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.
The evil part, which you have glossed over, is that disobeying a lawful order (which he did, stipulated) should NOT equate to felony assault (which is what he was accused and convicted of). That it does, at least in Michigan, is a woeful misstep in legislation and jurisprudence, and a shameful blot on the soul of every American, including me.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Adolf Hitler both wrote some interesting stuff while they were locked up.
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
It doesn't surprise me that he'd be confused and disoriented, or that he'd be slow to comply. Try punching someone in the face some time. It hurts.
The really sad bit is that under these laws, you could not only punch someone in the face, you could pepper spray them, kick them in the nuts while they were down, and then tell them you wanted them to stand up and empty out your pockets. Don't do it because you're screaming and in pain, or trying to run away? You're committing a crime.
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
That's pathetic. Regardless of the letter of the law, if the guy didn't do anything that should amount to criminal behavior, and his behavior was reactive - a response to being unjustly assaulted - then the jury failed utterly to do its job. If the law is being applied unjustly or unfairly in a case, as it seems to have been here (the assault was committed by an officer, not by the defendant), then jury nullification is a justifiable, and in fact morally obligatory, response.
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.
The 6 points do establish that the border patrol agents gave conflicting orders (2 and 3+4). From that, the fact that Watts asked for an explanation. The officer that was ordering him to the ground was conflicting the order from the first officer. An explanation would be appropriate as officer #2 is asking him to violate an order from officer #1. From such, asking for an explanation is an aid to the officers not a non-compliance, in fact it was Beaudry that resisted the actions of the first officer. As a juror, I would have found as such and therefore Watts was not guilty.
Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
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.
I don't know if you know this, but refusing to comply with a law enforcement official has a couple hundred years precedent stating that it amounts to criminal behavior.
As the juror said, two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to screw the cops, you behave like a model citizen and then sue the shit out of them when they abuse their position.
then the jury failed utterly to do its job.
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin. The Judge knows the law, but does not have the right to decide whether or not the law has been followed - that right is reserved for a jury of the defendant's peers. This is for the defendant's protection, as no man should have the power to be judge and jury.
So the Judge explains the decision making elements of the trial to the Jury, these are always extremely specific. He also explains that the ONLY things the Jury is to consider are elements directly related to the charges being prosecuted. The Judge is then there to handle the procedural side of the trial while the Jury listens. The officers were not on trial, Peter Watts was. There was absolutely no way for the Jury to consider the officer's conduct, their conduct was not on trial. Extenuating circumstances only come into play at sentencing, but they won't let you off the hook for committing a crime.
As much as you may not like it, not complying with an officer of the law is a crime (get out of the car, get down on the ground, put your hands on your head, etc), and Peter Watts definitely committed a crime in refusing to obey the officers. Now, he should be able to press charges against the officers for assault, but then it's up to the Prosecutor to bring a case against the officers. If they don't, he is free to sue the Attorney General's office, the Border Patrol, and the State for justice.
That the police assaulted him does not mean he gets to break the law, it means both he and the police broke the law and should be tried separately.
In other words, if you think this should have ended in jury nullification, you are a buffoon.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I agree. To be charged with failure to comply in the middle of an unjustified and probably illegal assault is a gross moral wrong that everyone can see. You can't just cherry pick the non-compliance out of there and convict. Well, obviously you can. It stinks. I would not have convicted him if I were free to choose.
Nonsense. Any single juror can pronounce the defendant "not guilty," and it would have the force of law behind it. Same goes for a summary judgment of "not guilty" from the bench, or a refusal by the assigned judge to hear the case. There has to be full agreement between the grand jury, the judge, and the petit jury for a conviction. That's at least 25 people, maybe more if there's more than 12 grand jurors.
As for "only Peter Watts was on trial," the answer for that is simple. Ask all the jurors, "Faced with the same situation, would you have done the same thing? And if you did, could you still see yourself as a law-abiding citizen?" Any one juror answering "yes" to the second question would mean an acquittal.
When two police officers are giving contradictory orders, as in this case, and the result is a charge of "failure to comply," it's entrapment, pure and simple. The shocking thing is, as I type this, I see no mention of the term on here, in well over 100 comments.
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.
I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it. Here's is my response.
I was not comfortable with my vote
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.
Actually, you do. Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.
but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice. Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray. It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.
That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours?
On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing. What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"
In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.
FGD 135
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin.
The jury is there is part to decide if the law should apply in this case. If we just wanted people to decide if the law had been followed, we would be better served by creating professional juries who were trained in the law. Lawyers (and judges are lawyers) don't want the general populace to understand this because it reduces the importance of their carefully written laws that require years of study to understand what they mean. The purpose of juries is to decide if the defendant has committed a crime, regardless of what the law says. The justification for the judges' very strict instructions is that the jury's discretion is only supposed to work one way: find the defendant not guilty even if he violated the letter of the law, if the jury thinks the defendant is guilty of what should be a crime but did not violate the letter of the law, they are supposed to find him not guilty.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There are a few things:
1. The border patrol agent is the face of the american government, and thus the face of USA
2. The agent acted out of line, with physical abuse (punches to the face, unneccesarily maced)
3. It's caught on camera.
4. The agent seem to have no consequences from it.
5. The unlucky victim is found guilty of breaking the law, by essentially asking why he was punched in the face
Are you still wondering why people react? That guy should be given a public apology, and the border guard should be kicked out.
Instead, the law (aka government, aka USA) supports him, and criminalizes the victim of the abuse.
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
When the guard is performing, or has just performed, an illegal act (e.g. assault and battery), thereby revoking their privilege of authority.
I have to wonder if that's covered anywhere under "colour of law" legislation. If it isn't, it should be.
The reason a jury of your peers is involved is so they can refused to return a guilty plea if they think the crime wasn't committed, was justified, or the law is bogus.
The legal system has been so corrupted that following the laws as written just means you are screwed. Hell, they've probably executed a couple hundred innocent people at this point.
Every time you serve as a juror (as i will next week), you protect your right to jury nullification. If they ask you questions about your beliefs on it (or "will you follow the law as written") then your correct answer is that you will do so. And then once you are on the jury- do what is right- do what is just.
Don't argue jury nullfication in the jury room and do not tell any other juror you believe it . Simply say, "not guilty- not convinced- not sure- but not guilty".
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Although the way you wrote this is a bit inflammatory, I'd have to agree. Most people here (Australia) would be aware of MLK and what he did, but only in rather vague or general terms. Hitler on the other hand ... Australia along with most other Western nations spent the best part of 6 years fighting him so no introduction needed there.
I dare say most of the world would be similar. MLK was a great man, but his achievements were primarily US domestic ones. A bit like if I, as an Australian, were to mention Eddie Mabo - most outside of AU would not know off the top of their head who he was (not that I'm trying to say Mabo was on the same scale of importance as MLK).
Still I don't think it's invalid to put them in the same sentence. The GGGP didn't try and state that they were equally influential ... just that both of them wrong interesting things while locked up :) Which is true.