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.
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.
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.
He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP. He refused.
This is the same procedure Canadian police use during a traffic stop. When you're pulled over, you're supposed to wait in your car. If you get out, you are told to get back into your vehicle. If you refuse, you have disobeyed a lawful order, end of story.
He admitted he got out of the car, and didn't get back in it when he was told to, instead trying to see what the police were doing when they were searching hit trunk (a legal search, btw). So he was also interfering with a police search.
The guy's a jerk and gives Canadians a bad name. If he had done this in Canada, he'd still have ended up in court, so what's the big deal? Oh, right - AMERIKA BAD!
I make enough "In Soviet Amerika" jokes, but in that case, it simply doesn't apply. Peter Watts has only Peter Watts to blame.
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.
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
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:
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.
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
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.
Not sure why you got moderated up, because the court threw out the accusation that he attempted to strangle the officer. The guards' testimony was demolished on cross examination as inconsistent and the only thing that the prosecutor had at the end was that, after the guard had punched him in the face several times (an event which the prosecution did not dispute), he did not immediately comply with an instruction to lie on the ground.
Events like this that make life difficult for the majority of police officers, who actually want to do a good job and protect people from criminals. They undermine the public faith in the police and in the judicial system. If you can be convicted of not following police instructions after they have assaulted you, then why on earth would you ever go near the police, let alone cooperate with them? Whichever legislator thought up that particular law deserves jail time.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The CBC story is wrong - Watts was NOT convicted of assault.
So don't worry, this isn't a blot on your soul, and as a Canadian I can say we still love you all, and hope for the best for you, and apologize for Mr. Watts being a self-righteous jerk who feels he can give less deference to American police than he'd have to show to Canadian police and then whine about "mistreatment" because of the possible bad optics.
Courtesy begats courtesy. It doesn't cost anything to be polite, especially when you're a guest in another country.
the funniest part is that watts was about to leave, not enter.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
I can't even imagine where this timeline of events was created. Probably in your head. It doesn't appear in any credible news source.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Who the hell modded this bullshit up? None of what you said has anything to do with what happened. I'm sick of border guard astroturfers like you evrywhere this comes up.
He was beaten and then told to lie on the ground, not get back in his car. When he asked what's going on, _after being beaten up_, maced. He was convicted for not complying with the order to lie down after being beaten, not assault.
So presumably sentencing is still in the future, with the two year jail term a potential outcome.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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"
>He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
Em, no, that is incorrect. After being repeatedly struck in the face, he was told to lie down, and when he asked what is going on (and presumably why he was just beaten up by the border guard), maced. He was convicted of failing to comply with the order to lie down after being beaten up without any kind of prelude or communication prior to the beating. Not assault.
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
No, he was convicted on the original order to get INTO his car. BTW, contrary to the article, he was not convicted of assault.
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
He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP.
As an Australian this doesn't make sense to me. If a cop here told me to get in my car I would assume I was good to go, which doesn't appear to be the case here.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
That's right. Sentencing is April 26th.
He could get anything from an absolute discharge to 2 years.
>No, he was told to get back in his car, twice. He refused. At that point, they tried to arrest him, he got into his car (too late Chuckles), yadda yadda yadda.
For fuck's sake, for the last time, you fucking idiot astroturfer, no.
He went back into the car when told to. Another officer then ran to the car, opened the door of the car, punched Watts repeatedly in the face, and dragged Watts out of the car. What he did not comply with is lie down on the ground after being beaten up like that.
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.
He was told to get in his car because he was never supposed to exit it. In the US (and I presume, Canada too) it is common practice for the driver to remain in the vehicle if stopped by the police.
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
I can't even imagine where this timeline of events was created. Probably in your head. It doesn't appear in any credible news source.
Ah crap. The command was to lie down on the ground, not to get back in the car.
As for the source, it's direct from Dr. Watts himself:
"So what it came down to, ultimately, was those moments after I was repeatedly struck in the face by Beaudry (an event not in dispute, incidentally). After Beaudry had finished whaling on me in the car, and stepped outside, and ordered me out of the vehicle; after I’d complied with that, and was standing motionless beside the car, and Beaudry told me to get on the ground — I just stood there, saying “What is the problem?”, just before Beaudry maced me.
And that, said the Prosecutor in her final remarks — that, right there, was failure to comply. That was enough to convict."
