But does what he "thought" matter at all? In a negligent homicide case, doesn't the prosecution need to establish what a "reasonably prudent person" would do/think? SA had no REASONABLE basis for his "thinking" - no reasonable person would think/assume that a clear open space must have glass and that there's no need to bother to check for the glass before lifting the baby and risking her life? Same with the colorblind excuse.
I imagine in a trial, SA could claim he's colorblind and assumed there was glass in front of his face. RCL would reply, that's fine Mr Anello, we believe everything you've said. None of that, even if true, matters at all. Because your actions while supervising Chloe fail to come close to meeting the standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do.
So my question is, to what extent does the "reasonably prudent person" standard nullify all of Anello's excuses?