Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Writer Peter Watts Convicted of Assault
SJrX writes "CBC news is reporting that Peter Watts has indeed been convicted of Assaulting border guards, (discussed here). He will be sentenced April 26th."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts. If what the officers said is true then he is guilty and if Watts said is true then the officers assaulted him.
Meh, we make fun of how the unwashed masses adore their idols, yet we are the same. Or are we? Someone write something slashdot-worthy, a meta piece about this human fallibility perhaps?
'Suspect appeared angry. We then sprayed him. Because of the tumultous situation we cannot guarantee that this was the exact sequence of events.'
That's okay, he does his best writing in jail.
Table-ized A.I.
at he can keep being a writer in lockup.
Canadian guards will grow the same way when everybody tries to leave the dying empire.
Table-ized A.I.
He will be sentenced April 26th
The sentence will be sent to his editor May 5.
They'll have it proofread and the final edit will be done June 7.
Armed truck drivers will deliver the sentence to Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Borders locations on an undisclosed date.
The sentence will go on sale August 11.
Please, no spoilers before the release date.
whilst people should not be unreasonably searched leaving a country (after all, who cares?) attempting to strangle a police officer is a serious offence! (the evidence would not be in his favour; there are cameras everywhere at border patrol)
How is he simply guilty because he was 1 and they were 2. This isn't the only time I've seen this. American law seems to favor everything in majority of he said she said and 2 vs 1, 2 wins even if 2 perjure.
So when someone said "Watts the problem",
He said "I'm certainly not!"
That kind of attitude with the police can earn you a can of pepper-spray!
Also, that kind of attitude in court could certainly earn you some jail-time!
Geekism is your _only_ God!
With all those hundreds of video cameras tracking your every move at the border, why isn't there some definite evidence showing up here?
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186
I already don't want to ever enter the US - I even have reservations about flying over it on my way to Cuba. Canadian here.
Shh.
Canadian guards will grow the same way when everybody tries to leave the dying empire.
Like the Canadian border guards who murdered the Polish immigrant in Vancouver?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=264ccebb-1696-44e7-9474-ff5a06f63db4
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1332958
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Chinese debt collectors. They will want to come.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.
Don't worry. Soon nobody will want to go to America.
Because you are an idiot...you have no idea what you are talking about! Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded or they need our money...
He was convicted of obstruction -- because after getting out of the car in which he was repeatedly assaulted (that is, struck in the face by the officer), he did not immediately drop to the ground when ordered to do so.
From Watts' own blog:
Making Light put it more caustically:
Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded
Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan used to hate America, but now they love you!
or they need our money
Uh, what money? How many trillion are you in debt now?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
is twofold:
1. what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job. and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.
2. the jury was not there to consider the guard behavior, but about point 1.
so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA (yep, he had gotten in just fine, it was while going back to canada that the trouble started).
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
FTFA: "Jones said that the officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, they tried to handcuff him. He said a scuffle ensued in which Watts choked one of the officers, and an officer used pepper spray to subdue him." Gee, I don't really see how this is a big deal. He was pissed off that they searched his car - what else did he expect at a border crossing? Did he try to contact someone in the Canadian government because something wasn't right? No! Sounds like he was being an asshole for getting searched - duh! Being pissed off in front of border guards anywhere in the world draws attention and you leave yourself open for whatever.
Not border guards, but RCMP officers, a.k.a. Mounties. They're our federal police, and they've been having and getting into some trouble lately, and giving themselves a pretty bad image. Dziekanski's case is just one high-profile example.
Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded
Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan used to hate America, but now they love you!
or they need our money
Uh, what money? How many trillion are you in debt now?
Boo-hoo! Another whiney Brit. I'll bet your grandmother loved the American GIs who traded her cigarettes and Hershey Bars.
the funniest part is that watts was about to leave, not enter.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Juries are human computers. They aren't supposed to weigh the evidence in any larger context. Similarly, when Peter Watts was asked to comply, he thought instead of reacting.
At no point did Watts engage in a physical confrontation with the CBP officers. Upon cross-examination the "choking" accusation and the "aggressive stance" accusations were shown to have been fabricated.
The conviction stemmed solely from point #5 Here are a couple of post-trial juror statements. One was posted on Watts own site. The other was posted as a comment to the Port Huron report on the verdict; see
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed
As a member of the jury that convicted Mr. Watts today, I have a few comments to make. The jury’s task was not to decide who we liked better. The job of the jury was to decide whether Mr. Watts “obstructed/resisted” the custom officials. Assault was not one of the charges. What it boiled down to was Mr. Watts did not follow the instructions of the customs agents. Period. He was not violent, he was not intimidating, he was not stopping them from searching his car. He did, however, refuse to follow the commands by his non compliance. He’s not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents escalted the situation with sarcasm and miscommunication. Unfortunately, we were not asked to convict those agents with a crime, although, in my opinion, they did commit offenses against Mr. Watts. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge.
