Former D.C. police officer Shane Lamond was found guilty of obstructing justice by leaking secrets to Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, proving that sometimes double agents also double down on bad choices.

In a stunning twist that even Hollywood couldn't script, Lamond's double agent escapades have landed him a guilty verdict from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson after a seven-day bench trial. With sentencing set for April 3, the once-respected officer now faces up to 45 years in the slammer, leaving many to wonder if his attempt at an insider's badge of honor was worth the long wait for a cell block tour.

The trial revealed a series of unfortunate events that would make even the most seasoned courtroom drama feel like a reality show gone wrong. Prosecutors presented evidence that Lamond tipped off Tarrio about a warrant for his arrest stemming from a separate incident involving the burning of a Black Lives Matter banner. Nothing quite says 'trustworthy police informant' like extending a hand to an alleged arsonist right before a riot.

Throughout the proceedings, Lamond maintained his innocence. He testified that he never leaked confidential information to Tarrio, a sentiment the judge rebuffed with a wave of her discerning judicial wand. Judge Jackson pointed out that the evidence indicated Lamond was far from oblivious—his interactions with Tarrio were not merely casual chit-chat but rather a disturbing exchange where Tarrio disseminated sensitive information almost instantaneously post-conversation. It would appear that Lamond's skills in building rapport came with a hefty side of treachery.

The judge's criticism didn't stop at Lamond. She also took a moment to reflect on Tarrio, branding him an 'awful witness' who couldn't keep his story straight. This critique came after Tarrio confessed to lying to his fellow Proud Boys about his dealings with Lamond. The Proud Boys leader had previously pleaded guilty to burning that infamous banner and is now serving a sentence of 22 years for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. Apparently, in a case marred by deceit, neither man was remarkably skilled at avoiding irony.

Lamond's duty as a police officer involved overseeing the intelligence unit designed to monitor extremist groups like the Proud Boys. One might expect that such a position would instill a strong sense of loyalty to the law, rather than assist those who openly defy it. However, Lamond insisted his actions were motivated by a desire to build trust with Tarrio, not a sympathy for their cause. Maybe he thought playing both sides would make him an extraordinary secret agent—after all, who wouldn't want to be the hero of an action movie, complete with plot twists and all?

The political implications of this case stretch far beyond Lamond and Tarrio. After all, if an officer meant to protect the public is patting the back of a known extremist, what does that mean for the broader trust in policing? We can only imagine what the department's social media questions looked like: ‘How to catch terrorists while befriending them?’

Defense attorney Mark Schamel expressed disappointment with the trial's outcome, demonstrating that even seasoned legal professionals have off days. Schamel claimed that it was premature to discuss an appeal, which is, for all intents and purposes, lawyer speak for "let's see how bad he gets punished first." Perhaps someday they will get a gracious ruling from the higher ups, but for now, a wait and see approach seems prudent.

As each day unfolds toward Lamond's sentencing, it’s hard not to imagine how the courtroom proceedings must have felt like a self-parodying script erratically bouncing between drama and absurdity. The image of a police officer flipping between law and extracurricular espionage isn't unfamiliar in films; however, the unexpected reality of it happening in D.C. shakes confidence, which, like Lamond's career, appears to have taken quite the nosedive.

With a fiery courtroom showdown behind him, Lamond's saga is far from over. The upcoming sentencing will likely be the final act in this unintentional tragicomedy, and whether he serves a lengthy prison term or emerges with a feather of leniency remains to be seen. Given the stakes, one has to wonder if Lamond wishes he had simply played it straight.