Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

He will. And needs to win.

It is very hard for an attorney to argue they did not know it was wrong to assault a cop. I'd love to know what his excuse is - "temporary insanity?"

It was a fu(king sandwich. This is wasting taxpayer money.

But it shows horrible jugement for someone who works in law enforcement.

+1 Childish behavior. Drunk. Screams obscenities and throws food at people when angry. Assaults a law enforcement officer. That's the kind of man we want working in the DOJ?!

This.

The Trump admin hired Jared Wise as Senior Adviser at DOJ AFTER he was videotaped telling January 6 rioters attacking police to "kill 'em." Why did Trump pardon him and thousands of other domestic terrorists? Is that the kind of man you want to work in the DOJ? He makes sandwich guy look like an angel.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-camera-footage-from-jan-6-attack-shows-justice-department-adviser-yelling-for-rioters-to-kill-police/

What does this have to do with this case

What do YOU think this has to do with this case?

Nothing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

He will. And needs to win.

It is very hard for an attorney to argue they did not know it was wrong to assault a cop. I'd love to know what his excuse is - "temporary insanity?"

It was a fu(king sandwich. This is wasting taxpayer money.

I don't know how "assault" is defined in DC, but in most jurisdictions, there has to be some intent to do physical bodily harm. I can't see that throwing a sandwich shows that intent. And did he throw it in general, or at a particular person? Either way, a sandwich is not a deadly weapon and it can't even leave a bruise, unless it's thrown by a major league pitcher.

How do you feel about a kid throwing his food or an wraser at a teacher?

We know you want to go full psycho and "off with their head" mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the sandwich thrower was a young black man and the was white, would we have this same outcome.

Where are you posting from, because we know it is not DC. Stick to your own backyard because you know nothing about DC and the criminal justice system.

Actually, pretty much the world knows that the DC criminal justice system is a system geared to be soft on crime with leniency for those who commit crimes and less concern for victims.

"Akshully..." So, no. You don't live here or have familiarity with the city or criminal justice system. You're MAGA posting from some exurb of Akron.

I'm a DP but a DC area native since 1972. I currently reside in Alexandria but have lived all over DC, MD and VA in the last 40 years. And I happily voted for Trump. And will again if God permits it.

You are a bald faced liar if you claim the justice system is harder on black men than white men in DC. Black men can literally do whatever they want and get away with it.

Go ahead and vote for Trump the rest of your life. His name will only appear on a ballot again if some corrupt people violate the Constitution to enable it.

Yeah, write it in so we can have one fewer vote for whatever POS the GOP puts up there the next time. And the time after that. And the time after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

He will. And needs to win.

It is very hard for an attorney to argue they did not know it was wrong to assault a cop. I'd love to know what his excuse is - "temporary insanity?"

It was a fu(king sandwich. This is wasting taxpayer money.

But it shows horrible jugement for someone who works in law enforcement.

+1 Childish behavior. Drunk. Screams obscenities and throws food at people when angry. Assaults a law enforcement officer. That's the kind of man we want working in the DOJ?!

This.

The Trump admin hired Jared Wise as Senior Adviser at DOJ AFTER he was videotaped telling January 6 rioters attacking police to "kill 'em." Why did Trump pardon him and thousands of other domestic terrorists? Is that the kind of man you want to work in the DOJ? He makes sandwich guy look like an angel.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/body-camera-footage-from-jan-6-attack-shows-justice-department-adviser-yelling-for-rioters-to-kill-police/

What does this have to do with this case

Just say you're a hypocrite and move on why don't ya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

He will. And needs to win.

It is very hard for an attorney to argue they did not know it was wrong to assault a cop. I'd love to know what his excuse is - "temporary insanity?"

It was a fu(king sandwich. This is wasting taxpayer money.

I don't know how "assault" is defined in DC, but in most jurisdictions, there has to be some intent to do physical bodily harm. I can't see that throwing a sandwich shows that intent. And did he throw it in general, or at a particular person? Either way, a sandwich is not a deadly weapon and it can't even leave a bruise, unless it's thrown by a major league pitcher.

How do you feel about a kid throwing his food or an wraser at a teacher?

We know you want to go full psycho and "off with their head" mentality.

Definitely alligator Alcatraz for that kid.

MAGA wants blood. Disgusting vampires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

I get the point but to wrongs don’t make it right. It’s a race to see who is worse. J6 was a crime and assaulting a police officer is too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

I get the point but to wrongs don’t make it right. It’s a race to see who is worse. J6 was a crime and assaulting a police officer is too.

Tossing a sandwich at an officer is assault, but as a form of assault, it’s not remotely comparable to spraying an officer with bear spray, dragging an unconscious officer down a flight of stairs, beating an officer with a flagpole or crushing an officer with a door. What are the odds that a sub sandwich bouncing off a bulletproof vest will result in injury?

Trump pardoned people who violently attacked police officers because those criminals (J6ers) committed their crimes for his benefit. Now Trump’s administration has charged a man with a felony, fired him, and destroyed his home during a raid for a far, far smaller infraction simply because the man opposes Trump’s tactics with the current show of force in DC. If you can’t understand why Trump’s abuse of power upsets people, I can’t help you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

Okay but you are failing to acknowledge that a legal employer- DOJ - can judge the conduct of their employee and it has nothing to do with what people did on January 6. I am an attorney. If ai strike a security guard or cop in the lobby of my building or even yell at them I would expect to be disciplined for it. And a jurys failure to indict is not any defense to my employer finding that my conduct is inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

Okay but you are failing to acknowledge that a legal employer- DOJ - can judge the conduct of their employee and it has nothing to do with what people did on January 6. I am an attorney. If ai strike a security guard or cop in the lobby of my building or even yell at them I would expect to be disciplined for it. And a jurys failure to indict is not any defense to my employer finding that my conduct is inappropriate.

It has EVERYTHING to do with J6 since DOJ currently right now employs J6 insurrectionists, cop beaters, and their supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone keep bringing up j6. It isn't a counter argument to anything.

Honey it is everything.

Okay but you are failing to acknowledge that a legal employer- DOJ - can judge the conduct of their employee and it has nothing to do with what people did on January 6. I am an attorney. If ai strike a security guard or cop in the lobby of my building or even yell at them I would expect to be disciplined for it. And a jurys failure to indict is not any defense to my employer finding that my conduct is inappropriate.

It has EVERYTHING to do with J6 since DOJ currently right now employs J6 insurrectionists, cop beaters, and their supporters. [/quote


The problem with your argument is that it is no defense to my conduct problem that someone else did it. If it violates articulated rules and If you get caught you have to defend your case. You will not get your job back by pointing fingers at Bob or Tom.

Unfortunately for this person striking a law enforcement officer shows abysmal judgement that can probably be generalized to overall bad judgment. And appealing to the Merit Board runs about 100k. So that is an obstacle as well.

[Anonymous]

^^dude nobody is making an actual legal argument. We are too far gone for that. what we are saying is you MAGAs are complete and utter hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Throw a sandwich and get away with it. Throw a brick and get away with it. Shoot him and get away with it. Kill him and get away with it. There's no justice in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Throw a sandwich and get away with it. Throw a brick and get away with it. Shoot him and get away with it. Kill him and get away with it. There's no justice in DC.

You know slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^dude nobody is making an actual legal argument. We are too far gone for that. what we are saying is you MAGAs are complete and utter hypocrites.

Take it up with the police unions who all seem to be incredibly supportive of Trump.