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.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Adolf Hitler both wrote some interesting stuff while they were locked up.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
I agree. Not to mention that fact that the U.S. will have to fall a long, long way before people from the real armpits that Planet Earth has to offer stop trying to get in here any way they can (I could name one in particular, but then I'd be accused of being a bigot.)
The attitude of the original poster ("Soon nobody will want to come to America") is just wishful thinking at best, truly ignorant at worst. I know a number of immigrants who hail from, shall we say, less-enlightened countries (one described the country of his birth as a "typical Communist hellhole") and there's no way you would ever get them to go back. America is still the Land of Opportunity to them: it's all relative you know.
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.
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.
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.
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.