Whichever legislator thought up that particular law deserves jail time.
as do the jury. At a minimum.
FGD 135
The jury, on the other hand, concluded based on video evidence that Jones was lying through his teeth about the series of events...
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.
He got out of the car after being hit in the face THEN he asked what was happening and refused to get back in. Great going. You can't even read, Is that SOP as well?
According to a juror, when he did get into the car, another officer joined him, punched him in the face, and told him to get back out. He was trying to clarify conflicting orders. Even in the military, that's a get-out-of-jail free card.
Besides, why have we (Americans...I couldn't care less about how Canucks want to kowtow) let The Powers That Be that we let them push us around like this in the first place. Compliance laws are just another way for our Lords and Masters to deal with unruly serfs who don't submit quickly enough.
The jury, as Watts said, made the correct decision. They decided that the law, as written, had been broken. It had. The jury are not asked 'is this law just' they are asked 'was the law broken?' Jury nullification is very rare in Canada and the Jury is not told that this is an option. Hopefully the judge sentencing him will see some sense and fine him $1 or something.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is more of an issue than it appears to be. In the US there is a distinct problem with different ethnic groups behavior when they are given a command. Very few people demonstrate total, docile compliance and some groups tend to talk with their hands or walk about while expressing anger. To some extent we do have the right to expect all people to respond in very limited ways to authorities. But having said that we end up arresting and charging certain races a lot more than others when only the moment of the interview is at issue.
The sick part is the remedy is a disease. When someone is arrested and convicted society almost always suffers a great loss of tax dollars. I wonder how many people we can afford to convict.
So don't worry, this isn't a blot on your soul, and as a Canadian I can say we still love you all, and hope for the best for you, and apologize for Mr. Watts being a self-righteous jerk who feels he can give less deference to American police than he'd have to show to Canadian police and then whine about "mistreatment" because of the possible bad optics.
See this post. I'd hope he would complain about "mistreatment" by Canadian police under the same circumstances. While he was convicted of obstructing/resisting the officers, he never attempted to physically assault them (but they sure did accuse him of it, although that apparently fell apart under cross-examination). Are you saying it's normal for Canadian officers to, essentially, physically assault suspects just because they're on a power trip or something? No one can possibly claim that this was a justified escalation of force against Watts. Since when is it even normal procedure to punch people in the face when telling them to get out of their car?
So I see it like this, technically Watts did break the law he was convicted of, but the officers in question are largely to blame for the situation getting to the point where he broke that law, and they in no way acted properly. They acted like power happy bullies, and I hope Watts brings a civil suit against them. They either need to be fired or taught how to do their jobs properly.
http://www.stclaircounty.org/DCS/search.aspx
Last name: watts
First name: Peter
Search results: 2 records
(click on first record)
(click on Charges)
Num Type Charge (Pacc) Asc/Trf Charge Description Offense Date Dsp Evt
1 ORG 750.81D1 POLICE OFFICER-ASSAULT 12/8/2009 GTY JTH
See? Dsp = Disposition, GTY = Guilty.
It doesn't matter what the reasoning was ... it's a felony conviction that carries the name of assault on a police officer.
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.
The ONLY person who is saying it's about the second order is Watts - and he contradicts his own statements made just after the incident. He admits he didn't get back into the car when ordered to. He's trying to use the ensuing problems as a smoke-screen, because he can't admit that he brought this on himself.
I would love to know why the reading comprehension of the moderators is so bad, because it clearly states that he was NOT charged with assault. He was charged with resisting a lawful order.
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
I don't trust anyone to do the right thing. I trust people, juries, governments, etc.... do abuse whatever power is available to them whether it be intentional or through negligence. All I am saying is that he shouldn't have made himself a target unless he wants to be a martyr and follow through with making his point.
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 are quick to support assault, so long as the assailant wears a badge. You really think the best option for the guards was to hop into his vehicle and slug him in the face? Then when he exited the vehicle the 2nd time at their request, he is told to get down and he is under arrest, he asks why (apparently a big no no in your book), and so is pepper sprayed and threatened with a baton. You say he is a jerk. You say he is to blame for his own victimization. I mean, let's boil this down, looking at everyone as equal people deserving of respect and not making one person more important that another. In a situation that doesn't involve police or guards, usually the person who throws the 1st punch is the villain. What makes this situation different? They have a job that requires them to look through some cars. They don't want him out of his car while they do this. Apparently there is an argument. Eventually he gets back in his car. That should have been the end of it. But, in your opinion, no, the guy being upset was obstruction, so now its time to get rough with him.
