration?

There is no good answer to that question.

No means gross negligence.
Yes means depraved indifference.

[quixotecoyote]

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?

[RandFan]

Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them?Given that dehydration was the single greatest threat to the people they were responsible for and given that there is ample information available on the net to diagnose sever dehydration then I would have to say that they damn sure should have known how to recognize this guy was in serious trouble.

[RandFan]

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?Yes, I have to say yes. Human life is a bit too important to take so cavalierly.

And I will say again, a reasonable person would assume that such "experts" would be familiar with the single greatest threat facing them.

I'll repeat what someone else said earlier, what was the emergency water for exactly?

[Miss Anthrope]

:mgbanghead

Randfan, I feel your frustration. Can't even post because I can't presently reply without several rule 8 violations.

[The Atheist]

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does.


Nominated, as edited above, with reference to other post removed as irrelevant.

:bigclap

[davefoc]

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.


Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death:I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers. :mad:

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

[The Atheist]

Here's another interesting one for you, RandFan (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442627):

Woman dies after power disconnection for overdue bill cuts off her oxygen machine. The jury's still out on who's to blame, but it shows the cheapness of human life - $160.

The case you mentioned - couple of things to know; what were the instructions given before the start, did the person seek help and in what way. Any others I'd have to come up with, but one scenario struck me as possible - participants might be advised to stock up on water prior to starting and the deceased might not have. There are always a few variables, but good spot.

[Kerberos]

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.

[RandFan]

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.I keep harping on it but if a leader of a Mt. Everest expedition knew of a specific risk and let one of the people in his party die because he or she did nothing to mitigate the risk then I think they would be negligent. How would they not be? It sounds like you have found a legal way to murder someone. If you are into watching people die then this is a great way to do it, assuming you are right and there is no responsibility on the part of the people who should be responsible.

But I don't think that is realistic. I don't think any of us really believe that once a person signs up for a risky endeavor that all bets are off and the leaders have zero responsibility. Do you really believe that?

The point is should the so called "experts" have known when the victim had become seriously dehydrated? I can't see how anyone can say no. Given that this is one of the most significant risks if not the most significant risks then the answer has to be yes.

[RandFan]

The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.Good point. Also, the guy lost the ability to see color.

There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to address it.

What was the emergency water for?

[slingblade]

I've no problem addressing it.

The emergency water should have been for use in medical emergencies, such as severe dehydration. That they brought it shows someone knew this was a possibility and prepared for it. It shows someone wasn't supposed to let matters get as far as they did.

It shows this wasn't supposed to be a real do-or-die adventure, that there were limits, and someone knew that, and prepared for the eventuality of one of the clients meeting that limit prematurely and needing the farking water that no one gave him.

He was just another walking wallet. Until he stopped walking, that is.

[Ove]

I am one of those old enough to remember the horrible tv pictures of a severely dehydrated female marathon runner staggering around the stadium before she collapsed. Nobody stopped her because "they wouldn't spoil her chances of finishing" (she wasn't even among the first). She was lucky, she survived but it was clearly stated afterwards that officials should have intervened and stopped her.
In this case you have trained survival guides, carrying water, watching a man die of dehydration. THERE IS NO EXCUSE... They have far exceeded their mandate. They are there to ensure the participants safety. They have failed to live up to that responsibility and a man has died. They must be punished. EOS!!!!

[mhaze]

This is really bothering me.



Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?
The rights of relatives of the deseased are not limited by the signed paperwork.

But some states-CO for example - have laws to specifically protect operators in dangerous sports.

[3point14]

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?

If it is possible to judge, then the 'experts' were either criminally negligent or in the wrong job.

If it isn't possible to judge, should they really be promoting these sort of 'adventures'?

[ponderingturtle]

This example is relevant how, again?

Let me quote the relevant bits again, just in case you missed it.



Here's an answer that's relevant: You have a heart attack in front of a doctor, and he sits and watches you amusedly without trying to save your life. Is he okay then?

Bad analogy, because the doctor might not have any duty to act in that situation. This would be like if you are visiting your doctor and have a heart attack, they are in charge and supposed to be professionals who know how to do this safer than others.