Peter,
I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
"Watts arrested for resistance"
It was the RCMP who murdered the traveller; the border guards and customs and immigration officials just worked to upset him.
One of the jurors in the case commented on Watt's blog that he wasn't convicted of assault, just refusal to comply with the officer's orders. It wasn't clear whether he was also convicted of obstruction, I think not. The juror also commented that he thought the officers acted criminally in their treatment of Watts, but that wasn't part of this court case so they came to no official conclusions.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There wasn't really much argument about whether or not Watts immediately and obediently complied with the order - he says he asked them what they were doing and why. It took the jury about four days to decide that the law said that meant he was technically guilty of not complying. The juror who commented on Watts's blog also said that the cops had acted badly in the way they attacked Watts, but that this case was against Watts and not an assault or brutality case against the cops so they had no official judgement about that.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
RCMP, not border guards.
One more reason out of hundreds to not go to the US of A, land of the free. I am compiling a list of reasons on why I should never go visit the US. This is just another entry on to the list: asshole paranoid-xenophobic-megalomaniac border officials. I come from Malaysia. My country borders Thailand's volatile southern regions. We have military checkpoints, military road blocks, army bases and soldiers with heavy weapons in APC's patrolling the Malaysia-Thai border. On the side of the Thai border, there are massacres, bombings, shootings and assassinations. Yet, I am treated with professional courtesy while crossing the border to Thailand by Malaysian and Thai Customs officers and back again. Same thing when I cross over to Singapore. This Peter Watts case shows how paranoid and "trigger happy" the US government and people have become, no doubt due to their government's shoot first, cowboy sheriff mentality.
I obviously grew up and spent most of my life in the US. Michigan is where I hail from. Being from a "poorer" stock than most middle-of-the-road Americans, I saw and experienced a completely different side of the justice system - starting with the police. I have, MANY times, been in a situation where I was assaulted by police, abused, jailed - for literally nothing. I also know from family experience - both my grandfathers were Detroit policemen, several of my uncles were police, marshalls and Feds - that there was at that time (from the 70's) and onwards a "fascist" and "paramilitary" mentality within the multitude of "law enforcement" agencies. Whether or not Mr. Watts is innocent or guilty, no one seems to want to point to the fact that millions (yes, millions) of people on a day to day basis are abused by law enforcement, given unfair trials with uncaring legal support, and have no means by which to be compensated. There are many that are within the penal system that should not be there at all - jailed for menial crimes and/or charges and these people have really no means by which to fight back. As far as the respectability of "the officers on duty", I would start with questioning their personal attitudes. I'm more than well familiar with that particular "border crossing" as well as the "border crossing" in Detroit - for the tunnel and the bridge. Neither of these places is hostile - it's Canada for God's sake - so there's definitely more to the picture than meets the eye.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
If a cop socks you in the face for no reason, and decides to bring you up on charges for "resisting a police officer", you'll be convicted on the grounds that your face impeded the free movement of the cop's fist. (and no, I'm not exaggerating).
Any juror who won't essentially agree to convict will be dismissed during voir dire.
This case is a pathetic travesty of justice. The border guards could have raped him, his wife, shot his kids, and as long as they had previously "instructed" him to comply, and he acted exactly as he had in reality, he STILL would be in the same position as he is today. And, more absurdly, the jury would still have been able to use the "well, he didn't follow instructions, so, as the law was explained to us, he was guilty". This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system. No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer. This is what's happening here.
This case sticks. The border cops who knew they are untouchable, the DA who is pushed this, the judge who 'instructed' the jury, the whole bloody lot of them stink. And the jurors who went along with it, the 'peers' who were the man's final line of defense let him down. They are moral cowards.
This stinks.
IANAL...
You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit, if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances. You're not forced to follow the directions of the judge, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a jury at all. If I was Peter Watts' lawyer, reading your message, I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning, on grounds of misdirection.
Didn't we just recently learn of two Canadian Conservative MPs acting like arse holes at airport security? Not only do they get to keep their job, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to convict them either. Heck, I will happy once we have tossed this government out of power.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
A writer in prison? I think it's more likely he'll be a 'wide receiver'.
