I don't care how stupid a person claims to be or is demonstrated to be- you don't start a fire unless you're sure it's safe to do so. If you don't know what safety is, you don't set things on fire. You don't use fire unless you're certain of your ability to control and contain it, and correct a loss of containment should it arise. Pyrotechnics are fire- fire with propulsion. Everyone knows fire burns, and everyone over the age of maybe 12 knows it can be dangerous and shouldn't just be flung around on a whim. He was grossly negligent to the tune of 100 dead, and 200 injured. Four years is a bit lax in my opinion, based on the body count.
And by the way- negligence will typically cover faulting a person for not applying knowledge they should have when using/doing something. For example- you have a driver's license and forget a traffic law and accidentally kill someone, that's negligence. If a doctor's training clearly encompasses the subject of a missed or incorrect diagnosis, that's negligence. When doing what you're doing, the lack of knowledge required to do it correctly is easily and often considered negligence. Being unaware is not an exception- that's like "I didn't know it was illegal" exempting you from prosecution for breaking a law.
Last edited by analog; 05-13-2006 at 02:43 AM..
|