[ponderingturtle]

No, but they would most likely be held liable if they refused to call an ambulance using those phones they have installed in the amusement park.
There are warning signs outside of most roller coasters, so the person took the risk. Refusing the man reasonable assistance once something bad happened is another issue altogether. And a more appropriate analogy.

Amusement parks also have EMT's on staff to respond to such events.

[Lonewulf]

Bad analogy, because the doctor might not have any duty to act in that situation.

Okay. So you are saying that he can sit there and watch me die, and still be in the clear?

Not even trying to get me any help? At all?

[ponderingturtle]

Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water.

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.

So you would also not be surprised if someone started acting drunk when you where with them and all they drank is water? You are now guilty of gross negligence, like those who killed Matthew Carrington got convicted of.

Recognizing that when someone mental status changes with no explanation that you are aware of is one of the most important things you can do for someone, you would seem to be more the point and laugh when someone is having a stroke.

Identifying change in mental status is what would have saved this man, Jennifer Strange and Matthew Carrington, all died related to consumption of water as well.

[ponderingturtle]

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

The thing here is that they had the ability to save the persons life and through incompetence or malice chose not to. If the mount everest people did the same I would very well hope that they would also be charged.

It boils down to are they taking acceptable precautions for their activity? They had emergency water so they might well be taking the precautions but they did not act on them so they denied this man the emergency water that they had.

[ponderingturtle]

Here's another interesting one for you, RandFan (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442627):

Woman dies after power disconnection for overdue bill cuts off her oxygen machine. The jury's still out on who's to blame, but it shows the cheapness of human life - $160.


Well she could have called an ambulance and gotten their oxygen. If it had been a power or mechanical failure and she died because she did not call for help, it would be entirely her fault.

Also she should have been able to breath on her own enough from the article as home care like that is not intended for such situations where having a machine stop working results in the death of the patient quickly.

[ponderingturtle]

Good point. Also, the guy lost the ability to see color.

There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to address it.

What was the emergency water for?

I think this is quite clear, only the Guides.

[ponderingturtle]

I am one of those old enough to remember the horrible tv pictures of a severely dehydrated female marathon runner staggering around the stadium before she collapsed. Nobody stopped her because "they wouldn't spoil her chances of finishing" (she wasn't even among the first). She was lucky, she survived but it was clearly stated afterwards that officials should have intervened and stopped her.
In this case you have trained survival guides, carrying water, watching a man die of dehydration. THERE IS NO EXCUSE... They have far exceeded their mandate. They are there to ensure the participants safety. They have failed to live up to that responsibility and a man has died. They must be punished. EOS!!!!

Oddly enough now over hydration is a much larger problem than dehydration ever was in marathons. It causes more hospitalizations.

[ponderingturtle]

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

I decided this when I heard people who said "Never Again will we sit silently when genocide happens" start debates over the definition of genocide to make their previous statement not invalid.

Largely people don't care, but they often don't want to look like they don't care.

Then again what specifically has you or I done about Darfur?

[Lonewulf]

I think this is quite clear, only the Guides.

Only the guides? So emergency water can't be used to save a life, because it's supposed to be for the guides?

I'm not sure I want to live in your world, where you can take someone out into the desert and kill them and get off scott free.

[a_unique_person]

And from Australia.



AS A Melbourne man lay dying from heat-induced dehydration in a remote South Australian creek bed during a native American ritual known as a sweat lodge, his fellow campers believed he was astral travelling and banged drums to return him to earth.
An inquest on the death of Rowan Cooke, 37, of Glenroy, heard yesterday that he was camping with 10 others from Victoria on an isolated property in the Gammon Ranges, in South Australia's far north, undergoing an eight-day ritual of fasting, meditation and purification.
On November 3, 2004, he and another man, Adrian Asfar, then 22, were dragged unconscious from the sauna-like tent after a third occupant, Maureen Collier, called out in distress.
Counsel assisting the coroner, Amy Davis, told the South Australian Coroners Court that both men were breathing and were put in the coma position.
"It was considered by some of the campers that they may have been astral travelling or in a deep meditative state," Ms Davis said.
The campers attempted to revive them by banging drums, chanting, burying their feet in soil and massaging their hands, Ms Davis said.




