3 ms·

It seems like a double standard. If you approached a random member of the public that you didn't like the look of, shouted at them that you don't want them in y

It seems like a double standard. If you approached a random member of the public that you didn't like the look of, shouted at them that you don't want them in your city and violently threw a soft object at them, you could easily be convicted of assault and receive some minor punishment. I think most people would accept that you should be. Should people have greater rights to assault policemen than other types of people? Or should assault be legal if the victim's workmates find it funny?

kevinh 1y ago
Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class. To put a finer point on it, he was charged because the current administration wants to chill protest against their undemocratic (small 'd') and unlawful activities. In fact, that was the point of deploying ICE/National Guard/etc. to cities in the first place -- to sow fear and limit freedom of expression/assembly.
- foxglacier 11mo ago
  No. That's not what I said. Though there could be a terminology difference between countries - maybe in America, assault requires intent to injure? In other countries it can be any unwanted physical contact. Looks like that's called "battery" in America. So yea I probably meant battery.
tclancy 1y ago
Yes. It’s called “being held to a higher standard”. In the past, we kinda thought we were sending out best and brightest to enforce our laws. The good news is a much larger swath of the country knows better now.
alphabettsy 1y ago
Fair question. The jury in this case decided it wasn’t assault. My hypothesis is that people generally feel that police face little to no accountability and so there is a more serious double standard to contend with.
mmooss 1y ago
It's interesting theoretically: There's a factor of relative power at least in morality and common judgment, if not the law: If a 90 year old person with a cane threw a sandwich at a 6'3" 250 pound professional athelete, everyone would check if the 90 year old was ok. Vice versa, and there would be a lot of anger and an arrest. The state's law enforcement, with weapons, training, ballistic vests and helmets, etc. is the ultimate power. You can't do bodily injury to them, but minor contact and sandwiches are usually not taken seriously. People ask the same question about situations where there is discrimination - is it a double-standard? They are forgetting about relative power: If someone is in a group that is threatened - e.g., an Auburn fan in a large crowd of rowdy, drunk Alabama fans (Auburn and Alabama are arch-rivals) - then an Alabama fan saying something threatening is a real threat, a real danger. If the Auburn fan says something threatening to the 100 Alabama fans around them, it doesn't represent anything; it's almost funny. The equation is, Threat x Power = Danger

kevinh 1y ago

Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class.

nobody9999 1y ago
>Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class. To put a finer point on it, he was charged because the current administration wants to chill protest against their undemocratic (small 'd') and unlawful activities. In fact, that was the point of deploying ICE/National Guard/etc. to cities in the first place -- to sow fear and limit freedom of expression/assembly.
foxglacier 11mo ago
No. That's not what I said. Though there could be a terminology difference between countries - maybe in America, assault requires intent to injure? In other countries it can be any unwanted physical contact. Looks like that's called "battery" in America. So yea I probably meant battery.

tclancy 1y ago

Yes. It’s called “being held to a higher standard”. In the past, we kinda thought we were sending out best and brightest to enforce our laws. The good news is a much larger swath of the country knows better now.

alphabettsy 1y ago

Fair question. The jury in this case decided it wasn’t assault. My hypothesis is that people generally feel that police face little to no accountability and so there is a more serious double standard to contend with.

mmooss 1y ago

It's interesting theoretically: There's a factor of relative power at least in morality and common judgment, if not the law: If a 90 year old person with a cane threw a sandwich at a 6'3" 250 pound professional athelete, everyone would check if the 90 year old was ok. Vice versa, and there would be a lot of anger and an arrest. The state's law enforcement, with weapons, training, ballistic vests and helmets, etc. is the ultimate power. You can't do bodily injury to them, but minor contact and sandwiches are usually not taken seriously. People ask the same question about situations where there is discrimination - is it a double-standard? They are forgetting about relative power: If someone is in a group that is threatened - e.g., an Auburn fan in a large crowd of rowdy, drunk Alabama fans (Auburn and Alabama are arch-rivals) - then an Alabama fan saying something threatening is a real threat, a real danger. If the Auburn fan says something threatening to the 100 Alabama fans around them, it doesn't represent anything; it's almost funny. The equation is, Threat x Power = Danger