Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!
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.
|
Saying that he struck a 10 year old kid in the face isn't an assumption. All of the other details could affect the severity of his punishment, but he admitted that he assaulted a 10 year old kid.