Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac
I'll concede the point that it could have been a slap rather than a punch, since the perpetrator called it a slap. It doesn't really matter, because he hit the kid hard enough to knock a tooth out of his head. Saying "it could have been just a baby tooth that I knocked out of the kid's mouth when he pissed me off" is not a viable defense.
|
Not defending the guy at all, don't get me wrong. Just taking issue with people assuming things without knowing the facts. It could have been a punch, but we don't know - the suspect called it a slap, the victim called it a punch (the article calls it several things); the kid lost a tooth, that we know; but we can't say "permanent damage" because it could have been a baby tooth that was barely hanging on. That said, it could have been a permanent tooth that will have to be repaired. Hell, unless they found the tooth, the kid could be a little liar and he lost the tooth earlier eating popcorn. The point is, we don't know what the facts are, just what was presented in the article.
I just don't like assumptions.