Man who threw sandwich at US border agent not guilty of assault(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Man who threw sandwich at US border agent not guilty of assault
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypvv8n1jvo
135 comments
> While the old saying that a good DA/prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich may still be true, conviction is another matter.
This was filed as a misdemeanor case, because federal felonies require a grand jury indictment, and the grand jury declined to indict when the prosecutor tried to bring felony charges.
To be fair, they only tried to charge the thrower, and not the sandwich, so maybe the old saying might have held up with the right defendant here.
This was filed as a misdemeanor case, because federal felonies require a grand jury indictment, and the grand jury declined to indict when the prosecutor tried to bring felony charges.
To be fair, they only tried to charge the thrower, and not the sandwich, so maybe the old saying might have held up with the right defendant here.
The grand jury did not indict in this case.
[deleted]
This is the good outcome; one note I had about this though is, per CNN:
In one video taken from a police officer’s body-worn
camera, Dunn told the officer, “I was trying to draw
them away from where they were. I succeeded.”
> He was acquitted of assault, but he admitted on camera to a violation of 18 USC 111.
In this specific case we are discussing, he actually was charged with (and acquitted of) a violation of the provision you reference 18 USC § 111, which is a misdemeanor when done by simple assault [0], after the US Attorney failed to convince a grand jury to indict for a felony violation.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
In this specific case we are discussing, he actually was charged with (and acquitted of) a violation of the provision you reference 18 USC § 111, which is a misdemeanor when done by simple assault [0], after the US Attorney failed to convince a grand jury to indict for a felony violation.
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
I'm just saying, my friend and trustee has been indicted for putting his hands on a slowly moving ICE vehicle, on the premise of it impeding the driver of that vehicle (by some matter of seconds) from pulling into a parking lot, so mouthing off about pulling DHS people from one location to another seems like a bad idea. This is one of those situations where an axiomatic derivation isn't going to get you past the CourtListener indictment link I'll just post if I need to.
Like all civil disobedience, it occupies an awkward middle ground. You don't necessarily want to make prosecutors' lives easier, but your protest is a lot more powerful if you make it clear to the world that you really did violate the law, because then anyone who supports you has to acknowledge that the law is unfair.
[deleted]
If a random person throws a sandwich at you, or touches your shoulder for example to say "mind the gap", it is indeed assault under the law. Whether it rises to the importance of requiring legal sanction is, however, up to the jury.
> If a random person ... touches your shoulder for example to say "mind the gap", it is indeed assault under the law.
You mean, if they say that with the intent of helping you? I doubt that's assault.
You mean, if they say that with the intent of helping you? I doubt that's assault.
Merely touching people is not unlawful. Intent and context are critical and your example falls well below any sort of threshold for harassment or violence.
They're talking about impeding, not about the assault. Also, tapping someone's shoulder to help them is not assault under the law.
Great example of "Don't talk to cops": https://youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Yeah, I was surprised he said that. And he worked at the time for the Department of Justice criminal division.
It almost sounded like a post hoc rationalization, to make an outburt sound clever and intentional. Likely a stressful situtation to put yourself in.
It almost sounded like a post hoc rationalization, to make an outburt sound clever and intentional. Likely a stressful situtation to put yourself in.
Per the NY Times, the jury deliberated for 7 hours. That seems like quite a long time for a simple case. I wonder what the hold-up was. They add,
"The jury determined that the launching of the 12-inch deli sandwich ... was not an attempt to cause bodily injury, preventing a conviction."
It seems like that couldn't have taken seven hours by itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwic...
"The jury determined that the launching of the 12-inch deli sandwich ... was not an attempt to cause bodily injury, preventing a conviction."
It seems like that couldn't have taken seven hours by itself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwic...
It could easily take 7 hours to determine, empirically and with good statistics, if a sandwich could cause bodily injury.
