An Extremely Tense Situation in D.C.

[Joe Guy]

This just in!

Jeanine Pirro just announced that a federal grand jury has indicted the submarine sandwich that was thrown at the ICE officer in Washington, D.C. Pirro was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News and said, "We're done with Dunn but no matter how you slice it, justice must be served. That sandwich is dead meat."

After the interview Hannity said, "Pirro appeared to be drunk but you can't really tell with her."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program....

[BoSoxGal]

This just in!

Jeanine Pirro just announced that a federal grand jury has indicted the submarine sandwich that was thrown at the ICE officer in Washington, D.C. Pirro was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News and said, "We're done with Dunn but no matter how you slice it, justice must be served. That sandwich is dead meat."

After the interview Hannity said, "Pirro appeared to be drunk but you can't really tell with her."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program....

My afternoon was not great so I really needed that laugh, thanks!

[BoSoxGal]

District street art.

[Joe Guy]

And now you can buy t-shirts like this on Amazon

[Big RR]

So why was she charged with a hate crime, should it had not been a misdemeanor?

Are you that thick? He (not she) was obviously charged with a hate crime because the prosecution believed the elements were supported by the evidence and the grand jury agreed. Don't like the law? Change it--write your congressperson/senators/state legislators, lobby, protest... But it's a law that has been used again and again and it has not been successfully challenged in any court i am aware of (although you could help fund such defense challenges if you wanted to as well. And, FWIW, as BSG reported, the jury found enough evidence to convict him.

As for

But I also know that, like any jury, a grand jury can be stacked—especially if dishonorable people are in charge of compiling the jury pool. They say that in New York City, a favored prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Maybe a poor boy sandwich should have been indicted instead.

; isn't that more a demonstration of how weak this case was (since the prosecution assembles the grand jury (in accordance with the law of course) and still could not get an indictment? If a sandwich could be indicted but not this guy, it showed what the grand jury thought of the case--and that is why the grand jury is comprised of our fellow citizens and not government officials. I know you'd rather dispense with these "niceties" (i.e. Constitutional protections) and just lock up the guys you don't like, but, thankfully, the Constitution is still the law of the land (at least for now).

[liberty]

I think you missed the point. I agree with you; it should not be a felony to assault someone with a sandwich. But likewise, it should not be a felony to assault someone with words.

A person should be free to say he doesn't like Puerto Rico, or even that he doesn't like Puerto Ricans. If he wanted to justify that by citing guerrilla activities during the Cold War against the United States, he could, but he wouldn't have to. A free society is free or is not; it is free for everyone or for no one.

He has a right not to like Puerto Ricans simply because he doesn't, and he has a right to say so.

Why do you support a double standard?

[Joe Guy]

.... it should not be a felony to assault someone with a sandwich. But likewise, it should not be a felony to assault someone with words.

Would it be okay if I told you I'm going to kill you because you are white?

[liberty]

.... it should not be a felony to assault someone with a sandwich. But likewise, it should not be a felony to assault someone with words.

Would it be okay if I told you I'm going to kill you because you are white?

Did he say those words? If he did, they would not be acceptable. That is a threat. You can't issue threats, to kill, to cause bodily harm, or even to "whip someone's ass. Those are threats, and they are against the law. But opinions are not illegal, even if they’re opinions you don’t like.

Did the drunk guy in Caldwell say that to the Puerto Rican girl?

Do you remember the homeowner in Georgia who got angry at the FedEx driver for driving across his lawn? If you do, you’ll remember that black Driver threatened to whip his ass. Wouldn't that be against the law? Was that not a threat? But he was never charged with a misdemeanor, nor did he lose his job for threatening a customer.

[Joe Guy]

....Did the drunk guy in Caldwell say that to the Puerto Rican girl?

I don't know what he said to her but apparently, she felt threatened.

Do you remember the homeowner in Georgia who got angry at the FedEx driver for driving across his lawn? If you do, you’ll remember that black Driver threatened to whip his ass. Wouldn't that be against the law? Was that not a threat? But he was never charged with a misdemeanor, nor did he lose his job for threatening a customer.

I hadn't heard that story but the driver and co-rider were employed by an independent contractor and were both fired. It looks like Fedex may have offered them employment while the incident was being investigated but I couldn't find a report of either of them accepting the job or the result of the investigation.

[Big RR]

I agree with you; it should not be a felony to assault someone with a sandwich. But likewise, it should not be a felony to assault someone with words.

