Wow, that’s one for Throwback Thursday. Significant differences would be that Guerrero threw eggs, which actually did at least some damage to his victim’s clothing; his victim wasn’t some random stormtrooper but a US Congressman and Presidential candidate (John Anderson); and, probably most importantly, the jury pool didn’t despise his victim.
Well, you’re assuming a ‘Single Sandwich Theory’.
the closing arguments are some of the funniest things i’ve read.
from the above:
the defence:
“Think about where the sandwich landed,” Schroff said, arguing that Lairmore’s bulletproof vest that Dunn threw the sub at was “definitely going to keep you safe from a sandwich,” if it protects against gunfire.
“A footlong from Subway could not and certainly did not inflict bodily harm,” Schroff said.
the prosecution:
They said Dunn had the right to express his anger at the federal agents, but he did not have the right to strike them, “even with a sandwich.”
“Here we have the defendant, throwing a sandwich, but he’s throwing it hard,” the prosecutor said. “That meets the definition of force.”
how this took over 7 hours of deliberation… that is a great mystery.
Because if I throw water at you and you get wet, it’s assault. So I bet they spent 7 hours on how to make this assault a “it’s not really assault”. Or maybe a few held out and said yes it is legally assault and had to be convinced otherwise.
Or it at least throws a damper on things.
Because they wanted lunch for their troubles. Sub sandwiches.
What about soup for his family?
Well, a Subway sandwich could cause harm, if you ate it.
I hope next time someone throws a hotdog. So that the defense and the prosecution can argue over whether a hotdog is legally a sandwich (guaranteed acquittal) or not (as a matter of first impression, it could go either way).
If it had been a lobbed six-incher, this case would never have gotten to trial.
Especially if it was all-veggie.