> He also threw his Subway sandwich at Gregory Lairmore, an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, told jurors the sandwich exploded and he smelled onions and mustard — though he wasn't hurt.
This entire administration is fragile as can be. They tried to make this sandwich throwing situation a felony.
Sadly this kind of petty political harassment works - note that despite the 'not guilty' verdict, the guy has already lost his job, time and money. Next time someone wants to criticise the government, they will think twice. This is something the minorities in the US are quite used to from both parties. But now the political divide has grown and spilled over to the mainstream, causing a huge civil divide in the US, it is not surprising that the immoral political tactics (used against a specific weaker section) by both parties is now being weaponised against everyone. This is why a democracy really needs to have strong protection for its minorities - otherwise, political oppression that is normalised against the weaker sections can easily be abused and expanded against others.
The guy threw a sandwich at a cop. Is this something that should be legal and have no consequences? Is there a limit to the size of the sandwich? What kinds of ingredients are allowed?
I find it strange that people can go from this man was over-charged for a minor assault to thinking of him as a victim. The man was a bystander who assaulted a police officer - do you think that should be allowed if you agree with the bystander about the law?
Come to think of it, I disagree with a lot of rules about driving, particularly the price of a city sticker for a motorscooter. What can I throw at the woman who works at the DMV?
> I find it strange that people can go from this man was over-charged for a minor assault to thinking of him as a victim.
Two things can be true. If I step on your toe, intentional or not, and you shoot me in the face, I'm a victim. It doesn't make me innocent of toe stepping, but the disproportionate response was entirely unjustified.
This guy tossed a sandwich into the chest of a man wearing a bullet proof vest, offered to turn himself in, and they responded by having a massive raid on his house that they remixed for their socials. That alone makes him a victim to say nothing of the ridiculous prosecution or the officer lying on the stand.
You don't think that attacking police officers should be criminal? You don't think that attacking people should be criminal? You not only think you should be allowed to throw sandwiches at cops, but sandwiches at me, too?
I think weakening the protection against law enforcement being assaulted raises the likelihood that law enforcement will instantly react with violence under any vague threat.
edit: I warn that if you, a stranger who doesn't like me, throws something at me, you're going to be looking at more than a fine, immediately. I'm black, if every racist on the street gets one sandwich I'd be able to open a sandwich shop.
>You not only think you should be allowed to throw sandwiches at cops, but sandwiches at me, too?
We all get sandwiches, comrade
>I think weakening the protection against law enforcement being assaulted raises the likelihood that law enforcement will instantly react with violence under any vague threat.
Without asymmetrical law there is less incentive for baseless escalation, not more.
The man was prosecuted and the jury found him not guilty.
I would be curious to know what their reasoning was.
I think mine would be that since these agents seem to face absolutely no consequences for their far more egregious actions. Why should something so minor result in jail time. To be clear, I’m not talking about their lawful actions. I’m talking about them assaulting and abusing people and excessive use of force that’s been captured on camera all across the country.
> The man was a bystander who assaulted a police office
They went to trial for this, and it was determined that the man DID NOT assault a police officer. They tried repeatedly charging him with felony assault, were unable to get a grand jury to agree with charging him, and so instead charged him with a misdemeanor assault, whereupon he was found not guilty.
Do not continue repeating that this man assaulted a police officer. It was definitively determined that he did not.
He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact. It's the inverse of the fact that when a jury convicts an innocent person, the person still didn't actually do the crime.
For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
> He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact.
> [...]
> For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
I think you're approaching this as though it's straightforward jury nullification, which (as a layperson) I don't think it is. No one disagrees that he threw the sandwich, but my understanding is that the assault charge requires the officer have "reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm". The defense's argument was that there's no reason to believe the officer was actually afraid.
So, in the US, being convicted of a crime requires the state to convince a jury of your peers that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what crime is. There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty". That's the point of the system, so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty. Because there's no way for him to prove his innocence to you, you've already decided he's guilty and already decided to ignore proof to the contrary.
