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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).