• not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 month ago

        … 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?

      • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        He probably can’t. Absurd as it may sound, he was actually guilty.

        Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:

        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.

        • [deleted]@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.