More people should be aware of the right to jury nullification. Hilariously mentioning that you are aware of the right to nullify is a good way to get thrown off a jury.
Your country has a national debt of over a trillion dollars, and started too invasions of other countries this past decade in wars that have coincidentally cost just over said trillion dollars. On top of that, the Chinese own a very large part of the US national debt, and if they decide to collect, your country will be in severe difficulties.
Possibly, getting less involved in ruinous foreign wars would help solve the problems of debt and being hated. Personally, I think you're a stupid bastard. Not because you're American - there are stupid bastards in most parts of this world, but because you're simply digging up an old cliche that lost its validity after the Vietnam war.
In Portland recently a man who was suicidal was shot in the back with an assault rifle, the officer is still on the force. We need laws requiring police to wear video and audio surveillance and for grand juries not DAs choose when to prosecute police.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
From what I've read about this incident, and about the trial, I'm outraged. It really burns me up.
First up, I find myself wondering what was wrong with the jurors. Whenever jurors come out of a trial wringing their hands with anguish and making all kinds of sorrowful excuses for their own verdict, and start crying about how they "had to" convict someone who they didn't really think did anything wrong, I find myself wanting to tear my own hair out in frustration. Are they nuts? How did our society come to this point? When the jury is called upon for a verdict, they are responsible. They've got no business putting the blame on the judge's instructions, or on some minute technicality. They are supposed to think for themselves at least a little bit. This is why we have jury trials.
Secondly, I find myself wondering about the prosecutor. Somebody made the decision to press this case and bring it to trial with this evidence and these arguments. He clearly wasn't doing the public any service. His community should be told about this. His neighbors should be told about it. Let him face their opprobrium, and then see if he's eager to pull this sort of stunt again!
You mean the same border guards who beat the crap out of everyone that they can pick out of the mass?
Those that kick your ass if you are not extra nice to them, and then convict YOU for assault.
Those that put drugs in your car and then punish you for it, just for fun, or to fill some quota, etc?
Those guard types?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
From all the comments, it appears that Watts was convicted not for assault, but for non-compliance with instructions from a border guard. The jury convicted him for that because, technically, he really was guilty of that, even though it may have been understandable.
So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law. But how do you want to change the law? Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?
2. The Coverage
The Times-Herald reporter sat in the courtroom throughout the case. She knows there was no assault. She knows the choking incident never occurred. She knows that the only violence was committed by the border guards. These facts are no longer in dispute. And yet, the Times-Herald continues to report that I was found guilty of “assault”, and continues to repeat Beaudry’s allegation that I “choked” him without mentioning that an independent witness utterly discredited his testimony. Unfortunately, while the story has been picked up by numerous other newspapers, most of them simply seem to have cut-and-pasted the Times-Herald reportage. I find this discouraging. As does at least one juror, who opined:
http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp
Being a police officer doesn't even make the top ten list of dangerous occupations.
Too bad the jurors had never heard of Jury Nullification
I'm not a violent person. However I think it's about time the general public stood up and did something to force law enforcement officers to treat us with respect. It's obvious that our government will not do anything to protect us from assholes with badges treating everyone they encounter however they want. Every officer is not a dick, but a fairly large segment of them are.
I used to drive a car that was at the time popular with "people of color" and got pulled over all the time. I was regularly handcuffed and put in the patrol car while my car was searched. I never recieved a ticket because I follow the traffic laws. I was never arrested because I never did anything wrong. There were no drugs since I dont do drugs. I dont drink and drive. I dont carry guns around in my car. I was treated like a wanted felon because of the car I drove. I was pulled out of my car through the window on more than one occasion. I was never beaten by the police but was handled pretty damn roughly. I had bruises and scrapes and an almost dislocated shoulder once. I traded that vehicle in and bought a full size truck. I've never been pulled over in the 10 years since and I dont drive any differently now than I did then.
The laws that are there to protect the public from jerkoff police/border guards whatever doesnt do any damn good. Asking why is a valid question. If someone tells a person to lie on the ground there has to be a better reason than "because Im a police officer and I said so". There has to be some threat and not one manufactured in the officers mind. I dont advocate violence but I would not be suprised nor hurt when asshole officers woke up dead. There is no excuse to treat anyone the way they do.
Maybe there isnt enough motivation for them to treat us like citizens who have rights. They feel like they dont have to treat us like anything but common scum because there are no repercussions unless they go apeshit and beat the hell out of someone. Even then half the time they get a slap on the wrist. It's too easy for them to say they felt threatened or the subject took an aggresive stance. Someone some day will get sick enough of it that they will do something drastic about it. All I had to do was buy a new vehicle and all my problems went away. Someone else may have a different way to handle being mentally/verbally/physically abused by someone just because they have a badge.
