Originally Posted by Dodens Grav
Your scenario only applies if the runner aims at the defender's head, I would think, but I guess the argument would be that the runner has a defensive posture and that all defensive players are not defenseless players by definition. Only defenseless players are protected from helmet to helmet collisions, so defensive players can get knocked around all they desire because they are in a position to defend and protect themselves, so the onus, again, is on themselves to protect themselves just as it is for a runner.
The "common sense" was in reference to the logic behind what I said specifically, since what I originally said was described as "a load of BS".
I think you're missing my point. If the claim is that we want to reduce shooting victims, and the law says you cannot shoot anyone UNLESS they see it coming... just how seriously do we take the stated intentions of the bozos in charge?