Sandwich Guy Found Not Guilty

[Delldude]

Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani and others who backed efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss

President Donald Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

apnews.com

Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani and others who backed efforts to overturn 2020 election, official says​

Butt hurt much?

 

[DukeU]

Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani and others who backed efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss

President Donald Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

apnews.com

Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani and others who backed efforts to overturn 2020 election, official says​

Does that prove I support stomping a cops brains out?

Like I said, you're making things up.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Does that prove I support stomping a cops brains out?

Like I said, you're making things up.

Yes, it does.

 

[whitehall]

I think I summed it up in my post #129. It was an unjust summary execution of an unarmed trespasser. Trespassing is not a capital crime. Clear enough?

Thank you for "post #129, I must have missed it. Do you really keep track of the number and content of every post? There is no statute of limitation on murder or manslaughter so I assume you support an indictment against the Cop.

 

[Concerned American]

Thank you for "post #129, I must have missed it. Do you really keep track of the number and content of every post? There is no statute of limitation on murder or manslaughter so I assume you support an indictment against the Cop.

He's already been exonerated by the Piglosi congress.

 

[whitehall]

He's already been exonerated by the Piglosi congress.

Exonerated is a broad term that doesn't even have a legal basis. Congress has no power to exonerate the perpetrator of a capital crime. The alleged murder was ignored by officials and there was no demand for justice in the media.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Up in heaven, with God and Vince Lombardi.

No doubt! All traveling together to the Dominican with illegal Viagra for, ya know, no apparent reason.

There's a longshot name to watch for, in the Epstein files: Rush

 

[Concerned American]

Exonerated is a broad term that doesn't even have a legal basis. The alleged murder was ignored by officials.

After the democrat J6 Committee, found he did nothing wrong, the Biden DOJ did not pursue it. I would love it if the Trump DOJ reopened it, but I don't know all the issues involved or the legality.

 

[DukeU]

Yes, it does.

 

[whitehall]

After the democrat J6 Committee, found he did nothing wrong, the Biden DOJ did not pursue it. I would love it if the Trump DOJ reopened it, but I don't know all the issues involved or the legality.

The J-6 Committee? WYF was that?

 

[Rawley]

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.

It does not require injury of likelihood thereof

Throw your feces on a cop. Is that assault?

 

[BackAgain]

It does not require injury of likelihood thereof

Yes. It does where the government relied on the theory of “assault.”

Sean Charles Dunn, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) for “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain officers or employees of the United States while engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties.”

In the federal criminal complaint and subsequent filings, prosecutors explicitly alleged that the defendant’s conduct — throwing a Subway sandwich that struck a federal agent — constituted “assaulting a federal officer” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1).

Finally, since that statute didn’t itself define “assault,” they were compelled to rely on the so-called “common law” of assault.

“There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or willfully attempts to inflict injury on another, or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”

That’s the model charge: here is an example of the instructions (albeit from the 9th Circuit:

8.3 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

Throw your feces on a cop. Is that assault?

That might or might not justify an assault charge.

Is it a crime? Almost certainly. And it should be. But basing it on anything requiring proof of “assault” is just dumb. The prosecution in this subway case had a choice of options. Just like a prosecutor in the case of tossing some feces.

The options were “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain officers ….”

Why wouldn’t they settle for a theory of impeding?

 

[Rawley]

Yes. It does where the government relied on the theory of “assault.”

Sean Charles Dunn, was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) for “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain officers or employees of the United States while engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties.”

In the federal criminal complaint and subsequent filings, prosecutors explicitly alleged that the defendant’s conduct — throwing a Subway sandwich that struck a federal agent — constituted “assaulting a federal officer” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1).

Finally, since that statute didn’t itself define “assault,” they were compelled to rely on the so-called “common law” of assault.

“There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or willfully attempts to inflict injury on another, or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”

That’s the model charge: here is an example of the instructions (albeit from the 9th Circuit:

8.3 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee | Model Jury Instructions

www.ce9.uscourts.gov

That might or might not justify an assault charge.

Is it a crime? Almost certainly. And it should be. But basing it on anything requiring proof of “assault” is just dumb. The prosecution in this subway case had a choice of options. Just like a prosecutor in the case of tossing some feces.

The options were “assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain officers ….”

Why wouldn’t they settle for a theory of impeding?

Seriously? Which words do you not understand? "There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or" End of story. Guilty of assault.

 

[BackAgain]

Seriously? Which words do you not understand? "“There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or" End of story. Guilty of assault.

Yes. Seriously.

You omitted a part. It continues:

“… with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”

All parts of the legal definition count.

 

[Rawley]

Yes. Seriously.

You omitted a part. It continues:

“… with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.”

All parts of the legal definition count.

You really don't understand it, do you? That requirement only goes with the threatening someone with out striking them
"or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.” if you actually hit someone, you don't have to cause actual injury

 

[Woodznutz]

Law enforcement can do anything they want. I was called a liar and tossed in jail. They believed my accuser, who was a liar. I won in court. I'm still waiting for an apology. The detectives that charged me were two of the biggest assholes I've ever met.

 

[BackAgain]

You really don't understand it, do you? That requirement only goes with the threatening someone with out striking them
"or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.” if you actually hit someone, you don't have to cause actual injury.

You may have a point.

Sometimes the law(s) blur the lines between assault and the related topic of battery.

In NY State law, there is no assault absent “injury” or the genuine risk of injury.

The jury instructions in federal law seem to do some of that “blurring.”

Still, the “common law” definition isn’t exactly crystal clear and my point is that the AUSA didn’t need to rely on any theory of assault.

 

[Rawley]

You may have a point.

Sometimes the law(s) blur the lines between assault and the related topic of battery.

In NY State law, there is no assault absent “injury” or the genuine risk of injury.

The jury instructions in federal law seem to do some of that “blurring.”

Still, the “common law” definition isn’t exactly crystal clear and my point is that the AUSA didn’t need to rely on any theory of assault.

ThIs was an assault, no question. It was 100% jury nullification because the DC jury hates Trump

 

[Delldude]

You may have a point.

Sometimes the law(s) blur the lines between assault and the related topic of battery.

In NY State law, there is no assault absent “injury” or the genuine risk of injury.

The jury instructions in federal law seem to do some of that “blurring.”

Still, the “common law” definition isn’t exactly crystal clear and my point is that the AUSA didn’t need to rely on any theory of assault.

That was pretty much the point I was arguing.

 

[BackAgain]

ThIs was an assault, no question. It was 100% jury nullification because the DC jury hates Trump

I don’t agree that it was 100%. But even if the law was crystal clear, as defined, and it was an “assault,” I do agree that a DC jury might still have acquitted because — Democrats.