he would have tried to run around the victim

I doubt you could prove intent to do harm. The athlete is allowed to take a stance that minimizes harm to himself when someone else runs in front of him. The athlete’s attorney would certainly argue that point.

If you’re running, and another person runs in front of you, you are allowed to take a stance that minimizes the harm to yourself. The athlete’s attorney will no doubt make the case that’s what the athlete did. The attorney will also argue the fan’s unauthorized behavior removed the athlete’s responsibility to minimize…

If you would like to invent actions the video clearly shows did not happen and then argue about those, be my guest. I’m unwilling to do likewise.

The athlete is allowed to take a stance that minimizes harm to himself from the collision the fan caused. The athlete is not responsible to minimize harm to the fan’s unauthorized presence.

The athlete is allowed to shove the fan off of himself in that situation. The athlete is allowed to take a stance that protect himself, and one that minimizes harm to himself when someone suddenly runs in front of him. The athlete does not have a responsibility to minimize harm to the fan in this case. The athlete is…

The athlete probably outweighs the fan by 50+ pounds, so any collision between the two of them isn’t going to look good for the fan. The athlete has permission to be running in that spot. The fan does not. The athlete does not have a responsibility to minimize the harm to the fan in this case. The athlete is allowed…

Now you’ve changed the facts slightly. “Hit” implies striking with the fists. This video doesn’t show a strike, it shows two people running into each other. It also shows the athlete’s hands up in a shove, but an attorney would argue the athlete is allowed to take a stance like that minimizes harm to himself when…

That’s possible, but it would still only likely lead to charges and/ or possibly a trail. I don’t think this evidence is likely to gain an assault conviction.

It doesn’t have to be argued as a coincidence. It could be successfully argued that the athlete intentionally and reflexively assumed a stance that would minimize harm to himself as the fan ran in front of him.

An assault conviction is going to require proving the athlete could have avoided the collision, and that the athlete intended to do harm. The athlete only had a fraction of a second to avoid the collision. It’s going to be difficult to convincingly argue the athlete had enough time to avoid the fan, and that the…

false analogy. Let me correct it for you:

No. That is evidence that one man ran in front of another running man and was knocked down. Also, an attorney would point out in court the first man was not authorized to be running in that spot, while the second man was.

That’s not really a lot of evidence to get a felony conviction. Seems like the most he could reasonably get is an apology.

So if you’re poor, it’s OK to kill your babies?

So many international tax specialists in the comments today. Is there a convention going on?

If we have to go through a period where fewer good films get made while the powerful in Hollywood learn basic self-control, then I’m OK with that.

If it’s being run through the cloud, then that could be a serious security issue. It’s one thing to have your images go straight to cloud storage. It’s more risky to have a set of outside programming analyzing those images. Analyzing them in the initial transport is kinda scary. Analyzing them after they’re supposedly…

Wow. I guess it’s really her fault when you look at it that way.

Is the filtering/ categorizing being done locally, or does the phone use Apple servers to do the indexing? I’d assume it was local, but then again, are we sure? If the indexing uses cloud resources, then there’s certainly the opportunity for security failures for your neatly categorized photos.