I know several (read a couple dozen) people in law enforcement. They have all told me that unless its someone important (politician or famous person) and they dont beat them without cause (which they can manufacture if need be) they can basically do whatever the fuck they want to do.
There are too many laws/statutes giving too much room for "the officers judgement". That means that they can do what they want and say that someone was resisting or taking an aggresive stance. So no matter what if the officer says you resisted the laws say that its his judgement call if you did or not.
We either have to weed out the bad ones and punish them for their actions or some guy will get a rifle with a scope and solve the problem his/her self. I hate to say it but some of them are gonna deserve what they get. The past 100 years should show that the government and laws to protect us from our "protectors" sure as hell dont work and somethings got to give. I repeat for the FBI monitors that pick up keywords it wont be me, I dont even own a gun.
Jesus Christ, it's bad enough when the mainstream press repeats crap like this, but I would have thought Slashdot posters were capable of reading plain English.
He was convicted of failing to follow direction quickly enough for the border guards. The accusations of assault were found to be baseless.
The sad thing here? Grand juries can issue subpoenas and do all kinds of things normal juries cannot.
In particular, they could have charged the *officers* with a crime had they wished to...
We don't want tourists.
We don't want Trade.
Rest of The World to America :=
We hear you Loud and Clear.
Horse shit. You don't understand the concept of jury trials. Juries have COMPLETE power to render any verdict. Look up "jury nullification" some time. The term sounds like a precise, carefully codified provision of law. It isn't. It's an expression of the power of a jury to express its will free of restraint, long established in common law. The jury can acquit because they think the defendant is a jolly fellow and they like the cut of his jib. Or they can acquit because to do otherwise would be a violation of justice. Regardless of the law! They can acquit for ANY reason. And they CANNOT be compelled to give a reason.
There is not even any basis for a judge to declare a mistrial if he feels that a jury has "obviously" rendered a "wrong" verdict. A mistrial can only be applied for very specific cause.
In short, juries are not limited in what they may consider; their ability to weigh any evidence or fact or feeling or anything else is not circumscribed. The judge may "instruct" in any terms he pleases, and they are free to reject such "instruction."
Long live freedom, and long live the traditional jury system. It is a triumphal expression of putting limits on "the system."
_This_ jury was a compliant, cog-in-the-system disgrace, however. This, sadly, is not a rarity. Non-compliant jury candidates are carefully weeded out by the prosecution during the selection process, if they catch the smell of truly free, self thinking people in the jury pool.
The law cannot answer questions of morality. Only human beings can do that. Lawyers and judges do not have privileged access to morality. They are not more moral than other people. They do not necessarily have a better (or worse) understanding of what is right and what is wrong. What is legal is not the same is what is right, and what is illegal is not the same as what is wrong.
Given the choice of obeying the law or doing what is right, what should you do? Do you do what you believe is right, or do you follow orders? The closer you are to the law - lawyers, judges, etc. - the more likely you are to choose the law. That is your bias. In fact there is no perfect answer. Sometimes breaking the rules is the right thing to do. Sometimes putting personal moral judgments aside is the right thing to do. The thing is, there can be no system of rules that can tell you which is which. Acting morally often requires of us that we step outside the constraints of the system. The law is a human construction. It is a machine, like a computer. It has its uses - but it also has its limitations.
Sometimes there are cases in which two people must choose contrary courses: in which one person breaks the rules, for example, and the other punishes them for it - and yet both are doing the right thing. There never has been a guarantee that all problems will have clean solutions. There will always be flawed judgements. Perhaps the greatest horrors are inflicted by those who believe that there is a perfect rule or a perfect machine. I'm afraid that's what you seem to be suggesting. Whatever the right or wrong of the jurists' actions, your simple recourse to the letter of the law cannot resolve that question. You have replaced the book of God with the book of man - and I say that as someone who does not believe in God.
This stinks.. He was apparently convicted for not collapsing into an unconscious heap of flesh when he was repeatedly punched by a sworn officer.
On a personal note: I found myself in a similar predicament with a city cop once.... I found it useful to feign unconsciousness when struck. I was not arrested in the end. Though without financial resources I was unable to bring suit against the officer or the city even though there were plenty of witnesses around for me to call upon.
That I was not shot or incarcerated seems like a bonus now... live and learn.
