That's one legal definition of recklessness.
The category of recklessness, as I keep trying to say, is too broad to codify.
There are no laws specifically against leaving a gun in a drawer. There are no specific laws about leaving a loaded gun in a drawer. But there are laws about involuntary manslaughter and negligence for those times when people's negligence with a firearm results in harm.
There are no laws against bungie jumping concessions using bungie cords. Nor are there laws that state how often the cords should be replaced or inspected. But if a bungie cord is defective or frayed, the operators of the concession can receive involuntary manslaughter charges.
I hate to keep listing more and more of these examples. It appears my point is getting lost. We have laws against reckless endangerment of life and reckless taking of life. Juries decide what's reckless (or judges do in bench trials). That's why it goes to trial. Reasonable people have to agree that it's reckless - and they do it all the time.
My point is that a person is charged with a crime called involuntary manslaughter because a judge thinks they have been reckless. There's no way to write laws to cover every situation, so we as a society elect people to make broad laws that cover all situations - such as recklessness.
Negligence is yet another term in the same category. A jury will need to decide (unless Alec pleads out) whether the law is applicable to the specific facts.
I'll go find the links and post in a couple of minutes.
Here's the first one:
The parents of accused Oxford, Michigan, school shooter Ethan Crumbley will still face multiple involuntary manslaughter charges, a judge ruled Wednesday, despite their attempts to quash the counts against them.
Do you really want me to keep posting links? Because there are several in just that category. Note that the people were charged with a felony. Can you find evidence that there's a law against having guns in a house with children? Or laws against allowing children to handle guns? I've never seen such laws - and would think that if they existed in this jurisdiction, they would have been used to indict this couple. But it was involuntary manslaughter.
Hot car case:
A defense attorney is critical of the judge's decision to deny bond, which is keeping his client in the Allegheny County Jail. It will be challenged at a court hearing Friday morning.
Involuntary manslaughter, again. No laws in most places against leaving a child in a car. California has one. Many places do not but prosecution still occurs, obviously:
Leaving a child in the car could be illegal in your state. But breaking them out could cause you more trouble than you think.
No laws against many other things that can cause death. Final category: amusement park negligence and death.
Amusement parks run dangerous rides, similar to movie sets using real guns. However, they are expected to make the place safe. WHen they don't and someone dies, there are involuntary manslaughter charges (even though there are no laws against dangerous amusement park rides or even specific special laws pertaining to amusement park ride maintenance). OSHA has "standards" but an OSHA violation is neither civil or criminal. It's a workplace violation. IMO.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A Kansas waterslide hyped as the world’s highest was a “deadly weapon” that had already injured more than a dozen people before a 10-year-old boy was decapitate…
Two designers of a massive waterslide in Kansas on which a 10-year-old boy was decapitated face second-degree murder charges in connection with the child's death, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.
The indictment alleges the ride suffered from a "persistent airborne problem."
Various homicide charges in all of these (and there are many others). No specific law against putting a larger person than a ride was designed for, on the ride. No specific laws stating how often a ride should be checked. ETc. Etc.
My point is that the same law (involuntary homicide - or sometimes voluntary homicide) cover ALL of these situations with no individual laws. Reckless endangerment and negligence are violations of the standards of "reasonable men and women" (just like sexual harassment, gender discrimination, workplace harassment, etc).
IMO. And I think that's enough of the off topic links. I don't want to drag this discussion into discussions of amusement parks.