Banging drums? Eveyone knows you sit around in a circle singing Kumbaya.

[ponderingturtle]

Okay. So you are saying that he can sit there and watch me die, and still be in the clear?

Not even trying to get me any help? At all?

They would be in the same situation that anyone else would be in. I think the exception to that is New Hampshire where if you have emergency medical training you must act regardless of your position.

Now these things are complicated because one a doctor or EMT acts it totally changes their responsibility and what they can do. For example as an EMT if I started treating someone I would have to continue treatment until an ambulance got there, because I would need to transfer care to someone of equal or greater training, and I would not have the right legal wavers for them to refuse treatment. A paramedic could need to go with the ambulance to the hospital if it did not have a paramedic on board.

In my old ambulance corps we had forms specifically to let doctors take charge and then they must go to the hospital because they can not transfer care to us and need a doctor.

[ponderingturtle]

Only the guides? So emergency water can't be used to save a life, because it's supposed to be for the guides?

I'm not sure I want to live in your world, where you can take someone out into the desert and kill them and get off scott free.

I am not advocating this, but it must have been only for the guides as if it was for a dieing participant they would have used it right?

[davefoc]

The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.

A reasonable point and similar to RandFan's point in his subsequent post.

Looking at it this way the question becomes what was the intent of the expedition leaders as the client died of dehydration. I think there is a fairly high threshold for proof of intent to engage in reckless behavior for a manslaughter conviction.

So what were the symptoms exhibited by the victim? How aware of those symptoms were the hike leaders? How similar to the symptoms exhibited by the victim were the symptoms of others that routinely survived these outings? Were there other factors that contributed to the man's death that the hike leaders were unaware of?

My assumption is that when the hike leaders became aware that the man was at serious risk that they did what they could for him. Clearly they were putting their clients at some risk with the exercise, but it also seems unlikely that they believed there was a serious risk of death or injury to the victim until it was too late. To disprove the contrary of this I think evidence of informed intentional indifference to the situation would need to be introduced.

As an aside, I think the issue here is whether this set of circumstances meets the requirements for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. I don't think there is any evidence presented in the article suggests the possibility that the hike leaders would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

[slingblade]

Then again what specifically has you or I done about Darfur?

I dunno about you.

I haven't the means to help much of anyone, including myself.

But I did see something on the news that I thought I could do (if I ever get my head screwed on straight again). I am considering setting up one of these events at the college, or at least suggesting it to those who could implement it:

http://www.beadforlife.org/

http://www.beadforlife.org/bpartylanding.html

but that's Uganda, not Darfur. Caring doesn't have to be money, although money really helps a lot. Which reminds me: I meant to post that site in Community a few days ago and got distracted. I shall do it now. Thanks for that, anyway.

But my comment was directed at attitudes, not means. Doesn't matter how much money you have; if you think people are basically scum, or don't think about other people at all, then you aren't likely to be willing to do much for them, regardless of means.

[RandFan]

I think this is quite clear, only the Guides.You are missing an important point. How would the "experts" know that they themselves were in an emergency and needed the water? Think about that. Had the guides not brought emergency water it would be easy enough to label the guides stupid. That they brought the water is rather telling.

So let me make certain I understand you. Knowing the inherent risks of their undertaking the guides took precaution to protect themselves in case of an emergency and took no similar precautions for the people under their care?

I think there is a term for that. Negligence.

Now, assuming that these "experts" could recognize when they themselves were in an emergency situation it is reasonable to assume that they knew this individual was also in an emergency situation, given that and knowing that they did nothing I think that would constitute depraved indifference?

I really don't know how you get around the facts of this case. That they brought emergency water suggests that they knew of the inherent risks and were indifferent at worst or grossly negligent at best in the care of the people who put their trust in them.

[RandFan]

A reasonable point and similar to RandFan's point in his subsequent post.

Looking at it this way the question becomes what was the intent of the expedition leaders as the client died of dehydration. I think there is a fairly high threshold for proof of intent to engage in reckless behavior for a manslaughter conviction.

