“accelerating through the hit”

I disagree with you. I think the player’s actions were a way to minimize harm to himself. The lack of other collisions isn’t strong evidence. The norm is for there to be no collisions. When a collision occurs, you look at why it occurred. It occurred because the fan did not have permission to be on the field, and then…

If I ever find myself needing to make a legal argument outside the comment section of a deadspin article, I’ll probably get legal representation.

I have no response to that.

Lowering a shoulder isn’t illegal. When the fan ran in front of him, the athlete is allowed to react and take a stance that minimizes harm to himself. He did that.

I don’t think this is a typical case of one person hitting another. This is about a collision and how the athlete responded to it. I believe he responded in a way that minimized harm to himself. That’s allowable. I also don’t believe the athlete is required to minimize the harm to the fan who ran in front of him while…

The athlete is allowed to take a stance to minimize harm to himself when someone runs in front of him. I don’t believe he is responsible to minimize harm to the fan who ran in front of him. I believe that’s what the video shows. The collision occurred and the athlete took a stance to minimize harm to himself.

I didn’t say he didn’t have enough time to react. I contend he could not have reacted in a way that would have avoided the collision. I also contend his reaction was probably legal.

The arm motion might be problematic, but I imagine an attorney could cite how quickly the collision happened, and that the athlete is trained to put up his hands, extend his arms, and probably do lots of other actions in order to minimize harm to himself during a collision.

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.