Since there was no mention of a weapon, I presume her attacker was unarmed. As we all know from what the media has been drilling into the perception of the public for the last 3 years: unarmed=harmless.
Based on that 'logic', she was in no danger at all. Isn't that correct hollywood lefties?
16 posted on 11/16/2015 4:04:44 AM PST by American Infidel
(Instead of vilifying success, try to emulate it)