Sub beats wrap
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
493 points (99.8% liked)
politics
26692 readers
2162 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The man who was hit with the sandwich was CBP agent Gregory Lairmore, who told the jury earlier this week that the sandwich “kind of exploded all over my uniform” and “smelled of onions and mustard”, according to the Washington Post. The defense pushed back, as it appeared in imagery from the scene that the sandwich did not leave its wrapper.
LOL, how is this not The Onion?
Anyway, it'd be nice to be able to sue the shit out of those responsible for wasting this guy's time, reinstall him in his job, and give him all back pay.
Now sue them for $.
Or politicians need to be forced to vote to remove this immunity BS. We need to push for that and the removal of citizens United.
I was just wondering if he could sue for malicious prosecution.
... and can the police officer who LIED (perjured himself) when saying the sandwich "exploded all over" be privately charged if the court won't do it themselves?
Who knows but if he does they should bar the agent and lawyer that brought up the charges from ever bringing charges again on anybody.
He probably can't. Absurd as it may sound, he was actually guilty.
Here are model jury instructions for the charge, which include:
There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another
It doesn't say that the victim must be struck with something very likely to injure them. Looking at the statute, it turns out that actual physical contact (rather than making a threat without contact) elevates it to a felony - the charge a grand jury previously rejected.
Of course, prosecutors normally apply common sense to charging decisions and don't prosecute everything that technically qualifies under the strictest reading of a statute.
It took 3 grand juries to even be able to bring the case, it was always going to end in acquittal. Sure, it's technically assault, but nobody was going to convict for that.
This was charged as a misdemeanor. No grand jury this time.
I'm on the protestor's side here, but in general, it probably ought to be illegal to throw sandwiches at people. Some jurisdictions have a separate offense of harassment for offensive or even merely nonconsensual intentional physical contact that presents no risk of injury.
I'd have voted not guilty if I was on that jury, but guilty for the same conduct under different circumstances, such as throwing food at a fast food worker over a customer service issue.
He threw it in self defense
Did he literally throw a sandwich? Yes.
Is he guilty of forcible assault by throwing the sandwich? No.
If doing a thing was the same as guilt there wouldn't be a trial.
I don’t mean to be a pedant here, but he’s not actually guilty. The jury decided that.
No, he sues for damages. Time lost, mental anguish, etc
load more comments
(1 replies)
That man's a hero.
I see what you did there
That hero is a hero
He’s a gyro.
I'm glad DC juries aren't putting up with Trump and Bondi's fascist shit
The random sample survey of 604 D.C. residents was taken between August 14 and 17 shortly after Trump signed the executive order. It indicates some 65 percent of residents do not believe the presence of FBI agents and uniformed National Guard troops from an increasing number of states makes the city safer.
Eight of 10 residents surveyed oppose Trump’s executive order to federalize law enforcement in the city. Seven in 10 oppose it “strongly.”
I'm not sure why they thought a DC jury would ever convict, given that even a DC grand jury (which hears only the prosecutor's side) didn't indict.
The grand jury didn't really have any choice: it was a turkey sandwich, and they only indict ham.
I am happy they didn’t find him guilty of assault with a deli weapon.
load more comments
(2 replies)
"This, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich" and after the federal agent claimed to have been smeared with mustard and onions, the defense showed a picture of the sandwich - still completely in its wrapper.
"If the wrapper is still fit, you must acquit!"
I was kind of hoping the defence would produce a receipt that confirmed it was a BLT without onions, hence proving the agent committed perjury.
Wait, so the cop didn't even actually get mustard and onions on him?
That was from the hamberders he ate for lunch
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wish in cases like these, the jury could sanction the prosecution, like not guilty, and we revoke your right to practice law for 90 days for being such fucking idiots and harming the accused, and wasting our fucking time.
Also just further on this... think of how many frivilious law suits could be prevented with that. Don't let the jury block them for a year, and maybe keep a harsher thing like 90 days for state/feds, but imagine if someone hires a lawyer to sue someone for something absolutely ridiculous, and they knew they would risk not being able to practice law for a week if they offend the jury for how stupid it was.
For civil suits, some states have something called anti-SLAP (?) laws, which try to do something similar by allowing the defendant to sue the plaintiff.
I still think just giving the jury some of that power on the spot would be better, now you're doing yet another lawsuit, and the lawyer isn't at risk if it's the defendent suing the plaintiff and you still gotta have the Jury rule on that when they could have just ruled on it on the spot the first time.
It's nice to know there is some recourse though.
I revel in the fact that the cop is going to get roasted for this through out his career. We should start emailing quality puns to the department so they don't run out of fodder too quick.
*toasted
Please share the email address
Man frowns at MAGA.
Republicans: he assaulted me! Lock him up!
Can you imagine a lunchroom food fight if this had been considered assault?
This is preposterous! It's a dangerous ruling! If this is truly how it's going to go, then people will start buying subs and throwing them at ice thugs every da......
I withdraw my comment and give back the rest of my time.
view more: next ›