4 ms·
> He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact. > [...] > For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here,
by rimunroe 11mo ago
> He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact.
> [...]
> For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
I think you're approaching this as though it's straightforward jury nullification, which (as a layperson) I don't think it is. No one disagrees that he threw the sandwich, but my understanding is that the assault charge requires the officer have "reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm". The defense's argument was that there's no reason to believe the officer was actually afraid.
- JohnFen 11mo ago> my understanding is that the assault charge requires the officer have "reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm" It's "harm or offensive bodily contact". Fear of harm isn't required. However, given then context the act took place in, I think a reasonable person in the cop's position would feel fear of bodily harm. He had no way of knowing what was being thrown at him, he would only know that an object was thrown. Even if he had time to recognize the object was sandwich-shaped and in a sandwich wrapper, he wouldn't know what the object really was.