• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutors Fail to Secure Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent

Victory for the Hoagie Hero!

Poor MAGA, they thought for sure this guy was going down for that vicious and deadly assault with a sandwich!


MAGA:

200w.gif

I am sure Pam Bondi will bring the wounded officer to a press conference with her, telling us how the man cries himself to sleep every night and cannot keep from urinating on himself when he hears the sound of bread being sliced.
 
I, for one, am glad that not everything under the letter of the law is prosecuted, we would likely all be in jail.

Both things can be true though. It can be against the law, and it should not be prosecuted.
I imagine if it poses a problem in the future, an indictment can be had.
 
I, for one, am glad that not everything under the letter of the law is prosecuted, we would likely all be in jail.

Both things can be true though. It can be against the law, and it should not be prosecuted.
I imagine if it poses a problem in the future, an indictment can be had.

This is not only correct, but built into our legal system - at least to an extent. That's why grand juries exist, and why prosecutors have discretion in which crimes to charge.
 
Excuse me a moment, only a moment, while I.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Then perhaps you can explain which element of the crime you think was not met?

1: forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with
2: any person designated in section 1114 of this title
3: while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties

Those are the minimum requirements for violating the statute. Striking someone with an object is an assault. The officer is "any officer or employee of the United States" as designated by Section 1114, and he was engaged in the performance of his official duties. Do you disagree with any of these conclusions? If so, which one, and why?

To raise the crime to a felony, it must:
1: involve physical contact with the victim of that assault

The sandwich struck the officer, which means it made physical contact. Do you disagree that it made physical contact?

These are the four elements to establish a crime was committed and that it was a felony. They are all present in this case.
Sandwich does not constitute "force" because it has no effect on anything at all.
 
These are a lot of words that have nothing to do with whether this guy violated the statute at issue.

He didn't, not so far unless the Prosecutor wishes to resubmit. And all those words told the story of why there is not an Indictment, and why there probably won't be one.
 
Victory for the Hoagie Hero!

Poor MAGA, they thought for sure this guy was going down for that vicious and deadly assault with a sandwich!


MAGA:

200w.gif
“… the right of the people to keep and bear sandwiches shall not be infringed.”
 
It meets every element of the crime.
No it doesn't. You keep talking about assault but pretend that there isn't an important adjective present.

Forcibly assaults. This did not occur.
 
Sandwich does not constitute "force" because it has no effect on anything at all.
Just as an aside, force is a combination of things. Sandwich, bullet, rock, paper towel can all be one part.

You simply do not throw, touch or hit LEO, and none of this needs to be discussed. Today, no indictment. Tomorrow, who knows.
 
But did he get his sandwich back, or is it still held for evidence?
 
Back
Top Bottom