Dear Juror "Elbow Spur",
Today, you potentially ruined a man's life even though he did nothing wrong and hurt nobody. You are an asshole. A grade-A, goose-stepping, "just following orders" asshole. It's because of people like you who facilitate tyranny and hide behind flimsy excuses that our world sucks as much as it does.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Don't visit the US
Stay home (and try to pick a country who doesn't extradite - granted the list grows smaller, but still)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
California Criminal Law Review, Vol. 2, July 2000
Abstract:
The national trend, during the past forty years, has been to do away with the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. The right has been abrogated by judicial decree as well as legislative enactment. Elimination of the right is based on several factors, including the development of modern criminal procedure, the ability of criminal defendants to seek redress via other means, and the improvement of jail conditions. In the rush to eliminate a right perceived as against contemporary public policy, the courts have paid little attention to the original justification for the rule - that an illegal arrest is an affront to the dignity and sense of justice of the arrestee - and instead have focused on the alternatives to forcible resistance that have been developed, such as civil suits and the writ of habeas corpus.
Mississippi is one of a dozen states that still permit a person to resist an unlawful arrest. Almost all of these states are located in the South. The question this geographical anomaly raises is why has the right to resist arrest survived in the South, and Mississippi in particular? This article suggests that a possible explanation may be the influence of uniquely Southern conceptions of honor and the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Historians have long acknowledged that Southern culture strongly supports the importance of personal honor and condones a "subculture of violence." This article examines the development and history of the right to resist an unlawful arrest at common law and in the United States, scholarly criticism of the common law rule, and the current status of the rule in the United States, the Southern "subculture of violence" and how that relates to cases involving resisting arrest in Mississippi. All Mississippi cases involving claims of a right to resist unlawful arrest are examined. The language of the Mississippi cases provides support for the argument that the right to resist arrest has remained entrenched in Southern law, and helps to explain why Southern states generally and Mississippi in particular have chosen to retain a common law rule which has fallen into disrepute in other regions of the country.
The DHS is Bin Laden's greatest achievement.
...is that this guy is reasonably famous and this sort of stuff happens to other people who can not simple write on their blog with a few thousand readers.
If the same thing happenend to you, it would be a lot worse.
The consequence? Do not enter countries in which no reasonable protection of your basic human rights exists. You know, like Birma, North Korea and the USA.
By "worse", I meant "no one would know about it, no one would write to support you, no one would give a damn".
He was convicted of obstructing/resisting, not assault.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193
-knewter
A VERY LARGE proportion of those actively serving in the Police, National Guards, and Military in general, are members of, or sympathetic to, the NRA and the like. People in the military (and yes, I was one) are not mindless drones who follow orders from the top unquestionably.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
It seems that the prosecution doesn't contest that the border guard got into Peter's car and punched him in the face.
Nobody seems to be arguing that there was any need for the guard to do this in order to perform their job.
Does this mean the border guard will be investigated for assault and sacked?
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
These "Jurors" (and I use this term loosely) should be outed by the community and ostracized for their inability to do justice. They, and the border guards, are garbage and are deserving of nothing but violence from the rest of the community.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
This is the kind of thing that demands the application of the "Ammo Box"!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
You must be mistaken. What you're describing is just some 3rd world dictatorship. Not the U.S.A.
Waste of taxpayer money number one million three hundred and eighty seven thousand five hundred and ninety three: *Homland* Security agents interacting with people who are LEAVING THE US.
What The Fuck???
Social Credit would solve everything...
not to go to the States for any reason.I avoid the US of A because there hasn't been a lot going on there that I agree with over the last many years.
I have met many Americans that come to Canada, or are abroad, or years ago when I used to visit the eastern seaboard and can easily say that they have all be good people. However, as a group, you seem to like to elect crazy people, do crazy things, and make crazy decisions. So while 1-on-1 I feel nothing but rainbows and butterflies, as a nation you make me nervous. I can vacation elsewhere where it isn't so oppressive (though places like Mexico also isn't really high on my list anymore either for obvious reasons).
If you as a nation want to act like that, you can do so by yourself. My money is probably better spent locally anyway.
It is a good thing, that should enough (stress on enough being a vast majority of the leadership and soldiers) determine that our country is taking too wrong a direction, they will likely think of their families and friends and be more loyal to their needs than to oligarchy or aristocracy. That is why, we who served in the Military, are referred to as "Citizen Soldiers". We are not instructed to follow orders unquestioningly. We are taught to obey lawful orders and uphold the Constitution and most of all, to THINK!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
The question I'd like you to ponder is:
What are the consequences for the border guards for:
1. Unlawfully attacking a person without provocation (as proven in the trial), and
2. Lying in court (as proven in the trial) ?