In the eyes of the law, assault implies intent. It could be viewed as a negligent act in a civil suit, however.
Throwing a sandwich at a cop definitely wouldn’t qualify, then.
“defendants commit an act even though they know their act runs an unusually high risk of causing death or serious bodily harm to a person…”
I saw somewhere that the cop admitted the sandwich throwing did not scare him. I think that is a key element of assault. Some stranger throws water or a pen at me, then I have no clue what they will do next. Can someone confirm or deny if the cop admitted he wasn’t scared?
I wish someone would throw a sandwich at me, say, around lunchtime. As long as it’s still wrapped up and taped shut, hey, free sandwich! If they want to do it every day, then…well…all right.
I don’t know the DC or federal statute that was in play here. Common law assault does not require fear. Here’s part of the Washington Pattern Jury Instruction based on the common law
[An assault is an intentional [touching] [or] [striking] [or] [cutting] [or] [shooting] of another person[, with unlawful force,] that is harmful or offensive [regardless of whether any physical injury is done to the person]. [A [touching] [or] [striking] [or] [cutting] [or] [shooting] is offensive if the [touching] [or] [striking] [or] cutting] [or] [shooting] would offend an ordinary person who is not unduly sensitive.]]
Seems from that like the critical point would indeed be the definition of “unlawful force”, since it’s pretty obvious that the sandwich-flinger’s intention was precisely to offend the pig. (I don’t use that word for LEOs generically, but I will for ICE stooges)
Every time I’ve read about ICE etc. complaining about being assaulted, it turns out they lied. I swear. Every time.
What about that time the perp kept hitting the ICE agent’s fist with his face?
As I said in my other thread that got closed, at first blush this verdict screams “jury nullification.” And indeed, if so it would warm my heart. However the more prosaic explanation seems to be that the jury didn’t buy the idea that it rose to the level of assault.
Which brings me to my next point. I’m no fan of law enforcement as it exists in the US today. But I still think throwing food at LEOs is probably bad form. If a LEO were acting a) morally; b) within the parameters of his duties; and c) within the parameters of the Constitution, and someone threw a sandwich at him, he or she should be made to answer for that. But almost certainly something g like misdemeanor disorderly conduct or something. Not felonious assault.
Then what does? As pointed out in other examples, attacks that do not cause injury or fear have been prosecuted and convictions received.
There must be a standard that must be proven to constitute assault, and this case was substandard.
Thereby disarming him!
Thus the phrase, “eating a bullet”. 
There’s the eggshell skull rule. Wiki link.
Are you saying that it didn’t rise to the level of assault?
And they almost certainly would be convicted under those facts. Under these facts, however, the jury did not want to convict the defendant, even for a misdemeanor. So, yes, jury nullification. They guy was technically guilty but the jury didn’t like the case.
That would literally be up to a jury to decide.
An interesting experiment, if another Doper with more time (I’m at work) and ambition than I wants to carry it out, would be to start two polls.
If you’re on the Sean Dunn jury and he’s charged with felony assault, how do you vote? Options are 1) Not Guilty because Jury Nullification, 2) Not Guilty because it wasn’t assault, or 3) Guilty.
and
If you’re on the Sean Dunn jury and he’s charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct, how do you vote? Options are 1) Not Guilty because Jury Nullification, 2) Not Guilty because really? or 3) Guilty.
This is not a good argument when defending yourself in court. It’s like trying to argue against a speeding ticket by arguing that the police officer did not stop the guy in the car next to you who was going even faster. You were still speeding and still guilty!
But that’s very different audiences. Something that won’t play well in front of a judge might play differently to a jury.
Absolutely not. When I throw bread at seagulls, am I assaulting them? I daresay there are very few if any cases of injury due to thrown sandwiches in history.