Thread: Dark Side of The Ring Discussion Thread (Warning: Spoilers)
View Single Post
Old 05-26-2020, 10:34 PM   #459
xrodmuc316
RoBOT Reigns
 
xrodmuc316's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,619
xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)xrodmuc316 makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ View Post
I'm not a criminal attorney so this isn't really my area of expertise, outside of the criminal application of general civil negligence principles applied to a business and/or its agents or employees.

First, unfortunately, money and PR almost undoubtedly had a large role in no one being charged criminally.

Second, it's difficult and rarely a slam dunk to prove recklessness or negligence, especially in a criminal case where the standard for conviction is the much higher, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Third, assuming that Vince was likely not directly responsible or involved in any of the actual engineering, planning, use, or selection of the equipment that failed or was inadequate, it would be increasingly difficult to prove that Vince himself essentially knew or should have known that use of the equipment involved would have likely caused the death of Owen.

Talbert would be a more likely candidate, but that would still be a tough ask. It's also possible that additional evidence the state may have felt it needed to prove negligence or recklessness did not become available or apparent until after the statute of limitations period of three years had passed.

There's also the idea that, for the WWE people involved, it was unforeseeable that the equipment manufacturer would be negligent in making or recommending the inadequate equipment, and the manufacturer's negligence was an intervening cause or act negating any culpability to anyone personally involved from WWE.
Also, there was never distinct evidence to determine how exactly it happened. The harness didn't break, it just disconnected. There is no way to prove that it failed independently of Owen Hart. Hence the long standing speculation that Owen accidentally triggered the quick release himself.

It's why they had a civil case instead of a criminal case. Had the clamp broke or the cable snapped, it would still be very hard to prove criminal charges, but their would be an argument to bring charges. Without that, they did what they could and held Vince financially responsible.
xrodmuc316 is offline   Reply With Quote