Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
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:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote] I don’t agree with that at all. What low standards you have. In most parts of the country that is 100% arrestable. [/quote] 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. [/quote] Four pages ago a prosecutor said this absolutely could be an assault. I’m not sure what else there is to say. [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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 [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] This is false. Mere unwanted contact doesn't qualify as assault. Intent to harm and reasonable fear are required elements.[/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