I somehow doubt the jury deliberation involved empirical testing of a sandwiches capacity to cause bodily injury, though it's fun to imagine.
I’d guess there were some “law and order” types on the jury and it took a while to convince them to acquit.
So now anyone can throw sandwiches at ICE agents w/o fear of retribution?
I think any time charges are over something so entirely lacking in even plausible potential (let alone actual) harm that each individual juror has suffered far, far more harm by being called to serve on the case, yeah, there's a good chance the prosecutor's going to be told by those same jurors to go fuck themselves.
This never should have been anything more than something in roughly the same legal realm as a parking ticket, for that if no other reason. Instead, probably a thousand-plus person hours and god knows how much money were wasted to use the process itself as punishment... over a thrown sandwich.
This never should have been anything more than something in roughly the same legal realm as a parking ticket, for that if no other reason. Instead, probably a thousand-plus person hours and god knows how much money were wasted to use the process itself as punishment... over a thrown sandwich.
You can if you don’t intend to hurt them by doing so, and can convince a jury of that.
They apparently ate lunch in the middle. You’ll never guess what they had.
They needed to do ballistics tests in deliberation.
There was a lot of bread remaining but not many dangerous cold cuts, hazardous mayo, or lethal onions.
Can the jury do empirical experiments?
Clearly, either the jury had some members that were not initially ready to make a decision without review of the evidence in the case, or at least the first poll of the jurors was split, probably either the latter or both.
That it was a simple question doesn’t mean that the jury was initially unanimous on the answer,
That it was a simple question doesn’t mean that the jury was initially unanimous on the answer,
>It seems like that couldn't have taken seven hours by itself.
Perhaps they wanted to have sandwiches for lunch (or to throw at each other[0]) while deliberating, so they took their time?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBXFTksOxr0
Perhaps they wanted to have sandwiches for lunch (or to throw at each other[0]) while deliberating, so they took their time?
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBXFTksOxr0
In the strict legal sense, this is assault; assault is just "offensive touching". If I spit on someone in an offensive manor (such as after yelling at them), that's classified as assault, and this has been affirmed by many courts (one such ruling by the 9th circuit court https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1424739.htm...). I'm not saying I personally agree with the legal definition, that's just how they do it in the US. Throwing a sandwich at someone in a situation like this absolutely counts as assault, I don't think there's any debate about that.
What we have is a case of jury nullification, where a jury recognized the crime and decided not to convict. This is probably fine with the prosecution though, as the real punishment was holding him in jail, getting him fired, and wasting his life savings defending this case.
What we have is a case of jury nullification, where a jury recognized the crime and decided not to convict. This is probably fine with the prosecution though, as the real punishment was holding him in jail, getting him fired, and wasting his life savings defending this case.
Interesting points.
> This is probably fine with the prosecution
It's an embarrassment, so not at all fine. I doubt anyone is deterred. I wonder if we'll see copycat 'assaults' - I'm surprised we haven't.
> This is probably fine with the prosecution
It's an embarrassment, so not at all fine. I doubt anyone is deterred. I wonder if we'll see copycat 'assaults' - I'm surprised we haven't.
The guy got arrested, lost his job and had to hire a lawyer. Almost got charged with a felony assault, but the jury decided that he shouldn't be charged. Instead, later charged with a misdemeanor. I'd be super stressed about all of that, plus the trial and then having to wait 7 hours to find out I'm not guilty, but also incredibly happy after. However, all that and his name is forever associated with this incident, so despite no criminal history he might find future employment more challenging. He has probably been through quite a bit despite not being found guilty of a crime. I think that any person who is somehow inspired by doing what he did because he got away with it was always willing to do it anyway. Surely any reasonable person would realize how much he already had to go through which is enough of a deterrent. It was some degree of luck as well, even with similar or same circumstances it might up that another individual is charged and found guilty.
