As a self proclaimed video forensics expert (who has earned his stripes), I can explain how the judge got their defamation ruling incorrect in the video below.
The key is as much in the audio as in the video. The cyclist, coming up from behind, failed to slow down in a safe manner. He seems to be saying "watch out, watch out, watch out" as he approaches.
Apparently the Judge has ruled in favor of the "Watch where I'm going" Defamation lawsuit filed by the cyclist over being "defamed" by the showing of the video when all he alleges doing is watching out for the welfare of the young child by speeding up from behind and then using his outstretched knee to create a safe space between himself and the child.
One important job for any judge to consider when deciding standing is, was anyone acting illegally, or without good judgment. If the Judge had considered if anyone was acting illegally, or without good judgement, the cyclist's defamation lawsuit would have had no merit for the following reasons...
1. Cyclist was traveling too fast when coming around a blind turn. What if someone had slipped and fallen across the pathway, his speed would have been too great to control his bicycle in a safe manner.
2. Upon taking the blnd turn and seeing a common obstacle in the roadway known as people walking in the roadway, Cyclist kept pedaling, actually picking up speed as he approached the obstacle known as people in the road.
3. Without having enough time to assess the situation as to why there was an obstacle in the roadway, Cyclist used the equivalent of a car horn, his voice, to yell "watch out, watch out, watch out", or as can be referred to as the "Watch where I'm going" Defense.
4. After violating the safety of the above three conditions, the cyclist zoomed by the obstacle in the road known as a young child, unexpectedly nudging the victim to the ground as a way to ensure no contact was made with his accelerating bicycle and the previously stationary child now falling towards the ground after contact.
5. The verdict should have been, cyclist failed to maintain a safe speed and control of his bicycle while assessing and navigating roadway pedestrians, and therefore has no right to any form of empathy, right to sue, or compensation.
The Victims should be counter suing....
1. The child was put in a no win situation when the cyclist yelled out "watch out, watch out, watch out" from behind her where she could not see him approach.
A. If she had gone to her right, she would have possibly suffered life long injuries if the front of the bicycle had hit her from behind.
B. If she had stayed where she was, she gets knocked to the ground without advance notice of any kind,
C. If she had gone
to her left, she would have avoided any contact. The child basically
had a 1 in 3 chance to avoid contact with someone who she could not see because they were behind her.
2. The child will forever have a memory of standing still, and suddenly being hit to the ground by a stranger she never saw coming, just a violent hit to the child's upper body that knocked her to the ground.
3. The Father will forever have a memory of helplessly watching his child be struck, in front of his eyes, as he stood by and filmed it, most likely producing PTSD type memory of the event.
4.
Getting therapy for his PTSD by raising public awareness of the
incident, the Father was further damaged and harmed by the defamation
lawsuit and the judge now further victimizing the Father by proclaiming his guilty and culpable when he did not initiate the series of reckless acts that led to the defamation lawsuit.
What should happen,
The judge should recognize there were extenuating circumstances and give the cyclist a choice, be found guilty of reckless handling of a bicycle that resulted in harm to a child and the child's parents, and the public who has viewed the video...
or.....
Los Angeles Emmy winning Producer Alessandro Machi combines his editing, camera and observational skills to provide unique insights into the World of Sports.
No comments:
Post a Comment