This is the 4th prong of the test for negligent homicide, G, on the link you sent me to. The others are simple yes/no questions. This is the involved one.
"exhibits a lack of that degree of care of the safety of others which a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances"
This is the heart of the "simple negiligence" charge and it gets extremely subjective in terms of "a reasonably careful person" and in terms of "the same or similar circumstance."
In a hair-trigger environment where you've been ORDERED to clear a house that has been declared hostile, there would be a RANGE of what is reasonable.
We know that a REASONABLE person would not expose himself to gunfire or death.
We know that the ROEs permitted fragging a room and then shooting blind amidst smoke, dust, debris. This was deemed the most likely course of action to preserve the life of the soldier.
Therefore a REASONABLE person would use that techique.
A reasonable person would not pinpoint his location to a possible enemy by shouting out instructions to anyone inside the room, for bullets easily kill through the walls of a house, and grenades can be thrown into hallways as easily as into rooms.
What action was unreasonable?
I'm a reasonable person, and I would do the frag/fire thing. Wouldn't many others?
I repeat, Where is the room for "negligence" at the end of a hair-trigger environment?
I think dropping a grenade while going for a beer and killing someone, rather than just maiming yourself, might qualify-
but this does not.
JMHO.