What's not in doubt is that he threw a sandwich at the officer. But, and this is incredibly important, that WAS NOT assault.
You need to read up on the difference between a charge, a crime, and a conviction.
You are found "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt during a trial
. This can happen because the evidence was insufficient, improperly obtained, or the jury was not convinced by the evidence presented. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as being found "innocent"; it simply means the state did not meet the legal burden of proof required for a conviction
What happened is they did not meet the burden of proof it was assault
> There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty".
So you're saying that juries never convict innocent people? I don't think that's supportable by the evidence.
> so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty.
I didn't claim that he's a criminal. I said he obviously performed the act. No need to get personal. As I said, I agree with the jury and if I were on the jury I would have voted "not guilty" as well.
In a narrow way it worked, but it's also healthy for the country to see signs of the administration's impotence. The more people see the pattern of frivolity and failure in the threats and lawsuits, the less fear they'll have. We hear claims of fascism that are directionally accurate, but it's important that people realize that the headlines often don't amount to something as scary as they seem initially.
This has been a pattern with these petty prosecutions. It seems like video that shows they embellished / lied comes out time and again. A number of protests have had a series of charges dropped when video showed they were lying about the events.
If they had charged him with littering it would have stuck. Assault with a sandwitch isn't a felony. That's just ridiculous and the judical process saw right thorugh it.
> He also threw his Subway sandwich at Gregory Lairmore, an agent with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lairmore, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, told jurors the sandwich exploded and he smelled onions and mustard — though he wasn't hurt.
This entire administration is fragile as can be. They tried to make this sandwich throwing situation a felony.
Sadly this kind of petty political harassment works - note that despite the 'not guilty' verdict, the guy has already lost his job, time and money. Next time someone wants to criticise the government, they will think twice. This is something the minorities in the US are quite used to from both parties. But now the political divide has grown and spilled over to the mainstream, causing a huge civil divide in the US, it is not surprising that the immoral political tactics (used against a specific weaker section) by both parties is now being weaponised against everyone. This is why a democracy really needs to have strong protection for its minorities - otherwise, political oppression that is normalised against the weaker sections can easily be abused and expanded against others.
The guy threw a sandwich at a cop. Is this something that should be legal and have no consequences? Is there a limit to the size of the sandwich? What kinds of ingredients are allowed?
I find it strange that people can go from this man was over-charged for a minor assault to thinking of him as a victim. The man was a bystander who assaulted a police officer - do you think that should be allowed if you agree with the bystander about the law?
Come to think of it, I disagree with a lot of rules about driving, particularly the price of a city sticker for a motorscooter. What can I throw at the woman who works at the DMV?
> I find it strange that people can go from this man was over-charged for a minor assault to thinking of him as a victim.
Two things can be true. If I step on your toe, intentional or not, and you shoot me in the face, I'm a victim. It doesn't make me innocent of toe stepping, but the disproportionate response was entirely unjustified.
This guy tossed a sandwich into the chest of a man wearing a bullet proof vest, offered to turn himself in, and they responded by having a massive raid on his house that they remixed for their socials. That alone makes him a victim to say nothing of the ridiculous prosecution or the officer lying on the stand.
The consequences should be exactly what they would be if you threw them at a non-cop, equality under the law and all that.
So probably "closer to two figures than four" civil infraction of some sort in this case.
You don't think that attacking police officers should be criminal? You don't think that attacking people should be criminal? You not only think you should be allowed to throw sandwiches at cops, but sandwiches at me, too?
I think weakening the protection against law enforcement being assaulted raises the likelihood that law enforcement will instantly react with violence under any vague threat.
edit: I warn that if you, a stranger who doesn't like me, throws something at me, you're going to be looking at more than a fine, immediately. I'm black, if every racist on the street gets one sandwich I'd be able to open a sandwich shop.
I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for throwing a sandwich at you, and wouldn't argue with someone who would think it justified.
>You not only think you should be allowed to throw sandwiches at cops, but sandwiches at me, too?