He's fairly lucky he doesn't have a criminal record, but it didn't come without consequences. I think the fact that the sandwich was still wrapped on the ground, hit the officer's shoulder, that the other police at the time were visibly amused during the incident, and clearly joking about it for several days after as well with the officer who had it happen to him, showed that the incident wasn't serious enough to ruin anyone's life over. A formal criminal conviction in the US would've made it hard for him to get employment for some time, if not the rest of his life.
He's fairly lucky he doesn't have a criminal record, but it didn't come without consequences. I think the fact that the sandwich was still wrapped on the ground, hit the officer's shoulder, that the other police at the time were visibly amused during the incident, and clearly joking about it for several days after as well with the officer who had it happen to him, showed that the incident wasn't serious enough to ruin anyone's life over. A formal criminal conviction in the US would've made it hard for him to get employment for some time, if not the rest of his life.
> The guy got arrested, lost his job and had to hire a lawyer. Almost got charged with a felony assault, but the jury decided that he shouldn't be charged. Instead, later charged with a misdemeanor. I'd be super stressed about all of that, plus the trial and then having to wait 7 hours to find out I'm not guilty, but also incredibly happy after. However, all that and his name is forever associated with this incident, so despite no criminal history he might find future employment more challenging.
While it probably won't be with DoJ again (at least under this Administration), I don't think he's going to have much problem finding a job. Being associated with "this incident" I don't think is the kind of universal black mark you seem to think it is.
While it probably won't be with DoJ again (at least under this Administration), I don't think he's going to have much problem finding a job. Being associated with "this incident" I don't think is the kind of universal black mark you seem to think it is.
You are buried in the details. The guy is a hero who opposed a fascist takeover of the US government. He's not going to have any difficulty finding employment.
I will add I don’t think it’s morally fine, it’s just the system we have. They’re fine with it; if you get involved at all it can ruin your life. I can promise you this guy regrets the throw with every ounce of his soul, even if he doesn’t admit it publicly
> I can promise you this guy regrets the throw with every ounce of his soul, even if he doesn’t admit it publicly
It's possible he regrets it, but I wouldn't be sure at all. It could be the proudest moment of his life. He could have PTSD. There are many possibilities.
I expect there will be some interviews soon ...
It's possible he regrets it, but I wouldn't be sure at all. It could be the proudest moment of his life. He could have PTSD. There are many possibilities.
I expect there will be some interviews soon ...
Did they send out for deli sandwiches?
The assault claim didn't cut the mustard, leaving a stain on the agency's reputation.
[deleted]
A nice affirmation of jury nullification - one of the last freedoms left in this country.
Was it nullification? Maybe it didn't meet the standard of guilt.
The jury determined that the launching of the 12-inch deli sandwich from what the government described as “point-blank range” was not an attempt to cause bodily injury, preventing a conviction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwic...
The jury determined that the launching of the 12-inch deli sandwich from what the government described as “point-blank range” was not an attempt to cause bodily injury, preventing a conviction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/06/us/politics/trump-sandwic...
ghuffed(4)
More info on jury nullification -- and how you can be prepared when asked to judge your peers: https://fija.org/
(For those outside the US: being called to serve on a jury is a surprisingly frequent event for Americans, and can be very powerful civil act, though a time-consuming and costly one).
(For those outside the US: being called to serve on a jury is a surprisingly frequent event for Americans, and can be very powerful civil act, though a time-consuming and costly one).
So is Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore facing any charges for lying under oath?
Where has all the prosciutto gone
And where's the kosher salt?
Where's the fine-chopped rosemary leaves
to be a flavor catapult?
---
Isn't there some olive oil and sliced provolone cheese?
Slice up a large tomato
And a bell pepper that's been peeled
---
I need a hero, I'm holding out for a hero to snack on at night
It's gotta be long, and it's gotta be fast, and it's gotta be freshly on-site
And where's the kosher salt?
Where's the fine-chopped rosemary leaves
to be a flavor catapult?
---
Isn't there some olive oil and sliced provolone cheese?
