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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

Most people don’t know the difference sadly.

There is no difference as a matter of federal law. The USC collapses the common law offenses of assault and battery into the term assault.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/458

Wasn’t it charged under DC law?

[Anonymous]

Yet, the sandwich man lost his job at the DOJ, which he should have. Ridiculous behavior. Most bars require conduct "above" the appearance of impropriety, etc. etc. etc. He can't be a wise impartial judge of issues or of the law if he's throwing sandwiches over politics. This childish behavior needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet, the sandwich man lost his job at the DOJ, which he should have. Ridiculous behavior. Most bars require conduct "above" the appearance of impropriety, etc. etc. etc. He can't be a wise impartial judge of issues or of the law if he's throwing sandwiches over politics. This childish behavior needs to stop.

Childish? Yes.
Criminal? No.

No reasonable person would expect harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

Most people don’t know the difference sadly.

There is no difference as a matter of federal law. The USC collapses the common law offenses of assault and battery into the term assault.

https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/458

Wasn’t it charged under DC law?

No. The complaint charges a violation of 18 USC 111. I linked the jury instruction for that offense above.

It wouldn't matter anyway. Every jurisdiction that I'm aware of (including DC) collapses common law battery and assault into a single offense called assault. I'm a prosecutor and I've practiced in DC. The common law distinction between assault and battery is basically academic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

No. No one believes that sandwiches cause harm.

Then why did he attempt to flee if he didn’t believe a crime was committed?

That's irrelevent. Whether the "victim" thought that the sandwich could cause harm is part of the definition of assault.

+1

No reasonable person thinks a sandwich is going to inflict harm.

Not a reasonable person. A reasonable federal law enforcement officer who has seen hundred of his colleagues punched, kicked, spat at, and shot at this year.

[Anonymous]

So this means going forward we can hammer all the purpled haired protesters we want with foot long BLTs and we’re free and clear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

No. No one believes that sandwiches cause harm.

Then why did he attempt to flee if he didn’t believe a crime was committed?

That's irrelevent. Whether the "victim" thought that the sandwich could cause harm is part of the definition of assault.

+1

No reasonable person thinks a sandwich is going to inflict harm.

Not a reasonable person. A reasonable federal law enforcement officer who has seen hundred of his colleagues punched, kicked, spat at, and shot at this year.

No reasonable LEO thinks a sandwich is going to hurt them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

No. No one believes that sandwiches cause harm.

Then why did he attempt to flee if he didn’t believe a crime was committed?

That's irrelevent. Whether the "victim" thought that the sandwich could cause harm is part of the definition of assault.

+1

No reasonable person thinks a sandwich is going to inflict harm.

Not a reasonable person. A reasonable federal law enforcement officer who has seen hundred of his colleagues punched, kicked, spat at, and shot at this year.

No reasonable LEO thinks a sandwich is going to hurt them.

How did he know it was a sandwich and not a brick in that wrapper? After this summer it was more than reasonable for a cop to be concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, if a stranger aggressively threw something at me I would want them prosecuted. If we’re being honest, I think most people would agree. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

Cool now do J6

+1

+2

I'd love to hear that.

Well we have great news! Over 1,600 people who were federally charged for J6 and over 1,000 plead guilty. Wish, granted!

I think you missed something …

+1. Maybe you failed to read that Trump pardoned all the January 6 domestic terrorists on the first day of his term. Some like Jared Wise were even hired at DOJ despite being on video encouraging rioters to kill the Capitol Police.

+2

PP?

So because Trump pardoned the J6 crowd, many who spent years in jail and were financially ruined, it’s now ok to assault federal police in a completely unrelated case? Not sure what kind of answer you’re looking for. Both seem wrong to me.

It wasn't assault.

+1 However, I would like to hear an explanation of how Trump pardoned 1000+ people, many of whom carried deadly weapons and bludgeoned police officers and caused millions of dollars of destruction to the US Capitol. And Trump even hired some of the January 6 domestic terrorists like Jared Wise who is on video encouraging rioters to kill police officers---he's now paid by our tax dollars as Senior Adviser at the DOJ.

+1 million

What does that have to do with the sandwich guy assaulting a federal officer?

Sandwich guy didn’t “assault” a federal officer.

Battery? Unlikely. Assault? 100% text book.

No. No one believes that sandwiches cause harm.

Then why did he attempt to flee if he didn’t believe a crime was committed?

That's irrelevent. Whether the "victim" thought that the sandwich could cause harm is part of the definition of assault.

+1

No reasonable person thinks a sandwich is going to inflict harm.

Not a reasonable person. A reasonable federal law enforcement officer who has seen hundred of his colleagues punched, kicked, spat at, and shot at this year.

No reasonable LEO thinks a sandwich is going to hurt them.

+1 His fellow LEOs gave him sandwich-shaped stuffed toys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this means going forward we can hammer all the purpled haired protesters we want with foot long BLTs and we’re free and clear?

Yeah…if that’s what you want to do.

Think about it. If you made a 911 call because you were hit with a sandwich…the operator would first laugh at you and then hang up.

If you stopped a cop on the street with the same complaint, he would laugh at you and keep walking.

[Anonymous]

He’s still unemployed. Expensive sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s still unemployed. Expensive sandwich.

Yes, because the DOJ is fine to employ J6ers who are on video screaming "kill the Capitol Police," but not a drunk guy who throws a sandwich.

[Anonymous]

The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

As explained to you many times it was not assault. Everybody involved knew it was a Subway sandwich and knew it was incapable of causing any harm.

It was an open and shut public littering case but did not meet the definition of assault. Oh, and the officer lied on the stand by saying it exploded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact the evidence is clearly there for assault and DC jury won't convict is a reason why the crime is so high

Try calling the police anywhere and reporting that you were hit by a sandwich. After laughing at you, they will hang up…and laugh some more.