That’s not helpful. Insulting people isn’t the same as having a good argument, or of being correct.

I concede an assault doesn’t require a strike. I’m saying the term “hit” is vague and problematic. That’s why I take issue with it. To some “hit” means “to strike with fists,” so I’d avoid that particular term.

And I believe an attorney would be able to cite the extremely short amount of time the athlete had to react to the fan running in front of him, and also the weight, speed, and momentum of the athlete as reasons that line of thinking is incorrect.

Authorization does affect the responsibilities of the people involved in this incident though. The athlete’s lawyer would argue the athlete didn’t cause the collision, and that the athlete is allowed to take a stance that minimizes harm to himself from a collision he did not cause. That attorney would also argue the…

That’s fair. I just disagree with you that the athlete undertook a criminal act.

You seem to think if the athlete had remaining in a jogging form, and not lowered his shoulder, or put out his arms, then either: A) they would not have impacted, or B) they would have impacted, but in some way that didn’t meet the definition of “collision.”

You only think that because I’ve been calmly stating my case without attacking other people. If I’d instead broken out an obviously intelligent reply such as, “you’re stupid as fuck,” you would have been much more impressed with me. 

The lowering of the shoulder was a response to the collision, not the cause. To say lowering the shoulder caused the collision is incorrect. It suggest that if the athlete had remained in his running form the fan would have miraculously avoided him. Most reasonable people would disagree with that notion.

All citizens are required to understand and abide by the law, and no one can claim ignorance of the law as an excuse.

Interestingly enough, I just happen to be from that place you like to blissfully run through without permission from the owner. Man, this comment thread just saved you two trips to the hospital. You’re welcome.

When you say “had enough time to react” can you quantify that? Because an attorney will require you to back that statement up with facts and measurements. I’m not confident you can do that, so my opinion remains.

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.