Slice up a large tomato
And a bell pepper that's been peeled
---
I need a hero, I'm holding out for a hero to snack on at night
It's gotta be long, and it's gotta be fast, and it's gotta be freshly on-site
Your 80s homage makes me think of Opus assaulting mimes with an olive loaf.
Maybe the jury needed 7 hours to determine if the bread was stale enough to cause bodily harm. Perhaps the crime here is the waste of a perfectly good sandwich.
A hero strikes a zero.
Man who threw sandwich at US border agent not guilty of assault
…by twelve hangry men.
(Stolen from Fark)
…by twelve hangry men.
(Stolen from Fark)
The real crime is that the sandwich was probably like $16.
You May Beat the Wrap, But You Can't Beat The Sub...
You can beat the wrap but you can’t beat the rye.
> The jury's verdict comes after Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore testified that the snack "exploded all over him" and he "could smell the onions and mustard" on his uniform. [...] "I could feel it through my ballistic vest," he said of the sandwich's impact, adding that an onion string hung from his police radio and mustard stained his shirt.
God, how horrifying. Maybe with time and intensive therapy he'll eventually be able to heal.
God, how horrifying. Maybe with time and intensive therapy he'll eventually be able to heal.
People shouldn't be throwing sandwiches at people but it's wild in the US that the most minor stuff against the police and they try to charge you with a felony but police can commit pretty much any form of assault (even on camera) and often don't even lose their job unless there's a big outcry.
Law enforcement officer committed perjury on the stand since the defense presented a picture of the sandwich after the throw and it was still wrapped up. It never exploded.
Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole. Prosecutors are afraid of prosecuting them as they are -- normal citizens. They deserve nor have any special rights under the law (there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military).
When an officer attempts to murder a civilian, they should face attempted murder charges. When an officer kills a pet, he should face a destruction of property charge.
Unfortunately this rarely happens.
Anyone should be able to exercise their human rights and resists so-called officers of the law where possible up to and including deadly force.
When an officer attempts to murder a civilian, they should face attempted murder charges. When an officer kills a pet, he should face a destruction of property charge.
Unfortunately this rarely happens.
Anyone should be able to exercise their human rights and resists so-called officers of the law where possible up to and including deadly force.
> Police in the US as they're trained are a cancer on society as a whole.
I think you are way overstating it. It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police.
> there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military
???!!!! Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
I think you are way overstating it. It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police.
> there are two classes of people, civilians and military -- they're not military
???!!!! Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
> It's hard to imagine society without police, and I've encountered many good, effective police.
Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggressive, fearful, and self-protective/self-interested police force. Not one for the 'good of the people'.
> Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
Yes, there are two classes of people in the US -- civilians and military. You're one of two, not that individuals in the military can violate civilian law, but they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians. Along with limits on their rights that they would otherwise have under the US Constitution.
Agreed, and that's not what we have. We have an overly aggressive, fearful, and self-protective/self-interested police force. Not one for the 'good of the people'.
> Do you think people in the military have different or special rights?
Yes, there are two classes of people in the US -- civilians and military. You're one of two, not that individuals in the military can violate civilian law, but they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians. Along with limits on their rights that they would otherwise have under the US Constitution.
> there are two classes of people in the US
Where do you get that?
> they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians
People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are.
Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.
Where do you get that?
> they're beholden to their own laws (UCMJ) separate from civilians
People in the US military have the same obligations as everyone else to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments where they are.
Stockbrokers are subject to SEC regulations; lawyers are subject to legal rules, such as attorney-client privelege, etc. That doesn't make them separate classes of people.
You should have read the rest of my comment -- whoo boy it would have cut your comment down to zero words.
UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity.
UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian. SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity.
> SEC rules, etc. apply to all civilians whether or not you're engaged in SEC-related activity.
