Sean Dunn's attorney acknowledged he threw the sandwich, but argued it was a "harmless gesture".

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.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    1 day 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.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 day 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.worldEnglish
        1·
        21 hours 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.