Again, “unarmed” doesn’t equate to “not dangerous”

[Christy] Mack’s injuries included 10 broken bones, a broken nose, missing and broken teeth, a fractured rib and a severely ruptured liver from a kick to her side.

Typically when people use the term “unarmed”, they mean “doesn’t have a weapon” (knife, gun, baseball bat, screwdriver, hammer, crowbar, etc.). As if somehow that means the person couldn’t be dangerous, or couldn’t inflict severe bodily harm.

He allegedly forced her to strip naked and repeatedly punched and kicked her, breaking several of her teeth.

Look at her pictures:

That’s the sort of damage an “unarmed” person can inflict. And honestly, she’s lucky; I’ve seen worse damage at the hands of “unarmed” individuals.

So tell me again why you think “unarmed” means “not dangerous”?

(full story)

Advertisements

Join the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s