The conviction being overturned for the sandwich thrower seems correct to me. A sandwich is not a weapon and we should not allow the government to classify it as one.
Assault is assault. The item used is of no consequence.
I disagree with you concerning the sandwich, for the sole reason that those who use a toy gun for a robbery are charged and convicted as if they used a real gun. Yes, it was a sandwich but the intent was to cause harm. It could just as well as be a glass of acid or some other toxic substance that could cause damage.
Assault doesn’t occur only with a “weapon”. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
Assault is the threat of physical harm, causing another person to fear imminent injury, while battery is the actual unlawful physical contact or striking of another person. In essence, assault creates the fear of harm, while battery involves the physical act of harm. You can be charged with assault without battery, but battery includes the elements of an assault.
Both assault and battery are a crime, with the latter being more serious. Physical act includes throwing and hitting with objects. Technically, it doesnt matter if its a hammer or a pillow.
And then theres the charge of impeding law enforcement engaged in duties.
This guy, minor as a serious threat his sandwich was, was guilty of battery. The jury decided to ignore the language of the law and nullify instead. This is something they can do, but in this case it was not for the right reason, IMO. Nullification is properly used to nullify a bad law. Laws against battery are not bad laws. A person spits in your face, thats battery. A person hits you with a rock, thats battery. The sandwich is the same, silly as it may seem. Society seems to have got bat-Chit silly.
Do I think he should get hard time? Perhaps not. But guilty, yes. Probation and fine, probably.
The fact that we are now subjective in judging rather than objective and understanding the law does not bode well in the future. Today a sandwich, tomorrow a 2x4.
I disagree. It was a crime, albeit a misdemeanor, and warrants a very light sentence, like $1. However, to call it not a crime raises the issue of what else can be thrown and not be a crime? A doughnut, water, beer, a frisbee, a knife ... It should be "no, you cannot do that" to throw ANYTHING. There should be no matter of degree.