Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that if a random person hit you with a sandwich, that no policeman would investigate your case and no prosecutor would ever bring your case to trial.

I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable.

You are full of shit.

MAGAs are lying POSs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal statute that fits this situation. The law is 18 U.S.C. § 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer who is carrying out official duties.

The statute does not require the object to be dangerous. For a basic misdemeanor charge under section 111(a), the requirement is intentional conduct that creates forcible assault or interference. Courts have found that throwing ordinary items such as food or drinks can count as assault when the act is deliberate and directed at a federal officer.

The nature of the object matters only when determining whether the conduct rises to a felony under section 111(b). That part of the statute applies when a dangerous weapon is used or when bodily injury occurs. A soft sandwich does not meet that standard.

In practical terms:

Intentional contact with the sandwich can lead to a misdemeanor assault charge under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a).

A soft item is not a dangerous weapon, so the felony portion of the statute does not apply unless something else escalates the situation.

The deciding factor is the intent to throw it at a federal officer performing official duties, not the hardness of the sandwich.

Even something that seems harmless can still fit the legal definition of assault if it is thrown on purpose at a federal officer.

It could but this didn't. Maybe they should have focused on the throwers intent instead of lying about mustard splatters.

The fact the jury is this bias shows that criminals are not getting fair treatment they are getting off scott free. This hurts DC more, in fact jury should convict regardless if its trump or biden in charge. This makes it look like there is a systemic problem in DC that trump needs to fix.

The only “problem” in DC is MAGA trash in the White House and patrolling the streets.

The jury rightfully decided it wasn’t assault. No reasonable person would conclude it was assault.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal statute that fits this situation. The law is 18 U.S.C. § 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer who is carrying out official duties.

The statute does not require the object to be dangerous. For a basic misdemeanor charge under section 111(a), the requirement is intentional conduct that creates forcible assault or interference. Courts have found that throwing ordinary items such as food or drinks can count as assault when the act is deliberate and directed at a federal officer.

The nature of the object matters only when determining whether the conduct rises to a felony under section 111(b). That part of the statute applies when a dangerous weapon is used or when bodily injury occurs. A soft sandwich does not meet that standard.

In practical terms:

Intentional contact with the sandwich can lead to a misdemeanor assault charge under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a).

A soft item is not a dangerous weapon, so the felony portion of the statute does not apply unless something else escalates the situation.

The deciding factor is the intent to throw it at a federal officer performing official duties, not the hardness of the sandwich.

Even something that seems harmless can still fit the legal definition of assault if it is thrown on purpose at a federal officer.

It could but this didn't. Maybe they should have focused on the throwers intent instead of lying about mustard splatters.

The fact the jury is this bias shows that criminals are not getting fair treatment they are getting off scott free. This hurts DC more, in fact jury should convict regardless if its trump or biden in charge. This makes it look like there is a systemic problem in DC that trump needs to fix.

The only “problem” in DC is MAGA trash in the White House and patrolling the streets.

The jury rightfully decided it wasn’t assault. No reasonable person would conclude it was assault.

Period.

What’s a person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a federal statute that fits this situation. The law is 18 U.S.C. § 111, which makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer who is carrying out official duties.

The statute does not require the object to be dangerous. For a basic misdemeanor charge under section 111(a), the requirement is intentional conduct that creates forcible assault or interference. Courts have found that throwing ordinary items such as food or drinks can count as assault when the act is deliberate and directed at a federal officer.

The nature of the object matters only when determining whether the conduct rises to a felony under section 111(b). That part of the statute applies when a dangerous weapon is used or when bodily injury occurs. A soft sandwich does not meet that standard.

In practical terms:

Intentional contact with the sandwich can lead to a misdemeanor assault charge under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a).

A soft item is not a dangerous weapon, so the felony portion of the statute does not apply unless something else escalates the situation.

The deciding factor is the intent to throw it at a federal officer performing official duties, not the hardness of the sandwich.

Even something that seems harmless can still fit the legal definition of assault if it is thrown on purpose at a federal officer.

It could but this didn't. Maybe they should have focused on the throwers intent instead of lying about mustard splatters.

The fact the jury is this bias shows that criminals are not getting fair treatment they are getting off scott free. This hurts DC more, in fact jury should convict regardless if its trump or biden in charge. This makes it look like there is a systemic problem in DC that trump needs to fix.

The only “problem” in DC is MAGA trash in the White House and patrolling the streets.

The jury rightfully decided it wasn’t assault. No reasonable person would conclude it was assault.

Period.

What’s a person?

MAGAs are garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

Are you saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the agent was assaulted? Because the trial judge considered that issue and disagreed.

The JURY was the finder of fact and concluded there was no assault. Hope that clears it up for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that if a random person hit you with a sandwich, that no policeman would investigate your case and no prosecutor would ever bring your case to trial.