So what were the symptoms exhibited by the victim? How aware of those symptoms were the hike leaders? How similar to the symptoms exhibited by the victim were the symptoms of others that routinely survived these outings? Were there other factors that contributed to the man's death that the hike leaders were unaware of?

My assumption is that when the hike leaders became aware that the man was at serious risk that they did what they could for him. Clearly they were putting their clients at some risk with the exercise, but it also seems unlikely that they believed there was a serious risk of death or injury to the victim until it was too late. To disprove the contrary of this I think evidence of informed intentional indifference to the situation would need to be introduced.

As an aside, I think the issue here is whether this set of circumstances meets the requirements for an involuntary manslaughter conviction. I don't think there is any evidence presented in the article suggests the possibility that the hike leaders would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter.You raise some fair points. We do need to be careful in our assumptions. We don't know precisely when the leaders knew this man was in serious trouble. We don't know when they knew he was hallucinating or when he lost the ability to see color.

That said, I can't at all agree with you about the evidence presented. Given the serious nature of this exercise (they brought emergency water) they should have:

Known ahead of time the warning signs to look for.
Explained the warning signs at the beginning of the exercise so everyone would know what those signs were.
Periodically monitored the group.I grew up a scout. I've been on countless small hikes and two 50 milers and one 75 miler in the High Uintas.

We were ALWAYS told of the dangers. Our hikes always were preceded by a meeting to discuss how to deal with emergencies. We were always told about dehydration. We were told about hypothermia. We were told about snakes. We were told poison oak and poison ivy. Our leaders kept a look out for us. Bear in mind, this was 30 years ago.

ETA: Telling your scout leader, "I've already done this meeting 5 times" DID NOT get you out of the meeting. Why do you suppose that was?

I'm sorry Dave, these guys were grossly negligent and I don't think there would be much trouble mounting a prosecution of these idiots today. There is just too much that is known about the inherent risks of being out doors. There is just too much information about dehydration on the net and in survival guides that detail the warning signs. It's this simple, if you are going to take the life of another and push it to the edge you better be damn sure you know where the ege is.

These guys either were clueless or just didn't give a damn.

You chose.

[ponderingturtle]

You are missing an important point. How would the "experts" know that they themselves were in an emergency and needed the water? Think about that. Had the guides not brought emergency water it would be easy enough to label the guides stupid. That they brought the water is rather telling.

So let me make certain I understand you. Knowing the inherent risks of their undertaking the guides took precaution to protect themselves in case of an emergency and took no similar precautions for the people under their care?

I think there is a term for that. Negligence.

Now, assuming that these "experts" could recognize when they themselves were in an emergency situation it is reasonable to assume that they knew this individual was also in an emergency situation, given that and knowing that they did nothing I think that would constitute depraved indifference?

I really don't know how you get around the facts of this case. That they brought emergency water suggests that they knew of the inherent risks and were indifferent at worst or grossly negligent at best in the care of the people who put their trust in them.

RandFan, I was positing the only solution I could think of to explain how they had water but did not use it, I was not saying that they where right or not responsible of such gross negligence/indiference that they should spend a while in prison.

[Earthborn]

These guys either were clueless or just didn't give a damn.There is a third possibility: that the leaders were themselves severely dehydrated and because of that impaired in their judgement. Maybe they would have been able to recognise the symptoms of the man and would have acted appropriately if they were themselves able to think clearly, but that does not mean they would be able to if they themselves lost 4 liters of fluid...

It would take away some of the blame from the leaders, but also show what a profoundly bad idea it is to organise trips into 'the red zone'.

[aggle-rithm]

About thirty years ago, it was common practice to deny high school football players water during practice to "toughen them up". After a few kids died, the policy was changed, and they were allowed to drink all the water they wanted.

I guess it only takes a few decades for people to forget such hard-learned lessons.

[aggle-rithm]

There is a third possibility: that the leaders were themselves severely dehydrated and because of that impaired in their judgement. Maybe they would have been able to recognise the symptoms of the man and would have acted appropriately if they were themselves able to think clearly, but that does not mean they would be able to if they themselves lost 4 liters of fluid...

