Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

Throws a wrapped sandwich? No.
Throws a glass beer bottle? Yes.
Throws a French fry? No.
Throws a bowl of soup? Yes.
Throws a handful of popcorn? No.
Throws a full cup of coke? Yes.
Throws an empty paper cup? No.

Now do spit.

Yes.

Did this guy spit on the NG? No.

But people do spit on others. It was a big deal during Covid when anti-VAX were spinning on masked people. And people do spin on police officers so should that be prosecuted? Is it prosecuted?

It’s a mild offense. Up to the DA.

Do we prosecute every single “illegal” action? No, it’s not worth the cost or clogging up the courts.

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:

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.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

Throws a wrapped sandwich? No.
Throws a glass beer bottle? Yes.
Throws a French fry? No.
Throws a bowl of soup? Yes.
Throws a handful of popcorn? No.
Throws a full cup of coke? Yes.
Throws an empty paper cup? No.

Now do spit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

Throws a wrapped sandwich? No.
Throws a glass beer bottle? Yes.
Throws a French fry? No.
Throws a bowl of soup? Yes.
Throws a handful of popcorn? No.
Throws a full cup of coke? Yes.
Throws an empty paper cup? No.

Now do spit.

Yes.

Did this guy spit on the NG? No.

But people do spit on others. It was a big deal during Covid when anti-VAX were spinning on masked people. And people do spin on police officers so should that be prosecuted? Is it prosecuted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

I don’t know how that relates here. The guy was arrested, went to trial, and was judged by his peers. Those were the legal consequences.

It’s not his fault that Trump has completely ruined the DOJs chances of getting convictions. It’s was a BS charge, but Americans are going to are on the side of the people, sorry.

You don’t know how prior legal precedent relates to future legal decisions?

SCOTUS says precedent doesn’t matter anymore

YOLO!

You know none of this ends well for DC residents, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

I don’t know how that relates here. The guy was arrested, went to trial, and was judged by his peers. Those were the legal consequences.

It’s not his fault that Trump has completely ruined the DOJs chances of getting convictions. It’s was a BS charge, but Americans are going to are on the side of the people, sorry.

You don’t know how prior legal precedent relates to future legal decisions?

SCOTUS says precedent doesn’t matter anymore

YOLO!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More faux hysterics.

No reasonable person thinks it was assault.

Thought experiment: You’re at work. An aggressive angry adult male gets in your face and screams repeatedly that you are a horrible person. Then throws food at you. No legal consequences for this guy? Really?

Throws a wrapped sandwich? No.
Throws a glass beer bottle? Yes.
Throws a French fry? No.
Throws a bowl of soup? Yes.
Throws a handful of popcorn? No.
Throws a full cup of coke? Yes.
Throws an empty paper cup? No.

Now do spit.

Yes.

Did this guy spit on the NG? No.

But people do spit on others. It was a big deal during Covid when anti-VAX were spinning on masked people. And people do spin on police officers so should that be prosecuted? Is it prosecuted?