I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable.

Great...find me one case that even anecdotally fits this description (someone arrested for pouring a drink on someone...someone arrested for throwing a stuffed animal at someone...anything remotely similar).

You can't, because you are full of shit. You know that you would be laughed at by the police if you wanted to press charges against someone who threw a sandwich at you.

Four pages ago a prosecutor said this absolutely could be an assault. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

So...some random person on DCUM who we have zero idea who they actually are...that's your evidence?

PP literally said (I assume it was you) that throwing a sandwich at someone is 100% arrestable in most parts of the country.

Great, provide a link to one case of someone getting arrested for throwing a sandwich at somebody. I will also take pouring a room temperature or cold drink (yes, a scalding drink that does injure someone is a different matter) on somebody, or throwing a stuffed animal at somebody.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-faces-charges-after-altercation-with-upstate-deputy/ar-AA1LYfiT

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/wendys-employee-arrested-for-throwing-drink-at-drive-thru-customer-police-say-springfield-illinois

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/10-arrested-after-throwing-drink-spitting-on-cops-and-more-during-fifa-club-world-cup/

https://www.wdsu.com/article/man-throws-drink-at-smoothie-shop-employees-after-sons-allergic-reaction/38887837

The containers (not the liquid) were the harmful object in those cases and the rowdy soccer fans spit.

Heck, if the sandwich had been made with a crusty baguette then it might have been assault. Had the mustard splattered it might have been assault. But it wasn't and didn't so it wasn't assault.

No perception of harm, no capability of harm, no offensive touching, and lying about mustard = not assault.

The details make all the difference and the prosecution was not just overreaching they also didn't put up much of a case (and likely encouraged the agent to lie on the stand). Tsk tsk. Kudos to the defense for paying attention and kudos to the jury for following the law. Justice was served.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPs point is that whether a sandwich is harmful or offensive is NOT cut and dried. It could be but it also could not. The gag gifts and the lying on the stand ("exploded") undercut the case and it was perfectly reasonable for the jury to conclude that the sandwich was not harmful or offensive.

I’m the prosecutor poster. I agree with this. I should have been clearer with my conclusion: throwing a sandwich absolutely could support a conviction for assault. To put it slightly differently, hitting someone with a sandwich is not categorically NOT assault.

This is a quibble, but I don’t agree that the agent lied. I didn’t pay very careful attention to the case, but I suspect he used the word “exploded” colloquially. If a pen breaks in my purse or my soda opens up in my lunch bag, it would be fair to say that the pen or the soda exploded, even if there was no incendiary device involved.

That would be fair to say but that is not what happened.

He said the sandwich exploded from its wrapper. Pictures of the sandwich on the ground post toss showed that that was a false statement.

Was the photo made public? It’s hard to evaluate the truth of his statement without the photo that was used to impeach him.

Yes, it's from the public video and was presented in court.

Face it, it was not assault under the law. Had the sandwich wrapper actually broke and mustard exploded onto him then it might have been offensive. But it didn't so it wasn't. And he lied about that.

In the end, because the sandwich did not explode, it was akin to throwing a stuffed animal. Incapable of harm.

Are you saying that no reasonable person could conclude that the agent was assaulted? Because the trial judge considered that issue and disagreed.

I am saying that a panel of reasonable people concluded, justifiably, that the agent was not assaulted because the touching was neither harmful (a soft Subway sandwich) nor offensive (the wrapper stayed intact).

But again, you don’t know that. You simply have no way of knowing their rationale. Or even that they all had the same rationale.

Certainly your theory is a completely reasonable possibility. It is not the only possibility.

Well duh. Congratulations Bishop Berkeley. We can never know what an individual's true rationale is for anything.

What we do know is that a panel of reasonable people concluded that it was not assault. Therefore, under our system of laws, it was not assault.

I’m sorry you’re so upset about this.

But again, all we know is that they acquitted. Under our system of laws, the defendant is not guilty. That’s all.

And the assumption is that one is innocent until proven guilty.

[Anonymous]

Stolen from another forum:

"He mayo have overreacted, and sub-consciously threw the sandwich, but now he's out of the pickle. The prosecution's case had no meat to it, it was just a bunch of baloney. There was no sub-stantial proof of intent to deli-ver physical harm, as the hoagie was armed with flavor, not danger, and the ICE guy was wearing a BLT-proof vest. The press asked the prosecution what went wrong in their case, but they waved the press off and said "no condiment."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stolen from another forum:

"He mayo have overreacted, and sub-consciously threw the sandwich, but now he's out of the pickle. The prosecution's case had no meat to it, it was just a bunch of baloney. There was no sub-stantial proof of intent to deli-ver physical harm, as the hoagie was armed with flavor, not danger, and the ICE guy was wearing a BLT-proof vest. The press asked the prosecution what went wrong in their case, but they waved the press off and said "no condiment."

