Trump administration fails to secure indictment against sandwich thrower

[meaner gene]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/politics/sandwich-thrower-case-washington

On Tuesday, the Border Patrol officer testified about his experience.

Greg Lairmore told the jury that Dunn “became really irritated and started yelling obscenities” at him and other officers that night before throwing “a subway style sandwich at me that struck me in the chest.”

“It smelled of onions and mustard,” Lairmore said of the sandwich, which “exploded all over my chest.”

Another attorney for Dunn, Sabrina Shroff, pressed Lairmore on that response, showing a photo of the sandwich on the ground, still wrapped in the Subway paper.

Sabrina pressed, emphasizing that the sandwich remained wrapped.

“From the photo it looks bent and out of shape,” the officer said of the sandwich.

 

[Delldude]

The officer was in body armor, and believed that made him practically invincible.

That's funny.....the DC code doesn't mention body armor as a disqualifier.

Assault requires the victim fear harm

Got it wrong again Geno.

D.C. Code § 22-404. It defines the crime as any unlawful assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner, which can include attempted battery (intending to use or having the apparent ability to use force) or intending to frighten (threatening an act with the ability to injure).

So you admit it didn’t explode?

Evidence of that was all over his vest and radio.

The jury determined it wasn’t assault.

They disregarded the instructions and the law......why was that?

“It smelled of onions and mustard,” Lairmore said of the sandwich, which “exploded all over my chest.”

He was correct.

 

[Marener]

He was correct.

Video proves otherwise. Perjury.

 

[Delldude]

Video proves otherwise. Perjury.

How was it mustard and onions got on his vest?

Perjury? LoL.

 

[meaner gene]

Got it wrong again Geno.

D.C. Code § 22-404. It defines the crime as any unlawful assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner, which can include attempted battery (intending to use or having the apparent ability to use force) or intending to frighten (threatening an act with the ability to injure).

Wearing body armor can mean the person is no longer in fear of harm, that someone not wearing body armor would be.

An an example, an officer driving a Tesla, and having a rock thrown at the vehicle, could be expected to fear harm from the rock.
An officer in an M1-A2 Abrams main battle tank having a rock thrown at the vehicle could NOT be expected to fear harm from the rock.

 

[Delldude]

Wearing body armor can mean the person is no longer in fear of harm, that someone not wearing body armor would be.

An an example, an officer driving a Tesla, and having a rock thrown at the vehicle, could be expected to fear harm from the rock.
An officer in an M1-A2 Abrams main battle tank having a rock thrown at the vehicle could NOT be expected to fear harm from the rock.

Armor or no armor the man was still assaulted.

Go to bed.

 

[whitehall]

An invite to the capital for Jan 6 mom and pop demonstrators by FBI undercover agents nets them about a year in custody and a four year sentence. Meanwhile a assault on a federal officer gets thrown out of court. How does that happen in a sane society?

 

[meaner gene]

How was it mustard and onions got on his vest?

Perjury? LoL.

The sandwich did not "explode"
It remained intact.

That may have caused the jury to dismiss his testimony as he appeared to commit perjury. Which is cause under law, to ignore all of his testimony.

 

[meaner gene]

Armor or no armor the man was still assaulted.

Go to bed.

From your own citation, assault requires the victim be in fear of harm.
Your own citation - threatening an act with the ability to injure

If there is no ability to injure, there is no assault.

 

[Delldude]

The sandwich did not "explode"

When it hit the officer?

Which is cause under law, to ignore all of his testimony.

The video proved he was assaulted without his testimony.

Dunn's defense admitted he hit the officer.

 

[meaner gene]

An invite to the capital for Jan 6 mom and pop demonstrators by FBI undercover agents nets them about a year in custody and a four year sentence. Meanwhile a assault on a federal officer gets thrown out of court. How does that happen in a sane society?

Start with the main witness lying on the witness stand.

Claiming the sandwhich was thrown with such harmful force that it "exploded" on his chest.

And then a photo introduced, which he acknowledged the sandwich was still nearly intact in it's wrapping paper, but "bent".

 

[Delldude]

Your own citation - threatening an act with the ability to injure

You overlook this part:

which can include attempted battery (intending to use or having the apparent ability to use force)

 

[Delldude]

And then a photo introduced, which he acknowledged the sandwich was still nearly intact in it's wrapping paper, but "bent".

Missing some onions and mustard.

 

[meaner gene]

When it hit the officer?

The video proved he was assaulted without his testimony.

Dunn's defense admitted he hit the officer.

If anything, the video is exculpatory, that the striking force was so minor, the sandwich remained almost completely intact.

If it didn't harm the fragile sandwich, it's not going to harm someone in military style body armor.

 

[whitehall]

Start with the main witness lying on the witness stand.

Claiming the sandwhich was thrown with such harmful force that it "exploded" on his chest.

And then a photo introduced, which he acknowledged the sandwich was still nearly intact in it's wrapping paper, but "bent".

The word "exploded" might be accurate or not but the fact is that the assault on a federal officer happened. Meanwhile mom and pop innocents were deprived of their rights on Jan 6 when they were incarcerated for a year for a virtual invitation to tour the Capital building

 

[meaner gene]

Missing some onions and mustard.

Did it "explode" or not?

I say NOT. It remained nearly intact, and did not "explode"

 

[meaner gene]

The word "exploded" might be accurate or not but the fact is that the assault on a federal officer happened. Meanwhile mom and pop innocents were deprived of their rights on Jan 6 when they were incarcerated for a year for a virtual invitation to tour the Capital building

The term "explode" is clearly wrong.
Even a schoolchild knows that spilled milk doesn't "explode".

This principle is often referred to by the Latin phrase falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, meaning "false in one thing, false in everything".

The standard jury instructions based on this principle typically state:
If the jury finds that a witness has intentionally testified falsely about a material (important) fact, they are free to disregard that witness's entire testimony

 

[Delldude]

If anything, the video is exculpatory, that the striking force was so minor, the sandwich remained almost completely intact.

Body armor or no body armor it's still assault.

Did it "explode" or not?

I say NOT. It remained nearly intact, and did not "explode"

You admitted the integrity of the wrapper was compromised supporting the contention that some of it's contents made it onto the officers vest.

Dunn's defense admitted he hit the officer.

 

[meaner gene]

You admitted the integrity of the wrapper was compromised supporting the contention that some of it's contents made it onto the officers vest.

The officer testified the assaulting weapon "exploded" on his chest.

Looks like the jury followed the judges instruction.

This principle is often referred to by the Latin phrase falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, meaning "false in one thing, false in everything".

The standard jury instructions based on this principle typically state:
If the jury finds that a witness has intentionally testified falsely about a material (important) fact, they are free to disregard that witness's entire testimony

 

[Delldude]

The officer testified the assaulting weapon "exploded" on his chest.

Nearly intact.

Leaving mustard and onions on his vest.

the jury finds that a witness has intentionally testified falsely about a material (important) fact, they are free to disregard that witness's entire testimony

Video testimony clearly shows he was assaulted.....his description doesn't make the video evidence go away.

Dunn's defense admitted he hit the officer.