view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Continuing the great American tradition of jury nullification
This wasn't nullification. The sandwich throw clearly isn't assault. No crime was committed here.
Clearly the other two were crimes. I'm skeptical they have the right guy for either, but I haven't seen the evidence and the jury will.
IANAL and I'm not real clear on DC law but I think the argument was that Mr ice felt like he was being attacked because of the sandwich, not that the sandwich was causing real harm. So even though there was contact the throwing of the sandwich was a threat, making it assault.
It’s actually pretty insane that this has happened, what, twice now in only a few weeks, both cases related to the fed occupations. I can’t even remember the last time an acquittal like this happened before that, though I don’t follow this stuff closely. I think OJ is the last one I’m aware of but that’s obviously a totally different situation. I was definitely expecting s different outcome, but good for him. I remember in the video they called him “Superman”, lol. I guess so!
They didn't even say if the sandwich had ketchup or mustard in it. The combination can make a big difference in how the crime should be treated. What if it had Mayo! Has anyone stopped to think about that?
My education is in the works. Is this actually an example of jury nullification? Like, what he did was actually illegal, but the jury presumably, thought the law was unjust? Or is throwing a sandwich at ICE just not illegal?
He threw an object in hostility at a (supposed) federal employee, which could be assault. Jury said no, because they can.
It is, by the letter of the law, assault (and battery, if that's a separate thing there). But the jury is not bound in any way as to whether they find a defendant guilty or not guilty.
There was a pretty locally big felony murder case. Some Norteños jumped some Sureños. The Norteños had bats. One of the Sureños had a gun. One of the Norteños died.
Now, under stone principle I don't understand and can't remember what it's called, when you start committing a crime, any crimes that occur as a direct consequence are attributable to the party that began the illegal actions. So the Norteños went on trial for felony murder for shooting their own fellow gang member (since the Sureños could reasonably argue self defense and the DA wanted to do something about gang violence, they prosecuted the Norteños) even though a Sureño pulled the trigger.
I learned it's difficult to get a conviction from a fair jury for felony murder when you "started it". They were acquitted.
I can really see going after the ones who started it in the case you mentioned, even though their guy died. That feels like a tough row to hoe for the persecution, though.
I wonder o of the jury would have more likely to convict if it was a bystander who died.
Not a lawyer but my reading of it is that, in other context, this fact pattern could theoretically lead to a conviction. It is hard to imagine a sandwich causing actual harm, though, so it is probably unethical to have even brought charges knowing it is such bullshit.