• sleepundertheleaves@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    On the one hand, arresting a man for throwing a sandwich is fucking stupid.

    On the other hand, if people start throwing harmless things at armed state security forces, eventually state security forces will mistake a thrown object for a weapon and kill somebody. And since we don’t want that to happen, it’s good to discourage people from throwing harmless things at armed state security forces.

    And on the gripping hand, this man was arrested, spent time in jail, lost his job, and has had to pay a lot of money to some expensive lawyers and endure months of fear and uncertainty before being found not guilty, and that’s enough of a punishment to make an example of him and deter a lot of other people from emulating him. So even without a conviction, state security achieved their goal.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      I think throwing a wrapped onion and mustard sandwich is now a meme and therefore protected under free expression.

      They get to throw stun grenades and shoot priests, we get the sandwich thing.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I wish in cases like these, the jury could sanction the prosecution, like not guilty, and we revoke your right to practice law for 90 days for being such fucking idiots and harming the accused, and wasting our fucking time.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Also just further on this… think of how many frivilious law suits could be prevented with that. Don’t let the jury block them for a year, and maybe keep a harsher thing like 90 days for state/feds, but imagine if someone hires a lawyer to sue someone for something absolutely ridiculous, and they knew they would risk not being able to practice law for a week if they offend the jury for how stupid it was.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I revel in the fact that the cop is going to get roasted for this through out his career. We should start emailing quality puns to the department so they don’t run out of fodder too quick.

  • ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    “This, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich” and after the federal agent claimed to have been smeared with mustard and onions, the defense showed a picture of the sandwich - still completely in its wrapper.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The man who was hit with the sandwich was CBP agent Gregory Lairmore, who told the jury earlier this week that the sandwich “kind of exploded all over my uniform” and “smelled of onions and mustard”, according to the Washington Post. The defense pushed back, as it appeared in imagery from the scene that the sandwich did not leave its wrapper.

    LOL, how is this not The Onion?

    Anyway, it’d be nice to be able to sue the shit out of those responsible for wasting this guy’s time, reinstall him in his job, and give him all back pay.

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Now sue them for $.

    Or politicians need to be forced to vote to remove this immunity BS. We need to push for that and the removal of citizens United.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        6 hours ago

        … and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich “exploded all over” be privately charged if the court won’t do it themselves?

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        He probably can’t. Absurd as it may sound, he was actually guilty.

        Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:

        There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another

        It doesn’t say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.

        Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don’t prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It took 3 grand juries to even be able to bring the case, it was always going to end in acquittal. Sure, it’s technically assault, but nobody was going to convict for that.

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 hours ago

            This was charged as a misdemeanor. No grand jury this time.

            I’m on the protestor’s side here, but in general, it probably ought to be illegal to throw sandwiches at people. Some jurisdictions have a separate offense of harassment for offensive or even merely nonconsensual intentional physical contact that presents no risk of injury.

            I’d have voted not guilty if I was on that jury, but guilty for the same conduct under different circumstances, such as throwing food at a fast food worker over a customer service issue.

      • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Who knows but if he does they should bar the agent and lawyer that brought up the charges from ever bringing charges again on anybody.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This is preposterous! It’s a dangerous ruling! If this is truly how it’s going to go, then people will start buying subs and throwing them at ice thugs every da…

    I withdraw my comment and give back the rest of my time.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      The random sample survey of 604 D.C. residents was taken between August 14 and 17 shortly after Trump signed the executive order. It indicates some 65 percent of residents do not believe the presence of FBI agents and uniformed National Guard troops from an increasing number of states makes the city safer.

      Eight of 10 residents surveyed oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city. Seven in 10 oppose it “strongly.”

      Source.

      I’m not sure why they thought a DC jury would ever convict, given that even a DC grand jury (which hears only the prosecutor’s side) didn’t indict.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The grand jury didn’t really have any choice: it was a turkey sandwich, and they only indict ham.