The grammar at issue here isn’t the comma, it’s the conditional statement, “if y’all think I did it.” The suspect prefaced the request for a lawyer (or lawyer dog) with a condition, which meant if any of the officers didn’t think he did it, then there would be no request for a lawyer... or a lawyer dog.

If senators want to increase their security, that’s fine. It’s just that this seems to be one of those things that it’s really hard to guard against and still be practical.

OK. So... in anticipation that a crazy neighbor might jump you while you’re mowing your lawn you... change what exactly?

No. That is a terrible way to think. I doubt you would like your neighbor tackling you for the way you voted. 

You have no authority here.

I said, “convince.” I didn’t say, “make them understand.”

It’s not about forcing childbirth. It’s about the balance between medical rights and the potentiality of human life. That’s what the SC decided in Roe vs. Wade. There is a balance. As medical science has advanced since the 60s, there’s more evidence of the potentiality of human life at earlier points. That’s what…

It’s going to be tough to successfully argue the follow through wasn’t art of a reasonable attempt to minimize harm to himself. An attorney could say he was stumbling after the collision. You might be convinced, but analysis of someone’s body movements in a grainy smartphone video is very subjective.

Well, to convince me (or a jury) of that, you’re probably going to need to do video analysis and determine the speed and vectors of each person. That’s difficult, but there’s a writer for Wired who does a lot of that stuff to disprove action movie scenes, so maybe you can get his help calculating the momentum of the…

Those are not my arguments. If they were, I’d join you in opposing them.

Arguing such a large athlete should have come to a stop in such a short period of time is going to be VERY difficult.

“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.