A mistake. Bao's behavior constitutes a crime of intentional injury (causing death). First of all, Li's death was caused by Bao's illegal use of anesthetic, and he did not give first aid to Li in time afterwards, and missed the best rescue opportunity. Secondly, Bao did not realize the death result subjectively when he acted, so it was difficult to determine that Bao had the intention to kill, and his illegal use of anesthetic could be considered as injury. Therefore, he was convicted of intentional injury (causing death).

B correct. First of all, Zhou is subjectively trying to catch up with time, excluding Zhou's subjective intention to kill people, which does not belong to the category of intentional crime. Secondly, as an operating driver, Zhou should have the obligation to protect the life safety of hitchhikers and prevent dangers. When Che has opened the door and said that he will jump if he doesn't stop, Zhou, as an adult, should have realized that Che may really jump, but Zhou thinks that Che can't jump and there will be no death. Zhou is at least subjectively at fault. In addition, the car was actively rescued after the week, indicating that it had a negative attitude towards the death result. Therefore, Zhou's behavior constitutes a crime of negligent death.

C is correct. Although there is a third person's intervention between A's violent behavior and B's death result, it is still possible to identify the direct danger and realize the connection, and then affirm the establishment of the crime of intentional injury (causing death).

The act of disposing of the body after killing is a normal intervention, so the special danger of the former act is realized. In addition, it is obvious that A told his friend C to deal with the body in a broad sense of intent, and A was also responsible for the death result.

Correct. The crime of indirect intentional homicide refers to letting the result happen knowing that it may cause the death of others. This crime has a laissez-faire attitude towards the result of death. The crime of negligent death foresees the possibility of harmful results, which can avoid being credulous because of evaluation errors. This crime is against the result of death.

First of all, her boyfriend Li was subjectively at fault, and ruled out the accident. Secondly, Li Man knew that he and his girlfriend couldn't swim, and he should have dragged his girlfriend to the deep water before he realized that he was unable to help. It can be judged that his ability to avoid his girlfriend's death is not due to subjective evaluation errors and credulity, and does not belong to the crime of negligent death.

Finally, Li made the behavior of "dragging his girlfriend to the deep water area". As an adult, subjectively he knew that his girlfriend might die, subjectively he indirectly let the result happen. Therefore, Li's behavior should be considered as intentional homicide.

To sum up, BCD was elected.