> To their defense, they seem to have thought that they were using harmless bacteria.
It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe.
Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?
> Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?
This is more like firing directly into a group of people, but believing the gun is a harmless reproduction (or perhaps a paintball marker) when it actually a real weapon loaded with live ammo.
And, yes, in that case it would be valid, at least to the extent that the crime you would be guilty of, if any, with that belief would be substantial less than the one you would be guilty of if you believed it was a live weapon and committed the same act.
It's the "seem to have thought" that I have a problem with. How thoroughly did they do their research? It is one thing if someone puts his finger up and says, "hmm, I think it's safe". It's another if rigorous, thorough tests are done that show conclusively that the bacteria is safe.
Analogy: I fire a gun straight into the air. The bullet eventually comes down and kills someone. Is a defense that "I thought it was safe" valid?