Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

He may have "purposely" pushed an opponent or "intentionally" fouled an opponent, but I don't think he "purposely" injured an opponent.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

The threshold for criminal charges has always been higher in sporting events. You say "purposely injure an opponent" and the lawyer says "minimal contact that unfortunately was at the wrong place at the wrong time".

If this is criminal, then every intentional foul for excessive contact should be reviewed by a DA. This foul was stupid, yes. Criminal? Can't imagine it.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

I can't imagine immune from charges, no. Immune from conviction? Most likely. I think you'd have a real hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did anything more than try to prevent a basket from being scored with utter disregard for the safety of his opponent.

I could see him being held civilly liable on gross negligence but I think battery charges would be very unlikely.

I also have no problem with the editorial decision not to publish his name.