in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007), Justice Scalia, writing for a majority of the Court, interpreted a video as showing “a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,” while Justice Stevens, in dissent, interpreted the same video as “hardly the stuff of Hollywood” and opined that it did not show “any incidents that could even be remotely characterized as ‘close calls,’ ” id. at 392, 127 S.Ct. 1769. Making a determination of what a video shows is a factual finding that does not require any particular expertise and is therefore entitled to deference by a reviewing court. See, e.g., State v. Cortez, 482 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2015) (<HOLDING>), vacated on other grounds, 501 S.W.3d 606, 610
holding that because it was not easily discernable from a video whether defendants tires touched the fog line the reviewing court was required to defer to the trial courts interpretation of the events captured on the video holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that the role of a colorado trial court in reviewing an slcs decision regarding derivative litigation should be limited to inquiring into the independence and good aith of the committee here the trial court did not make any findings with regard to whether the slc was in fact independent and disinterested or whether the procedure it undertook for evaluating the claims was appropriate here the trial court decided not to defer to the slcs business judgment that conclusion may or may not be correct depending upon the answer to the questions of whether the slc  was an independent  and  disinterested  decisionmaker hence on remand the trial court must make those preliminary determinations if the slc  was independent and did employ reasonable procedures in its analysis then the court may not secondguess its business judgment in deciding not to pursue the derivative litigation holding that it was proper for the district court to defer to the state courts findings as to whether a petitioners postconviction motion had been submitted according to ohios timeliness requirements holding that in reviewing trial courts ruling on habeas corpus petition reviewing court must defer to all of trial courts implied factual findings supported by record