Will a Grand Jury really indict a ham sandwich?

[msc545]

Maybe not:

[MisterWack]

When we compare the ‘ham sandwich’ thrower to BLM Looters and January 6th Rioters ,

The reason for that was the police response to both instances.

I know a guy hitting you in the face with a sandwich is less of a threat than a bunch of people busting down your business’ windows and doors to steal things to resell later and less of a threat than 1,000s of violent rioters inside The Capital rotunda busting down windows and doors climbing inside with the all express purpose of potentially harming politicians doing their duty of the electoral certification of the will of the people.

It is as comical as two men in a jail cell going,

A: “what are you in for?”
B: “stabbing a man after he wouldn’t give me my money”…..

B: what about you?
A: Throwing a ham sandwich then running away…

B: That is hardcore.

Literally it is nothing. There is nothing to be compared, this is stupid.
This is a waste of the taxpayer’s money and really a waste of everyone’s time.

[andreasderjuengere]

Ham sandwiches are known to be lethal when thrown right. But after all... it's the thrower who kills - not the sandwich itself. Depending on one's political views I see several options now:

1 - ban all sandwiches 2 - make an umpteenth amendment to the constitution that secures ham-sandwich ownership as a means of self defense against a corrupted government or its vassals. 3 - a @freethesanswich movement being initiated. 4 - to impeach the Chief Sandwich. 5 - burn some cars and loot some shops in protest. and 6 - find a school and sandwich some people.

[Anonymous]

No, but they can just keep calling new grand juries until they get one to indict. Or so I’ve heard.

[ProbablyClueless]

That’s true. It’s because jeopardy doesn’t apply to a Grand Jury proceeding, so they can take as many shots as they want at you without violating the rule against double jeopardy.

Grand juries can’t assign you a legal penalty and they don’t follow the formal rules of evidence (hearsay and such is allowed), so it’s not a court proceeding in the way people typically understand it.

The only thing a grand jury really decides is whether a matter is worth the court’s time.

[msc545]

@ProbablyClueless They quit after trying three.

[ProbablyClueless]

@msc545 3 is a sensible practical limit. Anything beyond that is a waste of time and money

[msc545]

Seems reasonable. That is a substantial number of people, all of whom are refusing to do what the prosecutors want. So I hope they eventually get listened to.

[Sevenpointfive]

and this is how the ham sandwich defense was created...

[CaptainSmartass]

Possibly. Any jury at Texas Crown Court would. They'll convict anything.

Simples...

[beefcakebradybatson]

But not Trump !!!