cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/49262051

Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore told the jury the snack “exploded all over him” and he “could smell the onions and mustard” on his uniform.

Neither side disputes that Sean Dunn, 37, did in fact lob obscenities and a deli-style sandwich at officers deployed by President Donald Trump to patrol the nation’s capital in August. But Mr Dunn’s lawyer argues it was not a criminal act.

The incident was captured on video and went viral, making Mr Dunn a symbol of opposition in Washington DC to Trump.

Government prosecutors initially tried to secure felony charges against Mr Dunn, but a grand jury declined to indict him. Prosecutors have instead charged him with a lower-level misdemeanour assault.

  • TheHighRoad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore told the jury the snack “exploded all over him” and he “could smell the onions and mustard” on his uniform.”


    Are we ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN this is not The Onion? Hard to say based on the smell.

  • FreddiesLantern@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ok I feel we’re not getting crucial information here. Just onions and mustard? Is that a thing? And if so what kind of mustard?

    Stop burying the lead!

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    They’re handling this the exact way they should be handling the clergy that was shot nearly point blank with a chemical weapon in Oakland. Except they aren’t touching that at all and going full ham on a ham sandwich.

    This protestor will probably be punished how that costly l cowardly “agent” should be, while the agent walks without a worry in his mind or a lesson learned, akin to how the protestor should feel.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Depends on what the jury decides. Did they manage to find 12 people that will consider a sandwich a weapon and completely discount the protest aspect and all current events?

      Considering the prosecution doesn’t get to pick the jury, and both sides decided on the jury via voir dire, I doubt it.

      That dude is still gonna have to live with all the jokes about him being a little bitch overreacting to a sandwich. His buddies will never let him love that down regardless of the verdict. And that gives me a tiny spark of happiness in these dark times.

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Did they manage to find 12 people that will consider a sandwich a weapon

        They don’t have to. Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:

        There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another

        Notably, there’s no requirement that a weapon is used or physical injury is caused. Reading the statute, the fact that there was physical contact elevates it to a felony even without a weapon or injury, but it isn’t charged as a felony here because the grand jury refused to indict.

        I hope that the jury finds him not guilty, but if they do it’s jury nullification, not that his actions didn’t technically violate the statute.

  • mkwt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 month ago

    Update: court adjourned for today with no verdict. Jury deliberations will resume tomorrow.

  • J92@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 month ago

    Man who signed up to a job to humiliate his fellow man, was himself humiliated. Demands justice.

    Tit

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      The party of family values and fiscal responsibility using any excuse to weaponize the law

  • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    1 month ago

    Exploded… And the grievous injury of…smelling like mustard and onions for a bit. Man, they are really trying to work that incident.

    • aarch0x40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m certainly glad the feds gave up on optics. This should hopefully make for an excellent dark comedy movie once it wraps up (if Sean is aquitted).

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think it would make a good blackbox theater production with the interesting caveat that any theater putting it on has to give tickets out to people for free who agree to have a baguette lightly thrown at them.

        • athairmor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Or, hide the bread under a random seat every showing and at the pivotal moment have everyone check under their seat. Whoever has it gets to throw it at the cop.

          • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            One of the iron laws of theater is that once a piece of bread touches you as an audience member, you own the bread.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      88
      ·
      1 month ago

      The video clearly showed an intact, wrapped sandwich on the ground after the incident. Nothing “exploded.” The cop lied on the stand (surprise, surprise), and he got called out on it by the defense.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        To be fair, that’s because of a 1972 law that classifies bread as a staple food with extremely specific requirements. Namely that sugar content is no more than 2% of the flour content, above that is technically a cake legally.

        Ignoring the fact that cakes usually have a sugar content of about 35%. The bread is nowhere near actually being cake, no one would actually mistake it for cake, and the courts only classify it that way because of those legal definitions.

  • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 month ago

    There was a time when a man would be ridiculed for bringing a complaint for getting hit by a sandwich.