In a recent event that highlights the severe legal consequences of assaulting law enforcement officers, a young Los Angeles musician faced hefty charges after spitting at officers during a peaceful protest. The incident, which occurred at the "No Kings" rally in June 2025, has stirred widespread discussion about the boundaries of protest behavior and the implications of federal assault charges.

Sean Charles Dunn, a Department of Justice paralegal, was previously acquitted for a similar, though less severe, act of throwing a Subway sandwich at a federal agent during an ICE raid. Unlike Dunn's case, which ended as a misdemeanor without an indictment, the consequences for spitting were dramatically more severe.

Angus, a 24-year-old college graduate and musician, attended the rally which initially featured a festive atmosphere. However, the scene quickly shifted when law enforcement, including the LAPD and national guards, escalated their tactics to disperse the crowd, employing rubber bullets and riot gear. Amidst the chaos, Angus spat at the officers – a split-second decision that led to his immediate arrest and a daunting legal battle.

Charged with felony assault, Angus faced the possibility of eight years in prison. U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi's stern warning on Fox News underscored the federal government's rigorous stance on such offenses. Eventually, Angus was offered a plea deal to reduce his charge to a misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum jail time, illustrating the harsh realities of negotiating the federal justice system.

Legal experts and the public alike have critiqued the severity of the punishment, especially given Angus's clean record and the nonviolent nature of his protest. The incident raises significant questions about the proportionality of legal consequences tied to protest actions and the broader implications for civil liberties.

Angus's sentencing was influenced by a shifting political climate and substantial support from his community, including character testimonials from numerous supporters. However, despite these factors, he still faced a compulsory two-week federal prison sentence, underscoring the inflexible nature of federal assault laws, even in cases involving minimal physical harm.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the potential legal repercussions of actions taken during protests, particularly when directed against law enforcement. As the political and social landscape continues to evolve, the intersection of protest rights and law enforcement's response remains a critical point of public and legal discourse.