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.
You haven’t even come close to the negligence prerequisite. Third party due diligence is well established precedence. All you hypothetical charges rely on the proof of negligence. You must prove without the shadow of a doubt he was legally and I will point to the definition again that he didn’t take reasonable care in his actions. He is innocent until the DA proves him guilty of negligence. He does have proof of exactly the opposite that he had a reasonable expectation that the weapon that was handed to him a cold gun. He has reasonable expectation that the armor and the director both did their due diligence and verified that the prop was a cold gun. He again had reasonable expectation that when the verbal and public call or cold gun on set is done that the prop was indeed a cold gun. The DA must prove that he didn’t take reasonable care in his actions when he was also being instructed on those actions performing a professional task under directions from amother staff member. Come on Mr conservative innocent until proven guilty right. Prove he lacked the reasonable care. He didn’t have the legal responsibility to certify that weapon as cold. He said as much in his interview he is right. He also doesn’t expect to be charged his very expensive and much better attorney that you came to the same conclusion there is little to no way to prove negligence willful or not. Due diligence was done on multiple levels. I love America innocent until the states struggles to prove you guilty. A very high bar indeed and one every American should be happy for. Trying to convince 12 people that after all those steps and due diligence was taken that someone not legally responsible for,tasked with nor skilled with should second guess their professional armor and director on set is a VERY high bar to reach and you need to then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t take the reasonable care someone in his shoes would take. Good luck with that.