There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations - their free speech is curtailed. Doctors and other healthcare professionals, in some places, are excluded from the 'good Samaritan' exception to injuring someone (i.e., if you find someone injured and try to help, and accidentally cause more harm, you can't be prosecuted).
There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations - their free speech is curtailed. Doctors and other healthcare professionals, in some places, are excluded from the 'good Samaritan' exception to injuring someone (i.e., if you find someone injured and try to help, and accidentally cause more harm, you can't be prosecuted).
> There are professional rules that do not apply to non-professionals, including SEC rules. For example, lawyers can't give advice in many situations
For giving legal advice, that's mostly backwards (in most US jurisdictions); its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice (this is one of many things that constitutes unauthorized practice of law), whereas for a lawyer they are allowed to within certain ethical bounds.
For giving legal advice, that's mostly backwards (in most US jurisdictions); its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice (this is one of many things that constitutes unauthorized practice of law), whereas for a lawyer they are allowed to within certain ethical bounds.
> its generally illegal for anyone other than a licensed lawyer to do what is legally considered giving legal advice
People give legal advice on HN all the time, for example; lawyers on HN have to say 'but none of this should be construed as legal advice', etc.
Non-lawyers can't charge for legal advice, but they love to give it!
People give legal advice on HN all the time, for example; lawyers on HN have to say 'but none of this should be construed as legal advice', etc.
Non-lawyers can't charge for legal advice, but they love to give it!
You have observed a pattern of behavior on HN, and conjectured a plausible legal framework that explains that behavior.
That's great. But, as is going to be the case probably more than 99% of the time that you try to infer the law from how people behave on HN, the rule you seemed to have inferred ("anyone except a lawyer is free to give legal advice in any situation, but lawyers are more restricted") is very much not the actual legal rule.
i suspect part of the error is that your conjecture about the rule implicitly assumed that both lawyer's and non-lawyer's behaviors reflected the same degree of knowledge of, and concern for adhering to, the applicable legal rules.
That's great. But, as is going to be the case probably more than 99% of the time that you try to infer the law from how people behave on HN, the rule you seemed to have inferred ("anyone except a lawyer is free to give legal advice in any situation, but lawyers are more restricted") is very much not the actual legal rule.
i suspect part of the error is that your conjecture about the rule implicitly assumed that both lawyer's and non-lawyer's behaviors reflected the same degree of knowledge of, and concern for adhering to, the applicable legal rules.
Whatever your theory, non-lawyers are free to give legal, medical, etc. advice as long as they don't present themselves as qualified professionals or, in many cases, charge for it.
Professionals in the field are restricted in the advice they give.
Professionals in the field are restricted in the advice they give.
> UCMJ doesn't apply to any civilian.
False. It applies “In time of declared war or a contingency operation” to civilians “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”, 10 USC § 802(a)(10). This was one of several “gap-filling” changes to US federal law adopted to address problems with effectively holding contractors and others associated with the military accountable for crimes overseas in the '00s (among the others was the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which extended federal civilian criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed outside the United States that did not previously have extraterritorial application, when the offender was either a civilian accompanying the US military in certain capacities or a former military member subject to the UCMJ at the time of the act but not at the time of prosecution.)
See, related, this DoD memo (hosted at DoJ) on the subject: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/le...
False. It applies “In time of declared war or a contingency operation” to civilians “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field”, 10 USC § 802(a)(10). This was one of several “gap-filling” changes to US federal law adopted to address problems with effectively holding contractors and others associated with the military accountable for crimes overseas in the '00s (among the others was the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which extended federal civilian criminal jurisdiction over certain offenses committed outside the United States that did not previously have extraterritorial application, when the offender was either a civilian accompanying the US military in certain capacities or a former military member subject to the UCMJ at the time of the act but not at the time of prosecution.)
See, related, this DoD memo (hosted at DoJ) on the subject: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/le...
