This is not unharmed. You clearly knew about the case yet you deliberately obfuscated the facts until you were called out on it. Instead of backpedaling own up to why you would try to distort the facts. This is not to say the fellow with the bow and arrow isn't a complete imbecile, and didn't deserve what was coming. On that I have no view.

At least the fellow still has all his teeth, unlike that physician that Chicago transport cop pulled off that plane.

So your definition of unharmed is somewhere between unharmed, and the beating by the Chicago transport cop of a physician on a plane.

We're talking apples and oranges, HarryHirsh, and I don't think you're willing to view this discussion in good faith. Good day.

Still should have at least said something like “nearly unharmed” instead of “unharmed”?