> He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact.

> [...]

> For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.

I think you're approaching this as though it's straightforward jury nullification, which (as a layperson) I don't think it is. No one disagrees that he threw the sandwich, but my understanding is that the assault charge requires the officer have "reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm". The defense's argument was that there's no reason to believe the officer was actually afraid.