Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

+1. Sadly, we found the boundary yesterday. The people on that jury should be ashamed.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

+1. Sadly, we found the boundary yesterday. The people on that jury should be ashamed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

+1. Sadly, we found the boundary yesterday. The people on that jury should be ashamed.

Trump should be ashamed about both since he’s responsible for both. Of course, he’s not capable, but still.

“Responsible” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Unless you are a DC juror.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

+1. Sadly, we found the boundary yesterday. The people on that jury should be ashamed.

Trump should be ashamed about both since he’s responsible for both. Of course, he’s not capable, but still.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

+1. Sadly, we found the boundary yesterday. The people on that jury should be ashamed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a career prosecutor (both state and federal, at different times) and I've been lurking in this thread. There's a lot of misinformation about the definition of assault. A few points:

1. At common law, there was a distinction between battery and assault. That distinction has basically been eliminated in most jurisdictions, including in the federal system.

2. In most states, misdemeanor or "simple" (or in Maryland, "second degree assault") requires only that the defendant intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive touching of the victim. Throwing a sandwich at someone clearly qualifies. These kinds of cases typically aren't prosecuted because they're not worth the time and resources, but hitting someone with an object, even a sandwich, is absolutely a "simple" assault.

3. At the end of the prosecution's case, the defense will ask the court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal - essentially asking the court to determine that even if you took all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there's still insufficient evidence to convict. If that motion is granted, the court enters a judgment of acquittal and the case never goes to a jury. Judge Nichols considered such a motion and denied it, sending the case to the jury for a verdict. So to everyone insisting that the facts of the case CLEARLY COULD NEVER amount to an assault...the federal judge hearing the case disagreed.

So yes, the defendant's conduct here amounts to assault. This was also a stupid case that became emblematic of this administration's overreach and hypocrisy, and the jury responded accordingly by acquitting.

Thank you for this explanation and your public service. I agree with your legal analysis, though differ with you that the case was stupid. In light of the violence this year against law enforcement and the number of political protests that occur regularly in DC I think this case could have had important deterrent effect. Now the public is left with the mistaken belief that some touching of police is permissible under the law and some will attempt to find the boundaries. Sandwich is fine now. So, how about spit? It’s just water. How about a brick? This jury just made police less safe in DC and for that we will all suffer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Whatever. This one was unprofessional in the extreme, an embarrassment to DOJ, and had to go.

Why is sandwich guy dismissed after a drunken sandwich toss but Jared Wise gets hired as a DOJ Senior Adviser despite being on video urging January 6 violent rioters to kill the Capitol Police?

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/07/nx-s1-5493197/doj-trump-jan-6-defendant-jared-wise-capitol-riot

Video shows Department of Justice official urging Jan. 6 rioters to 'kill' cops

Police bodycam footage introduced at the trial of Jared Wise showed him berating police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, and yelling "kill 'em" as rioters attacked law enforcement.

Less than five years after urging rioters to "kill" police at the Capitol, a former Jan. 6 defendant is working as a senior adviser for the Department of Justice, which has been dramatically remade under the second Trump administration.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Whatever. This one was unprofessional in the extreme, an embarrassment to DOJ, and had to go.

Anonymous wrote:We release murderers in DC to murder again.

Why do you find this shocking?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/kimkatieusa/status/1992249063539105917?s=46&t=R3AX3c486LFdeZpFtkN_eA

This happened in North Carolina, but what are the chances this person gets indicted? She threw a drink at his head.

Trump's DOJ is fast running out of prosecutors, and the ones they have left don't seem all that competent.

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/kimkatieusa/status/1992249063539105917?s=46&t=R3AX3c486LFdeZpFtkN_eA

This happened in North Carolina, but what are the chances this person gets indicted? She threw a drink at his head.

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