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.
It was a sandwich. If it were one of the other you listed everything would be different. You do not want a government that elevates the mundane in order to achieve stiffer penalties.
Yes. It’s the intent. Some idiot said they should have went with resisting arrest. Why? Obviously can’t be arrested for throwing a sandwich since the idiot says it is not a weapon.