I am not saying either; words can constitute assault if they become a threat--and one needn't say "I am going to kill you" to constitute a threat. I won't second guess the grand or petit jurIes in the Puerto Rico case; both obviously believed his conduct constituted assault (and FWIW, as I recall, he did not receive jail time but got probation).

As for the sandwich throwing, the grand jury also considered the evidence and did not indict; there may be times where throwing a sandwich is assault, but the grand jury did not see this as one. Again, it makes little sense to second guess them. Those who drafted and enacted the bill of rights obviously believed in the wisdom of ordinary citizens to counter power of the government and required indictment as a predicate for a felony charge precisely because of that. Again, as you say, the prosecution has a lot of power and authority in assembling the grand jury and governing much of the proceedings, and I think a grand jury's refusal to indict under those circumstances speaks volumes of what they thought of the charge.

But the point is one case has nothing to do with the other, and neither you nor I have heard enough of the evidence to even begin to evaluate it the way these juries did.

And FWIW, if you really believe that words should never rise to the level of assault, perhaps you should start lobbying to change the law. I won't support you in this matter, but it is your right in a democratic republic to do so. Drawing false parallels between unrelated cases does little but let you blow off steam--you can try to make a real change if that is what you believe. But keep cursing the darkness (and race-baiting) instead of lighting a candle if that's what you really want. That's your right as well.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with you; it should not be a felony to assault someone with a sandwich. But likewise, it should not be a felony to assault someone with words.

I am not saying either; words can constitute assault if they become a threat--and one needn't say "I am going to kill you" to constitute a threat. I won't second guess the grand or petit jurIes in the Puerto Rico case; both obviously believed his conduct constituted assault (and FWIW, as I recall, he did not receive jail time but got probation).

As for the sandwich throwing, the grand jury also considered the evidence and did not indict; there may be times where throwing a sandwich is assault, but the grand jury did not see this as one. Again, it makes little sense to second guess them. Those who drafted and enacted the bill of rights obviously believed in the wisdom of ordinary citizens to counter power of the government and required indictment as a predicate for a felony charge precisely because of that. Again, as you say, the prosecution has a lot of power and authority in assembling the grand jury and governing much of the proceedings, and I think a grand jury's refusal to indict under those circumstances speaks volumes of what they thought of the charge.

But the point is one case has nothing to do with the other, and neither you nor I have heard enough of the evidence to even begin to evaluate it the way these juries did.

And FWIW, if you really believe that words should never rise to the level of assault, perhaps you should start lobbying to change the law. I won't support you in this matter, but it is your right in a democratic republic to do so. Drawing false parallels between unrelated cases does little but let you blow off steam--you can try to make a real change if that is what you believe. But keep cursing the darkness (and race-baiting) instead of lighting a candle if that's what you really want. That's your right as well.

I just want to weigh in on a clarifying point: the grand jury in DC refused to indict on FELONY assault. The USA has the option to go forward with misdemeanor assault charges against the sandwich thrower, which is what the facts in the case support. You cannot cause serious bodily injury with a soft sub roll full of salami launched at a Kevlar vest wearing LEO, under any circumstances any reasonable person could contemplate. Felony assault is intentionally causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury with potential to disfigure or disable.

The man in Chicago committed and was charged with predicate misdemeanor offenses of assault and disorderly conduct, then when the community expressed outrage the prosecutor reconsidered and added the felony hate crime charge, which under the Illinois statutory framework is met when the predicate offenses are motivated by racial or other bias.

[Big RR]

Thanks for the clarification BSG; I didn't recall the Chicago case all that well, although i do think the guy ended up with probation and no jail time. And you are right, in the DC case misdemeanor charges can still be brought, but I think the refusal to indict (twice) clearly demonstrates the value of a grand jury. Of course to Trump and those who support him (fascists all), I would think it shows the need for martial law because ordinary citizens can defy their edicts.

[liberty]

Thanks for the clarification BSG; I didn't recall the Chicago case all that well, although i do think the guy ended up with probation and no jail time. And you are right, in the DC case misdemeanor charges can still be brought, but I think the refusal to indict (twice) clearly demonstrates the value of a grand jury. Of course to Trump and those who support him (fascists all), I would think it shows the need for martial law because ordinary citizens can defy their edicts.

Well, Joe, answer this one question: is it assault to threaten to whip someone's ass, regardless of age, race, or anything else?

