Trump administration fails to secure indictment against sandwich thrower

[meaner gene]

Video testimony clearly shows he was assaulted.....his description doesn't make the video evidence go away.

The sandwich remained nearly intact, and did not show harm to the officer.

In order to prove assault, the officer could testify that he feared harm. But because he lied, the jury could follow the jury instructions, and ignore all of the officers testimony.

Without the victims testimony, they have no proof the officer feared harm. And without such testimony, they could not prove assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[meaner gene]

Dunn's defense admitted he hit the officer.

They didn't just admit it, it was their opening statement.

That wasn't the issue. The issue being was his hitting the officer an assault?

 

[Delldude]

The sandwich remained nearly intact, and did not show harm to the officer

Yet was very clear the officer was assaulted.

And without such testimony, they could not prove assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bouncing off his chest, nearly intact, is proof positive the officer was, beyond a reasonable doubt, assaulted.

Then there's the strange admission by his defense that he did it.

 

[Delldude]

The issue being was his hitting the officer an assault?

According to the law it was.

 

[meaner gene]

According to the law it was.

The jury followed the law.
Apparently having the victim lie on the witness stand, left no-one to testify that the victim feared he would be harmed.
Without that, you can't prove assault without physical evidence, like wounds on the victim. And there were no physical wounds.

 

[meaner gene]

Bouncing off his chest, nearly intact, is proof positive the officer was, beyond a reasonable doubt, assaulted.

Then there's the strange admission by his defense that he did it.

Bouncing off his chest nearly intact, shows the contact was so minor, it couldn't even prove the sandwich was assaulted.

 

[Delldude]

The jury followed the law.
Apparently having the victim lie on the witness stand, left no-one to testify that the victim feared he would be harmed.
Without that, you can't prove assault without physical evidence, like wounds on the victim. And there were no physical wounds.

Fear of harm not a requirement.

Physical injuries not a requirement.

 

[meaner gene]

Fear of harm not a requirement.

Physical injuries not a requirement.

You need either physical injuries, which you had none on the victim.
Or the victim in fear of harm, which the jury could ignore because he lied on the stand.

Leaving the case with no cause for assault.

 

[Lockback]

You got it wrong.
In any reasonable trial, they knew they would be found guilty of the greater offense, With the only way of avoiding being found guilty, would be to hire an O.J. dream team worth of lawyers to defend you.

They were railroaded. Period.

 

[Delldude]

You need either physical injuries, which you had none on the victim.
Or the victim in fear of harm, which the jury could ignore because he lied on the stand.

Leaving the case with no cause for assault.

Nothing in the law addressing that:

18 U.S. Code § 111 - Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees​

(a) In General.—Whoever—

(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b) Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.—
There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

 

[Papageorgio]

If you say so…

Facts are facts and you don’t have any, just opinion.