“BLT-proof vest.” I lol’d!

[Anonymous]

The DOJ has lost thousands of attorneys. DC is less safe because the competent lawyers have left the AGs office.

[Anonymous]

We release murderers in DC to murder again.

Why do you find this shocking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that if a random person hit you with a sandwich, that no policeman would investigate your case and no prosecutor would ever bring your case to trial.

I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable.

Great...find me one case that even anecdotally fits this description (someone arrested for pouring a drink on someone...someone arrested for throwing a stuffed animal at someone...anything remotely similar).

You can't, because you are full of shit. You know that you would be laughed at by the police if you wanted to press charges against someone who threw a sandwich at you.

Four pages ago a prosecutor said this absolutely could be an assault. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

So...some random person on DCUM who we have zero idea who they actually are...that's your evidence?

PP literally said (I assume it was you) that throwing a sandwich at someone is 100% arrestable in most parts of the country.

Great, provide a link to one case of someone getting arrested for throwing a sandwich at somebody. I will also take pouring a room temperature or cold drink (yes, a scalding drink that does injure someone is a different matter) on somebody, or throwing a stuffed animal at somebody.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-faces-charges-after-altercation-with-upstate-deputy/ar-AA1LYfiT

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/wendys-employee-arrested-for-throwing-drink-at-drive-thru-customer-police-say-springfield-illinois

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/10-arrested-after-throwing-drink-spitting-on-cops-and-more-during-fifa-club-world-cup/

https://www.wdsu.com/article/man-throws-drink-at-smoothie-shop-employees-after-sons-allergic-reaction/38887837

The containers (not the liquid) were the harmful object in those cases and the rowdy soccer fans spit.

Heck, if the sandwich had been made with a crusty baguette then it might have been assault. Had the mustard splattered it might have been assault. But it wasn't and didn't so it wasn't assault.

No perception of harm, no capability of harm, no offensive touching, and lying about mustard = not assault.

The details make all the difference and the prosecution was not just overreaching they also didn't put up much of a case (and likely encouraged the agent to lie on the stand). Tsk tsk. Kudos to the defense for paying attention and kudos to the jury for following the law. Justice was served.

DC juries refusing to take these cases to trial shows something is seriously off with how the assault law is being used. Under both federal and DC rules, assault is defined in simple terms: any intentional attempt to cause unwanted physical contact, or actually causing that contact, counts as assault. There is no requirement for injury, danger, or a hard object. Courts treat spitting, drinks, food and other light items as assault when they create unwanted contact.

That is why the argument about containers, baguettes or mustard does not hold up. The law does not hinge on how firm the bread was or whether a condiment flew through the air. If you throw something at someone on purpose and it is meant to hit them, that is enough to satisfy the definition. The claim that there was no harm or no threat of harm ignores that the law only requires offensive contact, not injury.

The real problem is that the standard is so broad that it lets prosecutors file charges in situations most people see as minor. When juries in DC keep pushing back, it is not because the law does not cover this conduct. It is because the law covers too much and is being stretched past common sense. If the system cannot even get a jury to hear the case without resistance, that is a sign the standard itself is out of line with what the community believes should be criminal. That is the core issue, not the texture of the sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that if a random person hit you with a sandwich, that no policeman would investigate your case and no prosecutor would ever bring your case to trial.

I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable.

Great...find me one case that even anecdotally fits this description (someone arrested for pouring a drink on someone...someone arrested for throwing a stuffed animal at someone...anything remotely similar).

You can't, because you are full of shit. You know that you would be laughed at by the police if you wanted to press charges against someone who threw a sandwich at you.

Four pages ago a prosecutor said this absolutely could be an assault. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

So...some random person on DCUM who we have zero idea who they actually are...that's your evidence?

PP literally said (I assume it was you) that throwing a sandwich at someone is 100% arrestable in most parts of the country.

Great, provide a link to one case of someone getting arrested for throwing a sandwich at somebody. I will also take pouring a room temperature or cold drink (yes, a scalding drink that does injure someone is a different matter) on somebody, or throwing a stuffed animal at somebody.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-faces-charges-after-altercation-with-upstate-deputy/ar-AA1LYfiT

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/wendys-employee-arrested-for-throwing-drink-at-drive-thru-customer-police-say-springfield-illinois

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/10-arrested-after-throwing-drink-spitting-on-cops-and-more-during-fifa-club-world-cup/

https://www.wdsu.com/article/man-throws-drink-at-smoothie-shop-employees-after-sons-allergic-reaction/38887837

The containers (not the liquid) were the harmful object in those cases and the rowdy soccer fans spit.

Heck, if the sandwich had been made with a crusty baguette then it might have been assault. Had the mustard splattered it might have been assault. But it wasn't and didn't so it wasn't assault.