The homeowner was in the right, and the FedEx driver was in the wrong. He had no right to drive across the man's lawn. But somehow, because he was a black FedEx driver, it was considered racists for the homeowner to be angry implying that if it had been a white person, he wouldn't have cared. That's totally screwed up. Most people put a lot of effort into their lawns and care about them, regardless of who causes the damage. he was made out to be a racist because he showed disrespect to a black man by screaming at him. But the homeowner was in the right, and the driver was in the wrong. That's all there is to it. All the FedEx driver had to do was simply drive on instead of issuing a threat.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The homeowner was in the right, and the FedEx driver was in the wrong. He had no right to drive across the man's lawn. But somehow, because he was a black FedEx driver, it was considered racists for the homeowner to be angry

What are you blethering on about? Nobody here thinks that a homeowner being angry at a truck driver who cuts across his lawn is racist for feeling angry. Everybody here (except you) would (I guess) think it racist if said homeowner was screaming "You n******* are all alike" or similar remarks in expressing his anger.

You have no point at all to make. So stop not-making it

[liberty]

The homeowner was in the right, and the FedEx driver was in the wrong. He had no right to drive across the man's lawn. But somehow, because he was a black FedEx driver, it was considered racists for the homeowner to be angry

What are you blethering on about? Nobody here thinks that a homeowner being angry at a truck driver who cuts across his lawn is racist for feeling angry. Everybody here (except you) would (I guess) think it racist if said homeowner was screaming "You n******* are all alike" or similar remarks in expressing his anger.

You have no point at all to make. So stop not-making it

No, you're wrong. The white homeowner was portrayed as a racist not because of any particular language he used, but because he was white and angry at a Black man. He had no right to be angry at a Black man—that's the gist of it. And, Sue and Mr. Shit Head would agree with that.

[liberty]

....Did the drunk guy in Caldwell say that to the Puerto Rican girl?

I don't know what he said to her but apparently, she felt threatened.

Do you remember the homeowner in Georgia who got angry at the FedEx driver for driving across his lawn? If you do, you’ll remember that black Driver threatened to whip his ass. Wouldn't that be against the law? Was that not a threat? But he was never charged with a misdemeanor, nor did he lose his job for threatening a customer.

I hadn't heard that story but the driver and co-rider were employed by an independent contractor and were both fired. It looks like Fedex may have offered them employment while the incident was being investigated but I couldn't find a report of either of them accepting the job or the result of the investigation.

Joe, I feel that the homeowner was intimidated by claims of racism even though there was no evidence and chose not to press charges. Would you press charges if someone threatened you? Would you let someone manipulate you? I would not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The homeowner was in the right, and the FedEx driver was in the wrong. He had no right to drive across the man's lawn. But somehow, because he was a black FedEx driver, it was considered racists for the homeowner to be angry

What are you blethering on about? Nobody here thinks that a homeowner being angry at a truck driver who cuts across his lawn is racist for feeling angry. Everybody here (except you) would (I guess) think it racist if said homeowner was screaming "You n******* are all alike" or similar remarks in expressing his anger.

You have no point at all to make. So stop not-making it

No, you're wrong. The white homeowner was portrayed as a racist not because of any particular language he used, but because he was white and angry at a Black man. He had no right to be angry at a Black man—that's the gist of it. And, Sue and Mr. Shit Head would agree with that.

You prove my point (you imply many times that posters here, being 'liberal', called him a racist) by promptly accusing Sue and Scooter of doing exactly that. Who portrayed this man as a racist? You keep saying he was called such but never once showed anything that supported your claim. If you mean he received hate calls from strangers to that effect, say so. Don't try to make it look as if everyone in the world (except you) actually used the term or believe it to be true.

You conveniently ignore the point that IF HE CALLED the driver a n^^^^^ or said something like "All your family are apes" then that would be RACIST. His anger is not RACIST but his words and actions (if any) MAY have been. But then you've always had difficulty with two contrary ideas being correct but not contradictory

[Joe Guy]

Joe, I feel that the homeowner was intimidated by claims of racism even though there was no evidence and chose not to press charges. Would you press charges if someone threatened you? Would you let someone manipulate you? I would not.

Based on the the video I linked above, the only mention of racism seems to have been done on social media by people who watched the video or heard about it. Some people automatically assume racism whenever there is a dispute that involves people who aren't the same color.

Also, it looks like they probably both threatened each other but no one acted on it. If that's true, there's no reason for either of them to press criminal charges.

[Big RR]

Stop making sense Joe, Lib just wants to rant.