Reply to Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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

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).[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

That’s not how our system works. All that an acquittal means is that the jury concluded the protection had failed to prove every element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t amount to a finding that no assault occurred. That’s not how criminal law works.[/quote]

Prosecution, not “protection had”[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics