4 ms·

People shouldn't be throwing sandwiches at people but it's wild in the US that the most minor stuff against the police and they try to charge you with a felony

People shouldn't be throwing sandwiches at people but it's wild in the US that the most minor stuff against the police and they try to charge you with a felony but police can commit pretty much any form of assault (even on camera) and often don't even lose their job unless there's a big outcry.

AngryData 1y ago
I mean you don't get 25% of the world's total prison population by having a fair and just law enforcement system.
jahsome 1y ago
Even with an outcry, the blue wall often protects them only until it's politically untenable.
adrr 1y ago
Law enforcement officer committed perjury on the stand since the defense presented a picture of the sandwich after the throw and it was still wrapped up. It never exploded.
- jrflowers 1y ago
  Lying under oath about a sandwich should be treated as a substantial offense. At the very least it should carry a fine hefty enough to render him a po’ boy
- tehwebguy 1y ago
  Show me a cop that doesn’t belong on the Brady list and I’ll eat a ham and cheese bomb on italian bread
jojobas 1y ago
An attack on a cop is an attack on the state. You sure have a right to revolution but you better succeed, cause state has the right to imprison you.
- malfist 1y ago
  I hardly think throwing a sandwich at someone is an attempted revolution
  - jojobas 1y ago
    It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order. You can't allow anything getting thrown at cops on duty without repercussions.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      Not according to a Jury of peers. The entire reason we have trial by jury is to dull the power of the state when it acts like this ICE officer and prosecutor did. This "attack" was about as close to non-violent protest as you can get. Taking someone to court was only done because the ICE kidnapper had his fee fees hurt.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        It was in court because the White House wants to demonstrate extreme aggression. I wonder how the officer felt about testifying - did they have a choice? (They are still responsible for their actions, of course.)
      - jojobas 1y ago
        The jury decided there was no attack, not that attacking cops is fair game.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order. Why is the state so special? The USA's foundational value is individual liberty, not state authority.
      - jojobas 1y ago
p_ing 1y ago
Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole. Prosecutors are afraid of prosecuting them as they are -- normal citizens. They deserve nor have any special rights under the law (there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military). When an officer attempts to murder a civilian, they should face attempted murder charges. When an officer kills a pet, he should face a destruction of property charge. Unfortunately this rarely happens. Anyone should be able to exercise their human rights and resists so-called officers of the law where possible up to and including deadly force.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole. I think you are way overstating it. It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. > there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military ???!!!! Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
  - p_ing 1y ago
    > It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggressive, fearful, and self-protective/self-interested police force. Not one for the 'good of the people'. > Do you think people in the military have different or special rights? Yes, there are two classes of people in the US -- civilians and military. You're one of two, not that individuals in the military can violate civilian law, but they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians. Along with limits on their rights that they would otherwise have under the US Constitution.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > there are two classes of people in the US Where do you get that? > they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are. Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.
squigz 1y ago
Throwing sandwiches at people is a valid act of protest in my books.

AngryData 1y ago

I mean you don't get 25% of the world's total prison population by having a fair and just law enforcement system.

jahsome 1y ago

Even with an outcry, the blue wall often protects them only until it's politically untenable.

adrr 1y ago

Law enforcement officer committed perjury on the stand since the defense presented a picture of the sandwich after the throw and it was still wrapped up. It never exploded.

jrflowers 1y ago
Lying under oath about a sandwich should be treated as a substantial offense. At the very least it should carry a fine hefty enough to render him a po’ boy
tehwebguy 1y ago
Show me a cop that doesn’t belong on the Brady list and I’ll eat a ham and cheese bomb on italian bread

jojobas 1y ago

An attack on a cop is an attack on the state. You sure have a right to revolution but you better succeed, cause state has the right to imprison you.

malfist 1y ago
I hardly think throwing a sandwich at someone is an attempted revolution
- jojobas 1y ago
  It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order. You can't allow anything getting thrown at cops on duty without repercussions.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    Not according to a Jury of peers. The entire reason we have trial by jury is to dull the power of the state when it acts like this ICE officer and prosecutor did. This "attack" was about as close to non-violent protest as you can get. Taking someone to court was only done because the ICE kidnapper had his fee fees hurt.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      It was in court because the White House wants to demonstrate extreme aggression. I wonder how the officer felt about testifying - did they have a choice? (They are still responsible for their actions, of course.)
    - jojobas 1y ago
      The jury decided there was no attack, not that attacking cops is fair game.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order. Why is the state so special? The USA's foundational value is individual liberty, not state authority.
    - jojobas 1y ago

p_ing 1y ago

Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole. Prosecutors are afraid of prosecuting them as they are -- normal citizens. They deserve nor have any special rights under the law (there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military). When an officer attempts to murder a civilian, they should face attempted murder charges. When an officer kills a pet, he should face a destruction of property charge. Unfortunately this rarely happens. Anyone should be able to exercise their human rights and resists so-called officers of the law where possible up to and including deadly force.

mmooss 1y ago
> Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole. I think you are way overstating it. It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. > there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military ???!!!! Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
- p_ing 1y ago
  > It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police. Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggressive, fearful, and self-protective/self-interested police force. Not one for the 'good of the people'. > Do you think people in the military have different or special rights? Yes, there are two classes of people in the US -- civilians and military. You're one of two, not that individuals in the military can violate civilian law, but they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians. Along with limits on their rights that they would otherwise have under the US Constitution.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > there are two classes of people in the US Where do you get that? > they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are. Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.

squigz 1y ago

Throwing sandwiches at people is a valid act of protest in my books.