Sandwich Guy Found Not Guilty

[Concerned American]

.

Of course it wasn't an assault, just like it's not going to be an assault when I sneeze on a covidiot.

.

LOL, IDK, these days, that might be considered assault.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

LOL, IDK, these days, that might be considered assault.

.

Oh, of course they'd scream like a six year old girl and call the police!

.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes, the famously dishonest predator who preyed on ignorant and dumb people was, indeed, famous for such open-ended, specious horseshit.

But ya gotta love him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But ya gotta love him.

I do now. He is right where I want him.

 

[citygator]

 

[Delldude]

I assume the defendant had to pay for a lawyer. Also, he lost his job. So, the cost wasn’t solely on the taxpayers.

The defendant was a dickhead. But I’ll say it again, it wasn’t an “assault” at all.

Go bounce one off a local cop's chest and get back to us.

 

[BackAgain]

Go bounce one off a local cop's chest and get back to us.

Why? I’m not suggesting the behavior is appropriate.

What I’ve said is that it isn’t an “assault.”

There are other charges which might actually apply. But alas, those weren’t the charges leveled against the Subway Sandwich Shithead.

 

[Delldude]

Why? I’m not suggesting the behavior is appropriate.

What I’ve said is that it isn’t an “assault.”

There are other charges which might actually apply. But alas, those weren’t the charges leveled against the Subway Sandwich Shithead.

He should have dropped the sandwich, while yelling and poked him on the lapel with his index finger. Would have been so much simpler.

 

[BackAgain]

He should have dropped the sandwich, while yelling and poked him on the lapel with his index finger. Would have been so much simpler.

He is not the point. He is, obviously, just an asshole.

The point is whether throwing a ******* subway sandwich at any law enforcement officer (striking him on his bullet-proof vest) constitutes an “assault” — when the legal meaning of “assault” requires either injury or a reasonable likelihood of causing injury.

Let’s cut to the chase. It simply doesn’t.

A prosecution for littering, or for obstruction of justice or for disorderly conduct might fly.
But charging “assault” was a piss poor prosecutorial decision.

 

[Woodznutz]

I do now. He is right where I want him.

Up in heaven, with God and Vince Lombardi.

 

[Delldude]

But charging “assault” was a piss poor prosecutorial decision.

The legal definition of assault says a lot different.
DC Jury's have a penchant for not guilty verdicts regarding most things Trump. That was one of my first considerations with the indictments and I wasn't surprised. Same with this.

 

[Woodznutz]

He is not the point. He is, obviously, just an asshole.

The point is whether throwing a ******* subway sandwich at any law enforcement officer (striking him on his bullet-proof vest) constitutes an “assault” — when the legal meaning of “assault” requires either injury or a reasonable likelihood of causing injury.

Let’s cut to the chase. It simply doesn’t.

A prosecution for littering, or for obstruction of justice or for disorderly conduct might fly.
But charging “assault” was a piss poor prosecutorial decision.

But it likely looked like assault, kinda like "assault" rifles look.

Of if they could prove that the bread was made of "hard red wheat" they could charge him with throwing something "hard" at the cop.

 

[BackAgain]

The legal definition of assault says a lot different.

I have previously quoted what is meant by “assault” in federal criminal law. And a common element always involves injury or the prospect of injury.

DC Jury's have a penchant for not guilty verdicts regarding most things Trump. That was one of my first considerations with the indictments and I wasn't surprised. Same with this.

I’m not sure I track what you’re saying. But, either way, charging “assault” or any crime depending on “assault” was a mistake.

 

[BackAgain]

But it likely looked like assault, kinda like "assault" rifles look.

I get a chuckle out of the term “assault rifles.” Point a loaded rifle at any human being and pull the trigger and you should meet the definition of assault (not counting a scenario involving legal justification, often referred to as “self defense.”)

 

[Delldude]

I have previously quoted what is meant by “assault” in federal criminal law. And a common element always involves injury or the prospect of injury.

I hear you but the assault definition in federal law is all over the place and not specific to your point among several law sources.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[BackAgain]

I hear you but the assault definition in federal law is all over the place and not specific to your point among several law sources.

That's all I'm saying.

Assault is not specifically defined in federal law as used in this matter. But federal law has adopted the common law.

When federal statutes don’t define “assault,” courts usually apply the common-law definition, which recognizes two forms:

Attempted battery:
An attempt or offer, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily harm to another.
Example: Swinging a fist but missing.

Intentional threat / reasonable apprehension:
An intentional act causing another to reasonably fear imminent bodily harm.
Example: Raising a weapon threateningly at close range.

Both forms require intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat.

 

[Delldude]

Assault is not specifically defined in federal law as used in this matter. But federal law has adopted the common law.

When federal statutes don’t define “assault,” courts usually apply the common-law definition, which recognizes two forms:

Attempted battery:
An attempt or offer, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily harm to another.
Example: Swinging a fist but missing.

Intentional threat / reasonable apprehension:
An intentional act causing another to reasonably fear imminent bodily harm.
Example: Raising a weapon threateningly at close range.

Both forms require intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat.

I read that also. I also read in the absence of a clear definition, the defense hypes it all up as in this case to convince the Jury 'it wasn't all that bad'.

Later, Dude

 

[BackAgain]

I read that also. I also read in the absence of a clear definition, the defense hypes it all up as in this case to convince the Jury 'it wasn't all that bad'.

Later, Dude

The defense attorney has an ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense to each and every client (and that includes the innocent as well as the guilty).

So, if the Congress chooses to amend the law(s) to provide a useful clear definition, that would be great. Absent that, the fault isn’t with the prosecutors, the defense bar or the courts. It lies entirely on Congress.

But, yeah. Later, my friend.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You gotta love it.

In a country where people are arrested over their language and face a jail sentence.

Actually assaulting an officer of the law is overlooked.

Man convicted after attack on postal worker over …​

YEt you are whole hog for Trump pardoning people who tried to stomp the brains out of cops on J6.

 

[DukeU]

YEt you are whole hog for Trump pardoning people who tried to stomp the brains out of cops on J6.

You are whole hog for making things up.