Which of course is definitely possible. But she injured him with a Justin Bieber doll. Really?
|Should this Bieber doll be classified|
as a dangerous weapon, kind of
like an AK-47?
According to an article in The Smoking Gun:
Michael Nuanes, 37, described his girlfriend as the aggressor in the January incident, according to anAdams County Sheriff’s Office affidavit. Nuanes, a Denver Police Department officer, told deputies that his girlfriend had “thrown things, pushed him, shoved him, grabbed him, bit him, slapped him with an open hand, attempted to strangle him and beat him up.”
Well, if the attempted strangling, beating, etc. is true, that might be an issue. But Nuances undercuts his case with his Bieber doll victimization.
Nuanes, investigators reported, “pointed out a ‘Justin Beiber’ doll which was the item used to injure him.” He claimed that the thrown Bieber doll--the size of a standard Barbie doll--left him with a “bruise on the outside middle part” of his left foot.
So a Bieber doll bruised his foot? That's it? Should she be charged with assault with a dangerous Bieber doll? Should the Consumer Safety Division recall Bieber dolls, as they are a safety hazard, because they are apparently used as weapons? Or should we just ban Justin Bieber, since he had the unmitigated gall to inspire the dangerous doll.
What was this couple doing with a Bieber doll anyway. Actually, never mind, I don't think we want to know. So in any event, don't buy your little Tween a Justin Beiber doll. You might just turn her into homicidal maniac, and the subsequent criminal charges would surely interfere with cheerleading practice.