… and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich “exploded all over” be privately charged if the court won’t do it themselves?
There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another
It doesn’t say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.
Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don’t prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.
It took 3 grand juries to even be able to bring the case, it was always going to end in acquittal. Sure, it’s technically assault, but nobody was going to convict for that.
This was charged as a misdemeanor. No grand jury this time.
I’m on the protestor’s side here, but in general, it probably ought to be illegal to throw sandwiches at people. Some jurisdictions have a separate offense of harassment for offensive or even merely nonconsensual intentional physical contact that presents no risk of injury.
I’d have voted not guilty if I was on that jury, but guilty for the same conduct under different circumstances, such as throwing food at a fast food worker over a customer service issue.
Now sue them for $.
Or politicians need to be forced to vote to remove this immunity BS. We need to push for that and the removal of citizens United.
I was just wondering if he could sue for malicious prosecution.
No, he sues for damages. Time lost, mental anguish, etc
… and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich “exploded all over” be privately charged if the court won’t do it themselves?
Who knows but if he does they should bar the agent and lawyer that brought up the charges from ever bringing charges again on anybody.
He probably can’t. Absurd as it may sound, he was actually guilty.
Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:
It doesn’t say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.
Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don’t prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.
I don’t mean to be a pedant here, but he’s not actually guilty. The jury decided that.
It took 3 grand juries to even be able to bring the case, it was always going to end in acquittal. Sure, it’s technically assault, but nobody was going to convict for that.
This was charged as a misdemeanor. No grand jury this time.
I’m on the protestor’s side here, but in general, it probably ought to be illegal to throw sandwiches at people. Some jurisdictions have a separate offense of harassment for offensive or even merely nonconsensual intentional physical contact that presents no risk of injury.
I’d have voted not guilty if I was on that jury, but guilty for the same conduct under different circumstances, such as throwing food at a fast food worker over a customer service issue.
He threw it in self defense
Did he literally throw a sandwich? Yes.
Is he guilty of forcible assault by throwing the sandwich? No.
If doing a thing was the same as guilt there wouldn’t be a trial.