Not The Onion

18541 readers

2046 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

428

Sandwich thrown by protester 'exploded' and left mustard stain on border agent, court hears (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 day ago by resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/49262051

Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore told the jury the snack "exploded all over him" and he "could smell the onions and mustard" on his uniform.

Neither side disputes that Sean Dunn, 37, did in fact lob obscenities and a deli-style sandwich at officers deployed by President Donald Trump to patrol the nation's capital in August. But Mr Dunn's lawyer argues it was not a criminal act.

The incident was captured on video and went viral, making Mr Dunn a symbol of opposition in Washington DC to Trump.

Government prosecutors initially tried to secure felony charges against Mr Dunn, but a grand jury declined to indict him. Prosecutors have instead charged him with a lower-level misdemeanour assault.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Did they manage to find 12 people that will consider a sandwich a weapon

They don't have to. Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:

There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another

Notably, there's no requirement that a weapon is used or physical injury is caused. Reading the statute, the fact that there was physical contact elevates it to a felony even without a weapon or injury, but it isn't charged as a felony here because the grand jury refused to indict.

I hope that the jury finds him not guilty, but if they do it's jury nullification, not that his actions didn't technically violate the statute.