We all get sandwiches, comrade
>I think weakening the protection against law enforcement being assaulted raises the likelihood that law enforcement will instantly react with violence under any vague threat.
Without asymmetrical law there is less incentive for baseless escalation, not more.
> me, lightly touching miette with the side of my foot: miette move out the of way please so I don’t trip on you
> miette, her eyes enormous: you KICK miette? you kick her body like the football? oh! oh! jail for mother! jail for mother for One Thousand Years!!!!
(Via @TriciaLockwood)
The man was prosecuted and the jury found him not guilty.
I would be curious to know what their reasoning was.
I think mine would be that since these agents seem to face absolutely no consequences for their far more egregious actions. Why should something so minor result in jail time. To be clear, I’m not talking about their lawful actions. I’m talking about them assaulting and abusing people and excessive use of force that’s been captured on camera all across the country.
> The man was a bystander who assaulted a police office
They went to trial for this, and it was determined that the man DID NOT assault a police officer. They tried repeatedly charging him with felony assault, were unable to get a grand jury to agree with charging him, and so instead charged him with a misdemeanor assault, whereupon he was found not guilty.
Do not continue repeating that this man assaulted a police officer. It was definitively determined that he did not.
> It was definitively determined that he did not.
He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact. It's the inverse of the fact that when a jury convicts an innocent person, the person still didn't actually do the crime.
For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
> He definitely did, though. That the jury opted not to convict him doesn't change that fact.
> [...]
> For the record, I agree with the jury's verdict here, but there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
I think you're approaching this as though it's straightforward jury nullification, which (as a layperson) I don't think it is. No one disagrees that he threw the sandwich, but my understanding is that the assault charge requires the officer have "reasonable fear of immediate bodily harm". The defense's argument was that there's no reason to believe the officer was actually afraid.
> there's no question he threw a sandwich at someone, and there's no question that is legally assault.
It's not assault
> there's no question that is legally assault.
So, in the US, being convicted of a crime requires the state to convince a jury of your peers that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what crime is. There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty". That's the point of the system, so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty. Because there's no way for him to prove his innocence to you, you've already decided he's guilty and already decided to ignore proof to the contrary.
What's not in doubt is that he threw a sandwich at the officer. But, and this is incredibly important, that WAS NOT assault.
You need to read up on the difference between a charge, a crime, and a conviction.
You are found "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt during a trial . This can happen because the evidence was insufficient, improperly obtained, or the jury was not convinced by the evidence presented. A "not guilty" verdict is not the same as being found "innocent"; it simply means the state did not meet the legal burden of proof required for a conviction
What happened is they did not meet the burden of proof it was assault
> There isn't some magical nebulous state where "okay it's a crime even though you're not guilty".
So you're saying that juries never convict innocent people? I don't think that's supportable by the evidence.
> so we can't get people like you who try claiming he's a criminal even though he's been found not guilty.
I didn't claim that he's a criminal. I said he obviously performed the act. No need to get personal. As I said, I agree with the jury and if I were on the jury I would have voted "not guilty" as well.
In a narrow way it worked, but it's also healthy for the country to see signs of the administration's impotence. The more people see the pattern of frivolity and failure in the threats and lawsuits, the less fear they'll have. We hear claims of fascism that are directionally accurate, but it's important that people realize that the headlines often don't amount to something as scary as they seem initially.
The agents statement was also apparently a lie. Photos showed the sandwich was still in its wrapper on the ground after according to other articles like this one https://reason.com/2025/11/06/d-c-jury-acquits-sandwich-guy-...
This has been a pattern with these petty prosecutions. It seems like video that shows they embellished / lied comes out time and again. A number of protests have had a series of charges dropped when video showed they were lying about the events.
They wasted our money doing so as well
What do you think would have happened if you threw a sandwich at the DEA in 2002?
This is exactly the sort of ignorance that got the country where it is.
[dead]
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45841464
If they had charged him with littering it would have stuck. Assault with a sandwitch isn't a felony. That's just ridiculous and the judical process saw right thorugh it.