This is the legal definition of negligence.
failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.
The process to ensure you don’t commit negligence is due diligence.
The due diligence here is the weapon was handed to him by the certified armor, declared a cold gun. That is due diligence he has not the skills nor the responsibility to second guess that. He does have the reasonable expectation that the prop he was handed is safe to use. This expectation is due to the armor and the director both concurring and certified that prop was a cold gun. Since he lacks the credentials skills and responsibility to second guess the professional armor he completed his due diligence. He took reasonable care by following the protocol on set. Further more he was under active instructions from the director and photographer on where,how,when,and at what angles to point that prop. Then also under instruction he manipulated the hammer all that is reasonable care. Zero of that is negligent. It’s tragic that the armor didn’t do their job. Obviously he is broken up about it for all we know they could have been friend’s. It’s 100% just by looking at the reaction a surprise it went off. He certainly didn’t know that hammer could set it off and likely and the armor didn’t either.
There is no way a grand jury can discount the due diligence on set it’s simply not his job,he lacks the skills to do so. Props are tools he was handed a faulty tool. That dumb armor needs her firearms licence revoked. It’s wrong to string someone up who had no responsibility nor skills to know the difference.
I would bet I could hand my 1865 45 colt to most people here with wad cutters in it and the other one with flat front blanks and half wouldn’t be able to tell me without opening the gun which breaks the chain of custody which has real bullets into just looking up the cylinder they would look nearly identical. Then I’d say ok cock that hammer and then let it go. Fully half the rednecks here would discharge a round of bet real money on it.
failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another.Seems to define exactly what Alex is guilty of. But you have to use the legal definition:
A. Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of: (3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner;
He is guilty of (3) for sure.
You want to argue that due diligence is satisfied by a third party. I dont buy that and I dont think a jury would either, given the law.
As has been published for some time now, People had warned of unsafe practices on set. People had left work for same reason. Temps were brought in because people left for safety concerns. The 'armorer' wasnt the person who handed Alex the gun....on and on as the story changes to obscure the fact that the person with the gun is responsible.
You are entitled to the facts. You are not entitled to your own facts.
There is no way a grand jury can discount the due diligence on set it’s simply not his job...
He may lack the skills, but its still his job.
That dumb armor needs her firearms licence revoked.
No argument there.
It’s wrong to string someone up who had no responsibility nor skills to know the difference.
I am sure the family of the dead wife and mother appreciate your sympathy for Alex.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant.