“He did it. He threw the sandwich.”

That’s how the defense counsel for Sean Dunn, the man who threw a sub-style sandwich at a Border Patrol officer in Washington, DC, this summer began the federal trial against him Tuesday morning.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 249 points 10 months ago (8 children)

I cannot believe we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a ballistic hoagie attack.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 171 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 81 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    "ballistic submarine missile" was right there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Hi, wanted to ask how you want me to handle this report? https://i.ibb.co/rGRqTJTt/1.png

    You reported me, on my own instance, to myself... guess I'm not sure what you want me to do here? Do you think "hostility" is a violation of my instance's sidebar rules? If not, can you tell me which of my own rules I've broken? I'm eager to hear your response. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I'm sure we all know the phrase that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich". It took prosecutors THREE Grand Juries to finally get an indictment for someone throwing that sandwich.

    It's all a complete waste of time and taxpayer funds, and in any other point in history these prosecutors would have been fired immediately for incompetence at even considering an indictment in the first place, not even considering the possibility that they would try for three attempts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    They never got the indictment. The prosecutor had to downgrade the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor, which doesn’t have to go before a grand jury.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    if a grand jury won't indict, doesn't double jeopardy apply? not a lawyer, just haven't dealt with this part of the process before

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    A grand jury is a sort of sanity check on a charge, and does not count towards the trial. It is basically "with these facts (provided only by the prosecution), is there enough probable cause to move a case to trial?". Double jeopardy in the 5th amendment has specific protections from going to trial multiple times or from getting multiple punishments for a crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Actually, it's even stupider than that I'm pretty sure, two grand juries refused to give them an indictment for a felony charge, so they brought a way less severe misdemeanor charge because you don't have to get a grand jury to sign off on those, and that's what we're wasting this time on

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago

    I hope a news outlet has the boldness to run this story after one showing DHS brutality, including the taxpayer costs, and before one about SNAP, healthcare and the shutdown. This administration is well past the point of pissing on Americans while telling them it's raining.

  • source
  • parent