> I think you are way overstating it
I recommend this excerpt from an excellent book (which I also recommend if you find the article interesting)
https://www.vice.com/en/article/end-of-policing-book-extract...
I recommend this excerpt from an excellent book (which I also recommend if you find the article interesting)
https://www.vice.com/en/article/end-of-policing-book-extract...
Even with an outcry, the blue wall often protects them only until it's politically untenable.
Throwing sandwiches at people is a valid act of protest in my books.
I mean you don't get 25% of the world's total prison population by having a fair and just law enforcement system.
An attack on a cop is an attack on the state. You sure have a right to revolution but you better succeed, cause state has the right to imprison you.
I hardly think throwing a sandwich at someone is an attempted revolution
It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order. You can't allow anything getting thrown at cops on duty without repercussions.
> It's still an infringement against the state
Infringement of what?
> You can't allow anything getting thrown at cops on duty without repercussions.
You absolutely can, and of the thing involved was neither intended to—nor raised reasonable fear of, nor did, nor had any meaningful likelihood to—cause injury to the officer, I can’t see any overwhelming reason you shouldn’t, either.
I suppose I could see a case for civil liability for reasonable and necessary cleaning costs directly attributable to the sandwich, but beyond that...
Infringement of what?
> You can't allow anything getting thrown at cops on duty without repercussions.
You absolutely can, and of the thing involved was neither intended to—nor raised reasonable fear of, nor did, nor had any meaningful likelihood to—cause injury to the officer, I can’t see any overwhelming reason you shouldn’t, either.
I suppose I could see a case for civil liability for reasonable and necessary cleaning costs directly attributable to the sandwich, but beyond that...
In a functional country, the police and law enforcement are there to serve the people, not that the people are to serve them. That means holding law enforcement up to a higher standard than your average person and understanding that throwing a sandwich at them does not constitute assault or bodily harm.
People don't get to choose how they are served outside elections, you can't tell the cops you don't want this or that crime to slide and expect him to go away.
Cops absolutely should be held to higher standards (I find cops transgressing being done for common assault, rather than like abuse of office, appalling).
At the same time, a cop on duty is inviolable, unless you're really sure he's transgressing (which this one was not).
Cops absolutely should be held to higher standards (I find cops transgressing being done for common assault, rather than like abuse of office, appalling).
At the same time, a cop on duty is inviolable, unless you're really sure he's transgressing (which this one was not).
Not according to a Jury of peers. The entire reason we have trial by jury is to dull the power of the state when it acts like this ICE officer and prosecutor did.
This "attack" was about as close to non-violent protest as you can get. Taking someone to court was only done because the ICE kidnapper had his fee fees hurt.
This "attack" was about as close to non-violent protest as you can get. Taking someone to court was only done because the ICE kidnapper had his fee fees hurt.
It was in court because the White House wants to demonstrate extreme aggression. I wonder how the officer felt about testifying - did they have a choice? (They are still responsible for their actions, of course.)
The jury decided there was no attack, not that attacking cops is fair game.
> It's still an infringement against the state, not just a random man, and strictly punishment is in order.
Why is the state so special? The USA's foundational value is individual liberty, not state authority.
Why is the state so special? The USA's foundational value is individual liberty, not state authority.
The state is the individuals' collective will to, among other things, put criminals in prison. You sure can campaign, protest and what not, but if you're going to interfere with said collective will you better go all out and win, or else you'll be behind bars or in the ground.
Again, that's backward. In the US and in free societies generally, it is the individual, not the collective will that is the priority and is supreme. Specifically, the individual is free to do as the think best regardless of the collective will - almost the definition of 'freedom' - unless they are causing significant harm to other individuals.
Each person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and governments exist (not to exercise the collective will but) to protect those rights.
Each person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and governments exist (not to exercise the collective will but) to protect those rights.
Tell me, on this specific night, what specific crimes were this specific state agent, prevented from arresting by having a sandwich thrown at them?
