Jury refuses to indict Sandwich Man and other Trump cop misadventures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

He will. And needs to win.

It is very hard for an attorney to argue they did not know it was wrong to assault a cop. I'd love to know what his excuse is - "temporary insanity?"

It was a fu(king sandwich. This is wasting taxpayer money.

But it shows horrible jugement for someone who works in law enforcement.

lol you should the trouble cops get into when they are off duty

[Anonymous]

Guaranteed that the spitting lawyer won’t get indicted either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the man who throws one.

He's such a wimp throwing his limp sandwich. Figures though. It all fits.

+1 such a brave manly man!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the man who throws one.

He's such a wimp throwing his limp sandwich. Figures though. It all fits.

A wimp is the officer who cried over a sandwich hitting him in the shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeh it obvious the DC jury pool is poisoned, move the trial outside the city. dc needs to be cleaned up

See for yourself right here ^^^^ MAGA wants to destroy the USA and the constitution.

The 6th amendment of the USA Constitution enshrines the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime was committed. MAGA fascists won’t let a silly piece of paper like the constitution get in their way!

Yup. They DGAF about the Constitution if it doesn’t serve them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the man who throws one.

He's such a wimp throwing his limp sandwich. Figures though. It all fits.

+1 such a brave manly man!

Listen, no one wants to hear from the lady men of maga that talked all that big game and then lubed up for government tyranny. You are embarrassing yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is great news, its just a sandwich and arresting him was political, since militarized patrolling of the city was political. They wanted to throw the book at a rightfully angry citizen.

Agree. I can't believe people who love guns and bullets and death so much got this upset about a sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

By pardoning people captured on film assaulting officers, Trump has made clear this behavior is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can indict a ham sandwich, but not the man who throws one.

He's such a wimp throwing his limp sandwich. Figures though. It all fits.

+1 such a brave manly man!

Listen, no one wants to hear from the lady men of maga that talked all that big game and then lubed up for government tyranny. You are embarrassing yourselves.

PP here. I'm neither a Trump voter nor MAGA. I just know wimpy, cowardly behavior when I see it. You and Sean can have your lube discussions whenever you wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/27/trump-crime-surge-court-cases/

"On Tuesday, a federal grand jury refused to indict a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a federal law enforcement agent in an incident this month that went viral on social media, according to two people with knowledge of the case who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it publicly. Prosecutors had sought to charge Sean Charles Dunn with a felony count of assaulting, resisting or impeding a federal officer...

Before prosecutors failed to indict Dunn, a grand jury on three separate occasions this month refused to indict a D.C. woman who was accused of assaulting an FBI agent, another extraordinary rejection of the prosecution’s case. Days later, a federal magistrate judge said an arrest in Northeast Washington was preceded by the “most illegal search I’ve seen in my life” and described another arrest as lacking “basic human dignity.”

While judges are known to criticize prosecutors from time to time, grand jurors only in rare cases refuse to issue an indictment, which requires them to find only probable cause that a crime was committed, the lowest evidentiary bar in criminal cases."

This is just as surprising. Juries are not going to put up with this nonsense from the Trump people where they try to throw the book at people for minor offenses.

This is all a giant waste of time. They're spending millions of dollars to arrest people on charges that juries are laughing out of court.

[Anonymous]

Well at Eastern Market metro this morning somehow magically the 15 heavily armed LEOs and NG are gone - I guess their 24 hour of “patrolling” the station worked it’s magic and solved all the crime!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

By pardoning people captured on film assaulting officers, Trump has made clear this behavior is okay.

Actually most of the pardoned people were not on film assaulting people. Trump saud that there would still be prosecutions of some of the people who committed assault.

You have to be a real idiot to be a DOJ employee and assault someone on video. He is not getting his job back.

[Anonymous]

And the fact that a jury refuses to indict means nothing. I have been on several juries in DC and most people do not even pay attention. There were people who were sleeping at one jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a jury refuses to indict means nothing. I have been on several juries in DC and most people do not even pay attention. There were people who were sleeping at one jury.

I've heard the same from others that have served on DC juries, but what's the solution? It's hard enough to get people to serve on juries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the fact that a jury refuses to indict means nothing. I have been on several juries in DC and most people do not even pay attention. There were people who were sleeping at one jury.

I've heard the same from others that have served on DC juries, but what's the solution? It's hard enough to get people to serve on juries.

I don't have any idea what the solution is, but if I was a criminal defendant I would not leave my fate to 98 percent of the people I have met. Most did not even bother to listen to the testimony and just arguer based on their emotions.