That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..
Breaking it down..
- "manslaughter committed" - Satisfied.
- "in the commission of a lawful act" - Satisfied.
- "which might produce death" - Unsure. There is a very small chance that a golf ball in a normal game of golf could hit someone in the head causing death. Would hitting a golf ball satisfy this element of the crime? If not, then this element of the crime must require that death be a foreseeable possibility flowing from the act. Was it foreseeable that death could be caused by a gun that a gun expert said was safe on a movie set? And if there is a foreseeability requirement for this element of the crime, should it be applied based on the actual knowledge and experience of the person who committed manslaughter or based on the knowledge and experience of an average member of the public or an average person who would be handling a gun on a movie set? And I'm not even going to address the unfortunate use of "which" instead of "that" in the statute.
- "without due caution and circumspection" - This is the real question.
The following additional information is from the above link and is not part of the statute itself..
Now I just need to know the meaning of each of the words "reckless," "wanton" and "willful."
Originally Posted by ClydeR
That is the question, now that the unconstitutional part of the charge against Badlwin appears to be on its way to being thrown out of court. Below is the statute for involuntary manslaughter. I highlighted the parts that I think are relevant..
Reply With Quote
