Police say his shopping-cart swerve-a-thon endangered other shoppers.To convict him they have to prove your theory of actual or potential harm. Good luck.
Most ironic, this, in the aftermath of the Scotus ruling approving theft in New London and everywhere else. O'Conner's dissent made clear that any taking not explicitly accorded to the "public use" clause must prove "harm" in the property taken. None here.
No theory about it. IF (and that must be assumed for purposes of this discussion) he was acting as described.
You slam a person hard enough with any firm object you will injure them. If it somehow seems silly to you that, in this case, we are referring to a grocerey cart, well then substitute another object.
Running down the isle waving a baseball bat. Not specifically trying to hit someone, just running a high speed waving it all over the place. So, he hits someone with that. Do you consider that more, or less injurious to the person with the cracked wrist?
If you are suggesting that he was not being that aggressive with the cart, that's a different discussion.
As for your reference to the court case, I don't get the connection to this at all.