It would take away some of the blame from the leaders, but also show what a profoundly bad idea it is to organise trips into 'the red zone'.

Yet another possibility...the guides weren't "experts" at all, but just some guys hired at minimum wage by the organizers and given cursory training. Perhaps they received certificates at the end of this training labeling them "experts".

The truth is, we don't know what all the extenuating circumstances might have been. It's unfair to judge any individual without knowing more, but I think something is definitely broken, here.

[The Atheist]

Well she could have called an ambulance and gotten their oxygen. If it had been a power or mechanical failure and she died because she did not call for help, it would be entirely her fault.

Also she should have been able to breath on her own enough from the article as home care like that is not intended for such situations where having a machine stop working results in the death of the patient quickly.

Even funnier, it's transpired today that despite owing $160 on the power bill, the couple were still up to date with their payments of $40 a week to their church.

No doubt god has a special spot for her.

[Darth Rotor]

Eveyone knows you sit around in a circle singing Kumbaya.
Wrong ceremony, Kumbaya is the death chant lamenting the UN.

DR

[Lensman]

Yet another possibility...the guides weren't "experts" at all, but just some guys hired at minimum wage by the organizers and given cursory training. Perhaps they received certificates at the end of this training labelling them "experts".

In which case the company organising the event should be criminally liable for not providing suitable personnel/training.

[ponderingturtle]

I dunno about you.

I haven't the means to help much of anyone, including myself.

But I did see something on the news that I thought I could do (if I ever get my head screwed on straight again). I am considering setting up one of these events at the college, or at least suggesting it to those who could implement it:

http://www.beadforlife.org/

http://www.beadforlife.org/bpartylanding.html

but that's Uganda, not Darfur. Caring doesn't have to be money, although money really helps a lot. Which reminds me: I meant to post that site in Community a few days ago and got distracted. I shall do it now. Thanks for that, anyway.

But my comment was directed at attitudes, not means. Doesn't matter how much money you have; if you think people are basically scum, or don't think about other people at all, then you aren't likely to be willing to do much for them, regardless of means.

I can't seem to think of a really good response, but fundamentally I just get so tired of people proving that they care about something, but not doing something effective about it.

I just don't think that caring is enough, look at Darfur, lots of world leaders have expressed how they care about what is going on, but they still don't actually do anything. So why should I believe that they care?

I just feel that people caring is simply not enough, they need to do something about it.

[Tmy]

Why should we coddle these thrill seekers? They dont care much about thier own lives but everyone else is supposed to held to some higher standard.

Its not like these guides expected the guy to die.

[ponderingturtle]

Why should we coddle these thrill seekers? They dont care much about thier own lives but everyone else is supposed to held to some higher standard.

Its not like these guides expected the guy to die.

Why should we coddle smokers and Ex-smokers, by treating them if they have life threatening medical problems only if they can afford it. They chose to smoke they should be the ones to pay for the consequences.

If we had hospitals throwing such people out to die in the streets then maybe people would think more before getting sick.

[Lonewulf]

Why should we coddle these thrill seekers?

Because maybe we care about human lives, and aren't actually obvious sociopaths? Or asshats?

They dont care much about thier own lives...

Astounding conclusion, Sherlock! Now pray tell give us the extraordinary evidence that leads up to your conclusion?

Taking a trip into the desert automatically means that you don't care much about your own life? ASTOUNDING!

...but everyone else is supposed to held to some higher standard.

What "higher standard"? This statement makes no sense. Please explain.

Its not like these guides expected the guy to die.

Why not? The guy was dehydrating, genius! There's signs for that, that someone that is supposed to be an EXPERT is supposed to be able to catch!

For that matter, are you saying that the individuals involved should have expected to die?


Slingblade was right about you. Sheeit, you're about as bad as any murderer.

[Miss Anthrope]

We need an award for best consistent use of the word "asshat". Lonewulf, there'd be no contest.

Ditto on the entire comment above. Well said. As usual.

[Lonewulf]

We need an award for best consistent use of the word "asshat". Lonewulf, there'd be no contest.

It isn't in the curse filter, and it's from Casey and Andy (http://galactanet.com/comic/). 'Nuff said.