No perception of harm, no capability of harm, no offensive touching, and lying about mustard = not assault.

The details make all the difference and the prosecution was not just overreaching they also didn't put up much of a case (and likely encouraged the agent to lie on the stand). Tsk tsk. Kudos to the defense for paying attention and kudos to the jury for following the law. Justice was served.

DC juries refusing to take these cases to trial shows something is seriously off with how the assault law is being used. Under both federal and DC rules, assault is defined in simple terms: any intentional attempt to cause unwanted physical contact, or actually causing that contact, counts as assault. There is no requirement for injury, danger, or a hard object. Courts treat spitting, drinks, food and other light items as assault when they create unwanted contact.

That is why the argument about containers, baguettes or mustard does not hold up. The law does not hinge on how firm the bread was or whether a condiment flew through the air. If you throw something at someone on purpose and it is meant to hit them, that is enough to satisfy the definition. The claim that there was no harm or no threat of harm ignores that the law only requires offensive contact, not injury.

The real problem is that the standard is so broad that it lets prosecutors file charges in situations most people see as minor. When juries in DC keep pushing back, it is not because the law does not cover this conduct. It is because the law covers too much and is being stretched past common sense. If the system cannot even get a jury to hear the case without resistance, that is a sign the standard itself is out of line with what the community believes should be criminal. That is the core issue, not the texture of the sandwich.

The sandwich was wrapped up and just bounced off of him.

No reasonable person thinks it’s offensive contact.

It’s very different than spitting or spilling a drink on someone.

[Anonymous]

The jury made the right decision. What a stupid lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we can all agree that if a random person hit you with a sandwich, that no policeman would investigate your case and no prosecutor would ever bring your case to trial.

I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable.

Great...find me one case that even anecdotally fits this description (someone arrested for pouring a drink on someone...someone arrested for throwing a stuffed animal at someone...anything remotely similar).

You can't, because you are full of shit. You know that you would be laughed at by the police if you wanted to press charges against someone who threw a sandwich at you.

Four pages ago a prosecutor said this absolutely could be an assault. I’m not sure what else there is to say.

So...some random person on DCUM who we have zero idea who they actually are...that's your evidence?

PP literally said (I assume it was you) that throwing a sandwich at someone is 100% arrestable in most parts of the country.

Great, provide a link to one case of someone getting arrested for throwing a sandwich at somebody. I will also take pouring a room temperature or cold drink (yes, a scalding drink that does injure someone is a different matter) on somebody, or throwing a stuffed animal at somebody.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-faces-charges-after-altercation-with-upstate-deputy/ar-AA1LYfiT

https://newschannel20.com/news/local/wendys-employee-arrested-for-throwing-drink-at-drive-thru-customer-police-say-springfield-illinois

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/10-arrested-after-throwing-drink-spitting-on-cops-and-more-during-fifa-club-world-cup/

https://www.wdsu.com/article/man-throws-drink-at-smoothie-shop-employees-after-sons-allergic-reaction/38887837

The containers (not the liquid) were the harmful object in those cases and the rowdy soccer fans spit.

Heck, if the sandwich had been made with a crusty baguette then it might have been assault. Had the mustard splattered it might have been assault. But it wasn't and didn't so it wasn't assault.

No perception of harm, no capability of harm, no offensive touching, and lying about mustard = not assault.

The details make all the difference and the prosecution was not just overreaching they also didn't put up much of a case (and likely encouraged the agent to lie on the stand). Tsk tsk. Kudos to the defense for paying attention and kudos to the jury for following the law. Justice was served.

DC juries refusing to take these cases to trial shows something is seriously off with how the assault law is being used. Under both federal and DC rules, assault is defined in simple terms: any intentional attempt to cause unwanted physical contact, or actually causing that contact, counts as assault. There is no requirement for injury, danger, or a hard object. Courts treat spitting, drinks, food and other light items as assault when they create unwanted contact.

That is why the argument about containers, baguettes or mustard does not hold up. The law does not hinge on how firm the bread was or whether a condiment flew through the air. If you throw something at someone on purpose and it is meant to hit them, that is enough to satisfy the definition. The claim that there was no harm or no threat of harm ignores that the law only requires offensive contact, not injury.

The real problem is that the standard is so broad that it lets prosecutors file charges in situations most people see as minor. When juries in DC keep pushing back, it is not because the law does not cover this conduct. It is because the law covers too much and is being stretched past common sense. If the system cannot even get a jury to hear the case without resistance, that is a sign the standard itself is out of line with what the community believes should be criminal. That is the core issue, not the texture of the sandwich.

The sandwich was wrapped up and just bounced off of him.

No reasonable person thinks it’s offensive contact.

It’s very different than spitting or spilling a drink on someone.

This is false. Mere unwanted contact doesn't qualify as assault. Intent to harm and reasonable fear are required elements.