That's selective enforcement though. It's only "assault" because it was done against a cop. It's "just being a dick" when done against anyone else.
The danger of constant surveillance is that a lot more of these "being a dick" incidents will be prosecuted when politically convenient (because equal, fair prosecution of all incidents would not happen as that would quickly cause the law to be changed, preventing its future use selective enforcement).
I think that throwing a submarine sandwich at anybody would be considered assault or battery (unwanted, offensive physical contact), although I do think selective enforcement could be a real problem in the future.
You think if someone threw a sandwich at you and then just walked off, you'd be able to get in contact will law enforcement and get them to arrest the guy?
You've nailed the issue in the justice system. When the recipient of harassment has power, or the recipient is favored by those in power for whatever reason, the response is disproportionate.
It shouldn't be so, but it is. It's human nature; the powerful use that power to defend their interests, unless prevented from doing so. The people without power or favor get watered down justice, if at all. The system isn't architected around this, but it's not architected to prevent it either.
How come when you use extreme, beyond-the-pale rhetoric, that stays up; but when I politely point out that your rhetoric is extreme and beyond the pale, that gets flagged?
Just to be clear, by "Nazi" you mean a CBP officer?
And you consider this to be definitionally true; or do you have specific evidence of Greg Lairmore doing something that merits comparison to that regime?
Or do you actually believe that "people who entered a country without authorization and remained there long term with the intent of defying all local immigration law, should be extradited, by force if necessary" is comparable to killing a significant fraction of an entire ethnic demographic, worldwide, while simultaneously waging expansionist land wars?