Ditto on the entire comment above. Well said. As usual.

Thank you. :)

[aerosolben]

There is a third possibility: that the leaders were themselves severely dehydrated and because of that impaired in their judgement.
There's also a fourth possibility - that the man's symptoms were atypical. It's possible that the guides had sufficient training to recognize most dehydration cases, but this guy did not fall into that bucket. The guide's comments and the organization's previously clean track record suggest this. Personally, I think incompetence is more likely, but this is possible. Frankly, I think the judgment in this case could vary quite a bit based on further fact finding.

I'm also somewhat surprised at seeing so much support for the idea of malice on the part of the guides, when there is approximately zero support for that in the article. A guide stayed with him and encouraged him to continue, and resuscitation attempts began immediately after he collapsed. As for the suggestion that he was "just a wallet": they already had his money, and I'd wager that their business won't experience sudden growth after his death. They clearly underestimated the risk to his life, and the question is, who's fault is that?

[davefoc]

They clearly underestimated the risk to his life, and the question is, who's fault is that?

I agreed with what aerosoben had to say above. As to the question of who was at fault, barring some exculpatory evidence not contained in the article, I agree with Randfan, the guides were at fault.

Anybody that has ever hiked especially in hot areas has been bombarded with warnings about the serious risks associated with dehydration.. Probably anybody that has much experience at all with hiking has experienced some of the symptoms of dehydration and understands what a serious issue it can be from just personal experience. It is easy to foresee a situation in which death or serious health consequences are possible. One's ability to walk is severely impacted by dehydration so that as the need for water increases one's ability to get to water is being severely restricted.

[Miss Anthrope]

I just don't see having a conversation with a tree as an atypical symptom of dehydration.

[aerosolben]

I just don't see having a conversation with a tree as an atypical symptom of dehydration.
Good thing that didn't happen then.

He mistakenly identified as a tree as a person. I am not a survivalist, and I do not know the symptoms of dehydration. Nor do I know the circumstances of the identification. I do know that misrepresenting the facts in a polemic fashion is not conducive to reasonable discussion.

I note also earlier that you said the guide 'chose to allow him to die', which is something I frankly find a little offensive. Why do you feel the need to insert malice where none is evident?

[Earthborn]

There's also a fourth possibility - that the man's symptoms were atypical.It is entirely possible. I just think that if the guides were sufficiently informed and thinking clearly, they would have given the guy some water, whether they thought he was going to make it or whether they thought he was going to die. If you organise a trip under dangerous circumstances, there should be a healthy margin of error so you're not likely to get in a situation where people's lives depend on evaluation of symptoms. One should not cause people to suffer as much as possible and hope no one dies.

[Lonewulf]

It is entirely possible. I just think that if the guides were sufficiently informed and thinking clearly, they would have given the guy some water, whether they thought he was going to make it or whether they thought he was going to die. If you organise a trip under dangerous circumstances, there should be a healthy margin of error so you're not likely to get in a situation where people's lives depend on evaluation of symptoms. One should not cause people to suffer as much as possible and hope no one dies.

Depends, honestly. I mean, the bit about thrill seekers wasn't completely off the mark. Some people do go for "extreme sports", and do push the limit willingly. I'm not sure if they were willing to go without water and feel what it's like to be dehydrated for a while... I just don't know enough details.

Overall, though, my first instinct is to agree with you.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This is really bothering me.



Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?


Life is getting to be like one of those T.V. "REALITY" shows...I guess he got voted off the island big time!

[aerosolben]

If you organise a trip under dangerous circumstances, there should be a healthy margin of error so you're not likely to get in a situation where people's lives depend on evaluation of symptoms.
A margin of error IS an evaluation of symptoms (or, more generally, risks).

[Tmy]

The whole point of the game is to BE dehydrated. Its not like theres a clear cut point where you are really really thirsty vs deadly deyhydration. Im sure levels and reactions are different to all people.

Im sure there were times they gave people water, who then turned around and complained that their expensive survival trip was ruined by over protective guides.