I'll do you a favor, let's broaden the search criteria. Can you provide a single example of a cop anywhere being unable to arrest a criminal because a bystander threw a sandwich at them?
I'll do you a favor, let's broaden the search criteria. Can you provide a single example of a cop anywhere being unable to arrest a criminal because a bystander threw a sandwich at them?
Illegal immigration. Whether the cops should be tolerating carrying out their duties under a sandwich shower is left as an exerciser to the reader.
The state is made of the people. When ICE tear gasses two year olds, that seems like a much more worrisome attack on the state.
They never took photo evidence of the scene and the only captured content was from a 3rd party showing the Subway sandwich wrapped up, lying on the street.
I would say Gregory Lairmore is a po' boy full of shit.
I would say Gregory Lairmore is a po' boy full of shit.
He views like as a shit sandwich and the more bread he has, the less shit he needs to taste. This was embarrassing.
I was in a grand jury recently and a cop/attorney came to the supreme court of our state with a terroristic threat from a homeless person in a park who made a gun sign and said pow pow, and they wanted us to indict them....
By this standard most of the sports player in the nation should be indicted.
Good news we unanimously rejected it
By this standard most of the sports player in the nation should be indicted.
Good news we unanimously rejected it
These people will literally claim that just bumping into them is "assault". Where do you think they're getting the "1000 percent increase" stats from? (For those who aren't aware, what the DHS is really trying to say is "well ,before all this started, there were just 10 assaults per year on ICE officers and now there's 100".)
I've read / watched a few different stories now, where what happens is the police / ICE assault a protestor, then charge the protestor with assaulting the officer and resisting arrest.
You don't bump them, you attack their fists and clubs with the softer parts of your body.
You don't bump them, you attack their fists and clubs with the softer parts of your body.
It's a veritable smorgasbord of trauma!
He must have had very sensitive skin to feel a sandwich through a ballistic vest.
So is Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore facing charges for lying under oath?
It was all bologna
The people of DC have spoken. There's nothing wrong with throwing sandwiches at strangers in their city.
For comparison, would throwing a sandwich at a vendor get you fired from your job?
Not for me, but it would be a blow to my reputation and might cost a relationship with the vendor (depending on the dollar value to the vendor). And I'd be very embarrassed.
Not for me, but it would be a blow to my reputation and might cost a relationship with the vendor (depending on the dollar value to the vendor). And I'd be very embarrassed.
Who's the vendor? AWS? Azure or whatever it's called now? Google cloud? You have to be more specific.
[deleted]
Okay what if it is Oracle?
Why do you ask though? That just seems a strange and irrelevant comment in the context of the post...
Or was it meant to be a reply to someone else's comment and would make more sense in that context?
Or was it meant to be a reply to someone else's comment and would make more sense in that context?
Why do you ask why do I ask? :) Seriously, what are you thinking?
I'm trying to shift thinking outside the emotionally charged perspective of the event.
I'm trying to shift thinking outside the emotionally charged perspective of the event.
> Why do you ask why do I ask?
I'm not the person that you're replying to but I'll give it a shot.
> I'm trying to shift thinking outside the emotionally charged perspective of the event.
The re-framing suggests there is no qualitative difference between an employee throwing a sandwich at a representative of a service provider hired by their employer and a protester throwing a sandwich at law enforcement. The differences seem obvious but I have to assume you believe there is none: if they are different, the question is not relevant. So why ask the question? Perhaps a more direct question could be why do you think the two scenarios are so comparable?
I'm not the person that you're replying to but I'll give it a shot.
> I'm trying to shift thinking outside the emotionally charged perspective of the event.
The re-framing suggests there is no qualitative difference between an employee throwing a sandwich at a representative of a service provider hired by their employer and a protester throwing a sandwich at law enforcement. The differences seem obvious but I have to assume you believe there is none: if they are different, the question is not relevant. So why ask the question? Perhaps a more direct question could be why do you think the two scenarios are so comparable?
