TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: A reckless act means the person disregarded a risk he was aware of that a reasonable person would not. A negligent act is one where the person ignored a risk a reasonable person should have been aware of. So, if I were a DA, I would probably have used negligence as the charge if the law allowed it.

Regarding the required elements of the charges...reckless vs. negligent: I doubt that a week has gone by in the last 15 years, that I haven't heard at least one PSA or a news report reminding people of the dangers of leaving children or pets inside a hot car and pointing out that temperatures, inside the car, can rise to 140-150 degrees in just a few minutes with the windows up. Given that, it seems that anyone who does so, IS "disregarding a risk that they were aware of and that a reasonable person would not." As a trained K9 officer he should have been even MORE aware than most. It would be extremely hard to convince me that anyone was not aware of the risk. I agree that he probably thought he would be back in a few minutes and that it was not intentional...but it never is...and "intention" is not an element of the offense. All that being said, I also think, that in most circumstances...regardless of if it involves an LEO or a private citizen...that the charge would likely be pled down to the "negligent" level, because they realize it was NOT intentional, and the person charged is already suffering anguish over their negligent act.