[RandFan]

There's also a fourth possibility - that the man's symptoms were atypical. It's possible that the guides had sufficient training to recognize most dehydration cases, but this guy did not fall into that bucket. The guide's comments and the organization's previously clean track record suggest this. Personally, I think incompetence is more likely, but this is possible. Frankly, I think the judgment in this case could vary quite a bit based on further fact finding.

I'm also somewhat surprised at seeing so much support for the idea of malice on the part of the guides, when there is approximately zero support for that in the article. A guide stayed with him and encouraged him to continue, and resuscitation attempts began immediately after he collapsed. As for the suggestion that he was "just a wallet": they already had his money, and I'd wager that their business won't experience sudden growth after his death. They clearly underestimated the risk to his life, and the question is, who's fault is that?Good post.

We know that the man was delusional and lost all color in his vision. It could be that these are atypical but a Google search seems to link both to dehydration. I'm not a doctor. I do know that dehydration is a very serious threat to life and it would seem that anything beyond fatigue and severe discomfort would be very serious red flags. It most certainly would be when I was on a hike. An individual who lost all color in his vision and was delusional would likely have ended the hike. However, if it turns out that these are typical symptoms for this kind of activity I would be wiling to rethink my position.

As for malice, we know that the guides blamed the victim for the outcome. Aside from being rather crass it would seem to me to perhaps paint a picture of machismo. To them (the guides) this guy was weak.

I think a case could be brought and won. However I'm neither a doctor or lawyer so take it for what it's worth.

[RandFan]

The whole point of the game is to BE dehydrated. Its not like theres a clear cut point where you are really really thirsty vs deadly deyhydration. Im sure levels and reactions are different to all people.

Im sure there were times they gave people water, who then turned around and complained that their expensive survival trip was ruined by over protective guides. You're "sure"? Right.

I think loss of color in one's vision and delusion serious signs. Clear cut point? Perhaps not. Serious signs that should warrant some emergency water? Given the risk I think so. I think ignoring such signs moves the activity from very risky to suicidal. JMO based on my limited experience and understanding.

[strathmeyer]

The whole point of the game is to BE dehydrated. Its not like theres a clear cut point where you are really really thirsty vs deadly deyhydration. Im sure levels and reactions are different to all people.

Im sure there were times they gave people water, who then turned around and complained that their expensive survival trip was ruined by over protective guides.

Huh? What game are you talking about? Do you really think that there are dehydrated people that don't want people giving them water? I can't even begin to comprehend the stupidity of this idea. It has, in fact, made me stupid. I can't believe I already wasted using this picture once today:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_669146687ca1ab15b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6233)

[ponderingturtle]

Huh? What game are you talking about? Do you really think that there are dehydrated people that don't want people giving them water? I can't even begin to comprehend the stupidity of this idea. It has, in fact, made me stupid. I can't believe I already wasted using this picture once today:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_669146687ca1ab15b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6233)

I believe it, but that comes from not believing that they where as close to death as they where. Watch that Everest show that was on discovery, and there was a guy who pressed on even though all the pro's where telling him he could well die if he did not stop.

They also had to walk right past a dieing man because there was nothing they could do for him. This is nothing like that.

[aerosolben]

Good post.
Thanks.

We know that the man was delusional and lost all color in his vision.
There is no mention in the article of losing color vision. Where is this from?

Further, while the article describes him as delusional, it only provides one incident, which frankly is not terribly convincing (to me) on its own. I've done similar things when coherent myself. There are a number of potential circumstances in which the comment could be taken as innocuous, especially in isolation.

There's a comment from a camper suggest he/she thought it was delirium, that may be just analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Did they relay their concerns to the guides, or take other action to get him some water at the time?

I do know that dehydration is a very serious threat to life and it would seem that anything beyond fatigue and severe discomfort would be very serious red flags. It most certainly would be when I was on a hike. An individual who lost all color in his vision and was delusional would likely have ended the hike. However, if it turns out that these are typical symptoms for this kind of activity I would be wiling to rethink my position.
I contend that the slant of the article may be pushing more evidence for dehydration than was actually available at the time.

As for malice, we know that the guides blamed the victim for the outcome.
Not true. We know the owner of the school (who was not on the trip) blamed the victim. It was indeed crass.