I'm embarrassed that I'm not doing as much as this man is to fight fascism. But sure, make this about sandwiches if the other subtext is too uncomfortable to face.
ghuffed(1)
It seems like a double standard. If you approached a random member of the public that you didn't like the look of, shouted at them that you don't want them in your city and violently threw a soft object at them, you could easily be convicted of assault and receive some minor punishment. I think most people would accept that you should be. Should people have greater rights to assault policemen than other types of people? Or should assault be legal if the victim's workmates find it funny?
It's interesting theoretically: There's a factor of relative power at least in morality and common judgment, if not the law:
If a 90 year old person with a cane threw a sandwich at a 6'3" 250 pound professional athelete, everyone would check if the 90 year old was ok. Vice versa, and there would be a lot of anger and an arrest.
The state's law enforcement, with weapons, training, ballistic vests and helmets, etc. is the ultimate power. You can't do bodily injury to them, but minor contact and sandwiches are usually not taken seriously.
People ask the same question about situations where there is discrimination - is it a double-standard? They are forgetting about relative power: If someone is in a group that is threatened - e.g., an Auburn fan in a large crowd of rowdy, drunk Alabama fans (Auburn and Alabama are arch-rivals) - then an Alabama fan saying something threatening is a real threat, a real danger. If the Auburn fan says something threatening to the 100 Alabama fans around them, it doesn't represent anything; it's almost funny.
The equation is,
If a 90 year old person with a cane threw a sandwich at a 6'3" 250 pound professional athelete, everyone would check if the 90 year old was ok. Vice versa, and there would be a lot of anger and an arrest.
The state's law enforcement, with weapons, training, ballistic vests and helmets, etc. is the ultimate power. You can't do bodily injury to them, but minor contact and sandwiches are usually not taken seriously.
People ask the same question about situations where there is discrimination - is it a double-standard? They are forgetting about relative power: If someone is in a group that is threatened - e.g., an Auburn fan in a large crowd of rowdy, drunk Alabama fans (Auburn and Alabama are arch-rivals) - then an Alabama fan saying something threatening is a real threat, a real danger. If the Auburn fan says something threatening to the 100 Alabama fans around them, it doesn't represent anything; it's almost funny.
The equation is,
Threat x Power = DangerYes. It’s called “being held to a higher standard”. In the past, we kinda thought we were sending out best and brightest to enforce our laws. The good news is a much larger swath of the country knows better now.
Fair question. The jury in this case decided it wasn’t assault.
My hypothesis is that people generally feel that police face little to no accountability and so there is a more serious double standard to contend with.
My hypothesis is that people generally feel that police face little to no accountability and so there is a more serious double standard to contend with.
Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class.
No. That's not what I said.
Though there could be a terminology difference between countries - maybe in America, assault requires intent to injure? In other countries it can be any unwanted physical contact. Looks like that's called "battery" in America. So yea I probably meant battery.
Though there could be a terminology difference between countries - maybe in America, assault requires intent to injure? In other countries it can be any unwanted physical contact. Looks like that's called "battery" in America. So yea I probably meant battery.
>Do you really think many people are being charged and found guilty of felony assault for throwing a sandwich at a random person? He was only charged because the guy was part of a cop-like class.
To put a finer point on it, he was charged because the current administration wants to chill protest against their undemocratic (small 'd') and unlawful activities. In fact, that was the point of deploying ICE/National Guard/etc. to cities in the first place -- to sow fear and limit freedom of expression/assembly.
To put a finer point on it, he was charged because the current administration wants to chill protest against their undemocratic (small 'd') and unlawful activities. In fact, that was the point of deploying ICE/National Guard/etc. to cities in the first place -- to sow fear and limit freedom of expression/assembly.
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indict_a_ham_sandwich
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Wachtler
[2] https://history.nycourts.gov/biography/sol-wachtler/
[3] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-grand-jury-would-indict-...