It doesn't really matter what you have to say there, Lou, I've proven my point as correct and backed it up with the relevant law and an article. There's absolutely no reason for you to act all butthurt. If you don't like the law, petition to have it changed instead of trying to argue with me.
Your technically right on this statement i agree, Jim would be "assaulting an officer" the moment he didn't put the mic down.
Like you state, even if the woman would be a cop and Jim would be viable to "cause, assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a law enforcement officer" it would still make the charge "assaulting a police officer" not "assault" as you state in your first comment.
Luckily i don't live in a police state and this would be thrown out of court instantly over here.
The woman is White House press secretary, a person serving the Constitution via the White House under the President and appointed by the President. Maybe not a "Public Officer" in technical terms but still serving the law.
From https://criminallawdc.com/dc-assault-lawyer/laws/ (actual lawyers in DC where this happened)
Generally, “assault” is defined as the threat or use of force on an individual that causes the individual to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Sarah Sanders stopped as soon as he struck her arm. 1. He struck her. 2. Offensive contact in the line of her duties. She can 100% press charges for assault and would likely win.
Why can't you understand that he struck her? How do you not understand that by now?
> None but difference is that I actually know what I'm talking about.
So in your reasoning standing still next to a woman is already assault....
Your reasoning is crooked and that is how it is.....