I think a case could be brought and won. However I'm neither a doctor or lawyer so take it for what it's worth.
I think a case could be brought. Could it be won?

I'm neither a doctor or a lawyer myself. I was not present for these events - I probably do not have all the facts. However, the county prosecutor (who hopefully does) thinks such a case has no merit. The camper who attempted resuscitation, who is trained in wilderness first aid, appears to think the evidence for dangerous dehydration was not compelling. It's possible that they are incompetent or corrupt, and a second investigation would lead to different findings.

In the absence of such evidence, I lean towards a verdict of incompetence that does not rise to the level of criminality (burden of proof and all that). I'd speculate that the guides were trained in a manner considered reasonable at the time, encountered an incident that exceeded their training, and will now receive additional training in an effort to prevent such incidents from re-occurring.

[RandFan]

There is no mention in the article of losing color vision. Where is this from? I first learned about this story from a TV show. They discussed losing his ability to see color and made a big deal of it. I'll concede that it wasn't in the article and google doesn't provide any additional help. I'll withdraw the claim for the moment.


Further, while the article describes him as delusional, it only provides one incident, which frankly is not terribly convincing (to me) on its own. I've done similar things when coherent myself. There are a number of potential circumstances in which the comment could be taken as innocuous, especially in isolation.

There's a comment from a camper suggest he/she thought it was delirium, that may be just analysis with the benefit of hindsight. Did they relay their concerns to the guides, or take other action to get him some water at the time?


I contend that the slant of the article may be pushing more evidence for dehydration than was actually available at the time.


Not true. We know the owner of the school (who was not on the trip) blamed the victim. It was indeed crass.


I think a case could be brought. Could it be won?

I'm neither a doctor or a lawyer myself. I was not present for these events - I probably do not have all the facts. However, the county prosecutor (who hopefully does) thinks such a case has no merit. The camper who attempted resuscitation, who is trained in wilderness first aid, appears to think the evidence for dangerous dehydration was not compelling. It's possible that they are incompetent or corrupt, and a second investigation would lead to different findings.

In the absence of such evidence, I lean towards a verdict of incompetence that does not rise to the level of criminality (burden of proof and all that). I'd speculate that the guides were trained in a manner considered reasonable at the time, encountered an incident that exceeded their training, and will now receive additional training in an effort to prevent such incidents from re-occurring. Again, good post. I think davefoc and you have given me good reason to reconsider the likelyhood of indifference.

Thanks

[aerosolben]

I first learned about this story from a TV show. They discussed losing his ability to see color and made a big deal of it. I'll concede that it wasn't in the article and google doesn't provide any additional help. I'll withdraw the claim for the moment.
My problem with that one is part not having the evidence in front of me, but also thinking that loss of color vision would likely have been inferred after the fact, knowing that he suffered from severe dehydration, rather than the other way around (unless the victim told someone) - it's not really directly observable.

Again, good post. I think davefoc and you have given me good reason to reconsider the likelyhood of indifference.

Thanks
I respect your continued willingness to reconsider your beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. It's an example that a lot of people could learn from.

I should note that I'm happy to do the same if evidence of deliberate negligence, malfeasance, or similar disreputable behavior should surface.

[JamesDillon]

In the absence of such evidence, I lean towards a verdict of incompetence that does not rise to the level of criminality (burden of proof and all that). I'd speculate that the guides were trained in a manner considered reasonable at the time, encountered an incident that exceeded their training, and will now receive additional training in an effort to prevent such incidents from re-occurring.

One of the sometimes frustrating quirks about juries is that they're not always especially reliable at respecting legal nuances in the face of a particularly compelling narrative. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if a jury were willing to convict on the basis of the facts stated here; whether that conviction would be upheld on appeal is a more interesting question, since appellate courts are generally better at distinguishing bad facts from a legally sufficient indictment. I'm not sure it's possible to tell from the facts contained here whether there's enough to convict; I also don't know anything about Utah law on negligent or reckless homicide. But it wouldn't strike me as an obvious miscarriage of justice if the guides and/or owner were convicted of manslaughter/negligent homicide, and that conviction was affirmed on appeal.