Sandwich thrower found not guilty of assault

[Q.Q.Switcheroo]

@HeyHomie

But I still think throwing food at LEOs is probably bad form.

In the words of Disney’s Captain Hook: “BLAST GOOD FORM!”

[Thing.Fish]

The difference is that people very commonly speed and don’t get pulled over, and everyone realizes this. It’s also very common for people for get pulled over for speeding.

It isn’t common for people to be criminally prosecuted for “assault” which had no conceivable chance of causing even the slightest harm to the victim.

I’ve changed my mind, I think this is good law and not jury nullification. It’s an unusual reason to acquit a defendant, but this was an unusual case.

Also, with regard to the usually unreliable “selective prosecution” argument, the fact that they sent a SWAT team to the guy’s home to arrest him, and videotaped the arrest and posted it on the White House social media channels, would seem to make this argument fairly plausible in this particular case.

[Typo_Knig]

@Horatius

The bigger issue here is, if you read about the testimony in this case, it seems like the cop perjured himself, describing the “attack” in terms that were completely at odds with the actual event, as caught on camera, trying to make it seem like more than it was.

People distributing sandwiches at high velocity is a minor problem compared to the police getting away with perjury, but no one seems to be discussing that part of this case.

The video evidence clobbered his credibility, which I’m sure contributed to the Not Guilty verdict and made it “better law” (as discussed in the posts between ours). IANAL. I strongly agree that the LEO’s blatantly false testimony indicates a culture of perjury among ICE agents, if not other LEOs.

[Horatius]

@Robot_Arm

Thereby disarming him!

But what if he’s got a pointed stick?

[Sherrerd]

@Procrustus

Under these facts, however, the jury did not want to convict the defendant, even for a misdemeanor. So, yes, jury nullification. They guy was technically guilty but the jury didn’t like the case.

Possibly NOT technically guilty in that jurisdiction, as the prosecution needed to prove that Dunn intended to inflict bodily injury. And the evidence didn’t show that.

But you have to imagine jurors were struck by the incongruity of it all: prosecutors’ breathless invective about Dunn’s diabolical intent to injure one of Our Great Federal Cops on the one hand, that cop’s testimony about how the greatest harm he suffered was mustard on his uniform and some ribbing from his buddies on the other. As NBC’s Ryan J. Reilly noted:

Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore received two “gag gifts” related to the incident—a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words “Felony Footlong”—which the defense team argued showed this was not a serious event in his life.

To convict, the jury would need to have been convinced Dunn intended to inflict “bodily injury”; apparently correctly, they judged that all that had been hurt was the officer’s pride.

“Intent” seems to have been the crucial element in the jury’s decision.

(Look about halfway down this page for the quoted bit.)

Let Them Eat AI-Generated Cake

[OttoDaFe]

Or worse, a banana!

[Robot_Arm]

@Sherrerd

“Intent” seems to have been the crucial element in the jury’s decision.

Intent follows the sandwich.

[markn_1]

Perhaps if the prosecution had pointed out that it was a salted sandwich, their argument would have been more persuasive. See, it was A SALTED sandwich … ok, never mind.

[Horatius]

@markn_1

See, it was A SALTED sandwich

I can just see it now. A massive wave of resignations and suicides in forensics labs nation wide, as they’re asked to determine if someone added salt to their sandwich, or if it was just the salt from the deli meats…

[dtilque]

Has the White House or Trump (on his low-budget, imitation Twitter platform) responded to the Sandwich Guy acquittal? I tried to google this, but every news site in Western Civilization has the same story about the verdict, but none seem to have any response. Or at least it didn’t show up in the google hits.

[Telemark]

@BobLibDem

I understand that the case went awry when it was shown that the sub did not explode as was alleged

If the sandwich wrapper ain’t split, you must acquit.

[smithsb]

This! This is why I come here. Bravo sir!

[Cervaise]

The only way this sandwich is dangerous is if he loads it up with Boar’s Head before throwing it.

[Nars_Glinley]

Or sharp cheddar.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Or a steak bomb!

[Dr_Paprika]

It wasn’t a club sandwich, was it?

[Little_Nemo]

@griffin1977

It was an excellent use of jury nullification by the people of DC.

Whatcha know a check and/or balance in the US system actually works as a check on tryanny. It’s a small win but I’ll take it

For the moment. But there’s a non-zero chance that Trump will declare that Dunn is a terrorist and order the military to kill him. And maybe the jury as well.

[griffin1977]

@Little_Nemo

But there’s a non-zero chance that Trump will declare that Dunn is a terrorist and order the military to kill him. And maybe the jury as well

Non-zero but very small. White native born citizens are for the moment not particularly at risk of summary execution by the state. So get your sandwich throwing and jury nullification in now while the getting is good.

[Love_Rhombus]

This was clearly an assault with a deli weapon!

[Spiderman]

If a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but not the guy who threw one are they going to put the sandwich on trial in light of his acquittal??