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.
I was just wondering if he could sue for malicious prosecution.
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.
… 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?
I revel in the fact that the cop is going to get roasted for this through out his career. We should start emailing quality puns to the department so they don’t run out of fodder too quick.
*toasted
Man frowns at MAGA.
Republicans: he assaulted me! Lock him up!
Sub beats wrap
⬆️ take it and go you animal.
Time to make more sandwiches and milkshakes
That man’s a hero.
I see what you did there
That hero is a hero
I am happy they didn’t find him guilty of assault with a deli weapon.
I’m glad DC juries aren’t putting up with Trump and Bondi’s fascist shit
The random sample survey of 604 D.C. residents was taken between August 14 and 17 shortly after Trump signed the executive order. It indicates some 65 percent of residents do not believe the presence of FBI agents and uniformed National Guard troops from an increasing number of states makes the city safer.
Eight of 10 residents surveyed oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city. Seven in 10 oppose it “strongly.”
I’m not sure why they thought a DC jury would ever convict, given that even a DC grand jury (which hears only the prosecutor’s side) didn’t indict.
“This, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich” and after the federal agent claimed to have been smeared with mustard and onions, the defense showed a picture of the sandwich - still completely in its wrapper.
“If the wrapper is still fit, you must acquit!”
I was kind of hoping the defence would produce a receipt that confirmed it was a BLT without onions, hence proving the agent committed perjury.
Wait, so the cop didn’t even actually get mustard and onions on him?
That was from the hamberders he ate for lunch
The man who was hit with the sandwich was CBP agent Gregory Lairmore, who told the jury earlier this week that the sandwich “kind of exploded all over my uniform” and “smelled of onions and mustard”, according to the Washington Post. The defense pushed back, as it appeared in imagery from the scene that the sandwich did not leave its wrapper.
LOL, how is this not The Onion?
Anyway, it’d be nice to be able to sue the shit out of those responsible for wasting this guy’s time, reinstall him in his job, and give him all back pay.
lol
I wish in cases like these, the jury could sanction the prosecution, like not guilty, and we revoke your right to practice law for 90 days for being such fucking idiots and harming the accused, and wasting our fucking time.
Also just further on this… think of how many frivilious law suits could be prevented with that. Don’t let the jury block them for a year, and maybe keep a harsher thing like 90 days for state/feds, but imagine if someone hires a lawyer to sue someone for something absolutely ridiculous, and they knew they would risk not being able to practice law for a week if they offend the jury for how stupid it was.
For civil suits, some states have something called anti-SLAP (?) laws, which try to do something similar by allowing the defendant to sue the plaintiff.
I still think just giving the jury some of that power on the spot would be better, now you’re doing yet another lawsuit, and the lawyer isn’t at risk if it’s the defendent suing the plaintiff and you still gotta have the Jury rule on that when they could have just ruled on it on the spot the first time.
It’s nice to know there is some recourse though.
