I think the GJ’s Refusal to indict the assistant AG for throwing a sandwich at am officer is reasonable

[Rawley]

Throwing a hotdog isn’t spitting in another’s face. The two aren’t analogous.

"NO injury and NO serious risk of causing any injury. The item used wasn’t a rock"

True, less likelihood of injury from spitting in someone's face rather than throwing a sandwich at them.

Lots of victims are relatively unhappy with the outcome of the cases brought against these perps. But our courts are already log jammed with some genuinely serious (alleged) offender’s cases. And therefore prosecutors have discretion in whether to even bring such charges.

Grand juries have always had the ability to tell prosecutors that some charges they present aren’t worth their time or the time of the court’s.

I don’t endorse that behavior in any way. But, having been a part of the criminal justice system, I believe that some cases aren’t worth their effort or cost of prosecution. Here, the asshole got fired. I believe that does suffice. We’re alllowed to disagree on these things.

Well, some of us believe that prosecution for assaulting a Federal law enforcement officer would set a a very needed precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

"NO injury and NO serious risk of causing any injury. The item used wasn’t a rock"

True, less likelihood of injury from spitting in someone's face rather than throwing a sandwich at them.

Well, some of us believe that prosecution for assaulting a Federal law enforcement officer would set a a very needed precedent.

Hotdogs aren’t spit. Spit carries more health risk to the victim than a hotdog.

 

[BackAgain]

"NO injury and NO serious risk of causing any injury. The item used wasn’t a rock"

True, less likelihood of injury from spitting in someone's face rather than throwing a sandwich at them.

Well, some of us believe that prosecution for assaulting a Federal law enforcement officer would set a a very needed precedent.

Does it really meet the legal definition of “assault?”

 

[Rawley]

Does it really meet the legal definition of “assault?”

Actually, both are examples of a battery.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Cops should have extra protections since they have to deal with people of all kinds and therefore never know what the heck said people they deal with will do.

Again, this is just going to encourage other people and next time it will be a brick

 

[Independent thinker]

Relative to this article, D.C. judges and grand jurors push back on Trump policing surge — The Washington Post

I agree that the offense was too minor to get indicted over.

But I fully endorse the firing of that Assistant AG for that very same conduct.

That said, the linked report is still a warning of danger. That the Grand Jurors may have reached a fair determination in that particular matter; but II see evidence that they and the judges mentioned (and so may more) aren’t overly concerned with justice. Instead, they might be expressing partisan political opinions, in many cases, as opposed to seeking rational legal determinations

Wherever possible, therefore, it would be a great idea if the DOJ would seek out other venues or jurisdictions.

Just as we don’t want a GJ to be a rubber stamp to indict people, regardless how of significant contrary evidence :: we don’t want any GJ to be a rubber stamp for “no true bills” merely based on biased, partisan political ideologies.

I say assaulting a police officer is assaulting a police officer. You can darn well bet if the tables were turned, democrats would be demanding an indictment and would get it. It also goes toward a two tiered justice system.

 

[elektra]

It's a she?

Wow.. i missed that. I was focused on other stories.

I thought another post said she, being a democrat, it dont matter if it is a man or woman. Either gender applies

 

[otto105]

Relative to this article, D.C. judges and grand jurors push back on Trump policing surge — The Washington Post

I agree that the offense was too minor to get indicted over.

But I fully endorse the firing of that Assistant AG for that very same conduct.

That said, the linked report is still a warning of danger. That the Grand Jurors may have reached a fair determination in that particular matter; but II see evidence that they and the judges mentioned (and so may more) aren’t overly concerned with justice. Instead, they might be expressing partisan political opinions, in many cases, as opposed to seeking rational legal determinations

Wherever possible, therefore, it would be a great idea if the DOJ would seek out other venues or jurisdictions.

Just as we don’t want a GJ to be a rubber stamp to indict people, regardless how of significant contrary evidence :: we don’t want any GJ to be a rubber stamp for “no true bills” merely based on biased, partisan political ideologies.

So venue bias for you.

Why you so stupid

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, both are examples of a battery.

Depends on the jurisdiction. But that doesn’t make this case anything but de minimus.

 

[BackAgain]

I say assaulting a police officer is assaulting a police officer. You can darn well bet if the tables were turned, democrats would be demanding an indictment and would get it. It also goes toward a two tiered justice system.

I don’t doubt that the Dims would behave all Dim.

But I don’t decide my actions or positions on such things. Regardless of their general ignorance or their duplicity, as a matter of appropriate prosecutorial discretion,I agree with scuttling this case. Here, prosecutors didn’t agree with me. But the Grand jurors did. And, since this alleged “assault” was de minimus, I don’t agree that it merits prosecution.

That’s all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I thought another post said she, being a democrat, it dont matter if it is a man or woman. Either gender applies

He worked for the DOJ and was fired. It's a dude. Saw the video of the incident on Fox news this morning. He was wearing a pink shirt, so he could be gay!

 

[Mac-7]

Relative to this article, D.C. judges and grand jurors push back on Trump policing surge — The Washington Post

I agree that the offense was too minor to get indicted over.

But I fully endorse the firing of that Assistant AG for that very same conduct.

That said, the linked report is still a warning of danger. That the Grand Jurors may have reached a fair determination in that particular matter; but II see evidence that they and the judges mentioned (and so may more) aren’t overly concerned with justice. Instead, they might be expressing partisan political opinions, in many cases, as opposed to seeking rational legal determinations

Wherever possible, therefore, it would be a great idea if the DOJ would seek out other venues or jurisdictions.

Just as we don’t want a GJ to be a rubber stamp to indict people, regardless how of significant contrary evidence :: we don’t want any GJ to be a rubber stamp for “no true bills” merely based on biased, partisan political ideologies.

Ok, it was just a misdomeaner

The government overcharged

Fire the guy and make him pay a fine along with community service picking up trash on the weekends for a few months

 

[Edgetho]

ALL of you are missing the obvious point.

Lawyers don't prosecute Lawyers.

The Perp is a Lawyer. The persecuter is a Lawyer. The Judge is a Lawyer. The Perp has a Defendant's Lawyer.

It's ALL Lawyers. And to them, there are no party lines, there is no Constitution, there are no Laws, no rules...... Only Lawyers and The Little People.

Go ahead, wait twenty years, after it's too late, to figure it out.

Civilized Countries regulate the number of Lawyers for a reason. We could learn something from Japan. And Brazil. And even Australia.

Lawyers are parasites. They give nothing to their hosts but take their life blood. My Dog has contributed more to the betterment of Mankind than any Lawyer on the Planet.

Wise up, people