{"id":779762,"date":"2025-11-12T08:35:28","date_gmt":"2025-11-12T13:35:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=779762"},"modified":"2025-11-12T09:32:36","modified_gmt":"2025-11-12T14:32:36","slug":"the-turkey-sandwich-hurler-and-the-chicken-rescuer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=779762","title":{"rendered":"‘Arresting Juxtaposition’: The turkey sandwich hurler and the chicken rescuer"},"content":{"rendered":"

The acquittal of ‘sandwich guy’ Sean Dunn and the recent conviction of animal rights activist Zoe Rosenberg form an arresting juxtaposition. Both defendants essentially conceded the facts of the crimes for which they were charged. Dunn hurled a sandwich made from slaughtered turkey parts at Customs and Border Patrol agent in protest of President Trump’s policies. Rosenberg, a member of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), was carrying out an open rescue of sick and injured chickens in protest of factory farming. The fact that a California judge and jury were unwilling to see the cruelty that goes into the supplying of Americans with poultry products \u2014 whether for eating or throwing \u2014 shows the limits of fighting for justice when the people involved in adjudication routinely participate in the very injustice being challenged.<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

JUSTIA:<\/strong> Last week\u2019s acquittal of ‘sandwich guy’ Sean Dunn and the recent conviction of animal-rights activist Zoe Rosenberg form an arresting juxtaposition. Both defendants essentially conceded the facts of the crimes for which they were charged. Dunn hurled a Subway sandwich made from slaughtered turkey parts at Customs and Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore in protest of President Donald Trump\u2019s deployment of federal forces in the District of Columbia. Rosenberg rescued four chickens from the Petaluma Poultry slaughterhouse in Sonoma County, California. Dunn was caught on video. Rosenberg, a member of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), was carrying out an open rescue in which she looked into the camera and explained her actions as she engaged in them.<\/em><\/p>\n

Dunn\u2019s defense team argued that the sandwich he tossed caused no harm. Rosenberg\u2019s lawyers sought to make the same point, indeed, going further to argue that her actions averted harm to the chickens she saved from the suffering they were enduring and their imminent fate. And yet Dunn was acquitted, while Rosenberg was convicted and potentially faces a multi-year sentence. What explains the difference? It\u2019s easy to say these were different cases on opposite sides of the country. And that\u2019s certainly true. But that\u2019s hardly the whole story.<\/em><\/p>\n

Start with Dunn. After the grand jury refused to indict him on felony charges, he was tried for a misdemeanor. His trial unfolded as a small theater piece featuring video of the tossed sandwich striking Lairmore in his bullet-proof (and apparently sandwich-proof) vest. Lawyers, judge, and jury scrutinized his uniform and his reaction to the incident. The defense framed the toss as symbolic political protest\u2014a harmless gesture aimed at challenging the Trump administration\u2019s unnecessary interference in D.C. life. The jurors either concluded that the particular act of sandwich throwing was effectively not an assault or engaged in jury nullification.<\/em><\/p>\n

Contrast Rosenberg. Before the trial, the judge rejected her lawyers\u2019 request to let her present a necessity defense \u2014 evidence and a legal instruction that would have allowed the jury to consider whether the unlawful act was justified to avoid \u201ca significant evil.\u201d The judge concluded that under California law, the defense is available only where the harm the defendant sought to avert is to humans, a dubious conclusion under the key precedents. Without Rosenberg\u2019s evidence relevant to a necessity defense, her trial focused on intent, trespass, and property-protection narratives crafted by the prosecutors. The jury deliberated only a few hours before returning guilty verdicts, which is not surprising, given that Rosenberg admitted the elements of the crimes charged…<\/em><\/p>\n

Rosenberg\u2019s conviction is easy to explain, though not to justify. The defense wanted to show jurors the awful conditions of the chickens at Petaluma. However, in addition to rejecting the necessity defense, the trial judge also limited the cruelty evidence that could be shown to the jury. As a result, Rosenberg\u2019s jury did not see her as engaged in an act of moral courage. They saw her as a trespasser and a thief… The fact that a California judge and jury were unwilling to see the cruelty that goes into the supplying of Americans with poultry products \u2014 whether for eating or throwing \u2014 shows the limits of what courts can do to fight injustice when the people involved in adjudication routinely participate in the very injustice being challenged. <\/em>MICHAEL C. DORF<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEOS:<\/strong><\/p>\n