this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
498 points (99.8% liked)

politics

31224 readers
2367 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 91 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 10 months ago

⬆️ take it and go you animal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 47 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I was just wondering if he could sue for malicious prosecution.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 34 points 10 months ago

... 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?

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

He threw it in self defense

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I don’t mean to be a pedant here, but he’s not actually guilty. The jury decided that.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

No, he sues for damages. Time lost, mental anguish, etc

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 6stringringer@lemmy.zip 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I am happy they didn’t find him guilty of assault with a deli weapon.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad DC juries aren't putting up with Trump and Bondi's fascist shit

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.”

Source.

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.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

The grand jury didn't really have any choice: it was a turkey sandwich, and they only indict ham.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (4 children)

"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.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

"If the wrapper is still fit, you must acquit!"

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 12 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] hotdogcharmer@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wait, so the cop didn't even actually get mustard and onions on him?

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

That was from the hamberders he ate for lunch

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 13 points 10 months ago

Man frowns at MAGA.

Republicans: he assaulted me! Lock him up!

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 5 points 10 months ago
[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 10 months ago

Please share the email address

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 months ago

Can you imagine a lunchroom food fight if this had been considered assault?

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Time to make more sandwiches and milkshakes

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Producer Amy Pascal threw a sandwich at producer Kevin Feige over a disagreement about bringing Spiderman into the MCU

load more comments
view more: next ›