The former leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, is expected to testify as a defense witness for Lt. Shane Lamond, a former Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department officer. Lamond, a 22-year veteran of MPD’s Intelligence Branch, is facing trial on federal charges of obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents. Central to the trial is Lamond’s relationship with Tarrio, who is serving a 22-year sentence after he was convicted of seditious conspiracy related to the events of January 6, 2021.
Over the course of several years, Lamond and Tarrio maintained regular communication, with Tarrio often sharing details of his group’s plans and movements in Washington, D.C., including the number of Proud Boys attending rallies and their planned routes. Lamond’s role as an intelligence officer involved keeping law enforcement informed about protest activities, but his close ties with Tarrio are now the focus of legal scrutiny, as prosecutors allege that his interactions with the Proud Boys leader went beyond standard law enforcement duties.
The government argues that Lt. Lamond overstepped his role by not only gathering information from Tarrio but also providing him with tips about law enforcement activities. Specifically, prosecutors claim Lamond shared details of a police investigation into the Proud Boys’ involvement in burning a BLM banner lifted from Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in December 2020 and later warned Tarrio of an impending arrest related to the incident. Tarrio pled guilty and served just over 4 months in jail for that incident.
The nature of Lamond’s relationship with Tarrio and the exchange of hundreds of text messages will be the focus of Lamond’s trial. His defense team argues that these interactions were part of standard police work, particularly in the context of keeping law enforcement informed about potential threats.
In response to claims of bias, Lamond’s attorney, Ana Jara, firmly rejected the suggestion that Lamond sympathized with the Proud Boys, calling it:
Simply not true. […]
— Read More: redstate.com