I say no, don't get rough with him, because getting rough with people unnecessarily is a huge evil. What was so critical about that situation to justify physical assault?
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.
There may be some truth in that, but when you get a drivers license, you're supposed to know how to behave behind the wheel of a car. The rules for when you're stopped by the police are the same in Watt's home province (Ontario), so there's no "I didn't know" excuse.
Similarly, when you enter a country, you're a guest, and you should behave like one. Don't go into their home and piss on the carpets. (That's a famous quote: recognize the reference?)
When the cops pull you over and tell you to get back in your car (twice) while they (lawfully) search your trunk, they've already told you one time more than they have to. Some people are ass-holes: they mistake being given a second chance as a sign of weakness, rather than the warning growl that precedes the bite.
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:
So now people call you a jerk, if you not succumb to the big OBEY signs?
Fuck you!
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Assault has nothing to do with physical contact. That's battery. Also, he was convicted of failing to obey a lawful order, not assault.
He's lucky it was in the US and not Canada.
Also, Watts was the one who started it by refusing, twice, to get back into his car while they were initially attempting to search his trunk. If he had done as he was told, none of this would have happened. This is the same procedure in Watt's home province of Ontario at a traffic stop by the cops. You stay in your car while they do what they have to do, whether it's searching the trunk or running your ID.
P.S. Remember this! It's not whether you are innocent or guilty. It's whether or not they can convict you.
They shouldn't have convicted. If even one of them had understood jury nullification, they wouldn't have (or, at best, they'd have gotten a hung jury): at least one person claiming to be one of the jurors has posted on here that he wished he hadn't had to convict, and that he'd had the chance to try the cops. Acting like a jerk isn't justification for assault and battery (which is what the cops did to him).
The law is wrong. It is abusive, vague, and tyrannical. Police are supposed to be our servants, not the other way around. This case should have been nullified.
All that being said, he was really lucky to get out of an encounter like that alive. I read for too many stories about victims who were murdered by cops because they weren't respectful enough. Of course, those shootings get reviewed (by fellow cops) and are always found "justified."
Cops have gotten worse than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from.
Having just read Dr. Watt's latest post I'll stipulate that the conviction was not on the original charge. But the docket is most confusing.
Too bad the jurors had never heard of Jury Nullification
Also, Watts was the one who started it by refusing, twice, to get back into his car while they were initially attempting to search his trunk.
Why should I not watch them search my trunk? How do I know that they aren't stealing and/or planting stuff there? If I can see it happen then I can testify to who did what and when; if I just find out after the fact that something has been planted or is missing, I can't testify to who did it, how he did it, etc.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
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.
Not quite what happened - it was only after they went to arrest him, after he had been told, twice, to get back into his car, that he went back into his car. Too late by then. At that point, the decision to arrest has already been made, and it's "get out of the car and get the cuffs on him" time.
Mom: "Peter, clean up your room now or you can't go out."
Peter: "No!"
Mom: "Peter, last chance, clean up your room now or you can't go out."
Peter: "No!"
Mom: "Okay, you're grounded. And you still have to clean up your room!"
Peter: "Okay, I'll clean up my room. Then can I go out?"
Mom: "No."
Peter: "That's not fair! You're a big meanie!"
He could have avoided it by getting back in his car as he was required to do by law, and as is also the practice in his own home city. Instead, he behaved like a snot-nosed little brat.
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...
How about "You have no legal right to. It's a bridge, they're doing a search, for your own safety and that of everyone else, just stay in your car, and the whole thing is being recorded on camera"
The jurors convicted after watching the video. That should tell you something.
Hey moron, did you not read the jurors description of events AFTER HE SAW the video.
Your attempt to create a version where these asshole come out looking good is pathetic.
It seems nothing will convinced you that the guards behaved like total assholes, and should be convicted of assault themselves.
Typical of the US police it seems from what I read.
Such behavior by low IQ assholes should not be tolerated
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.
As an Australian this doesn't make sense to me. If a cop here told me to get in my car I would assume I was good to go, which doesn't appear to be the case here.
Indeed. Standard procedure back in Oz when pulled over is to get out of the car (unless it would be unsafe to do so) and wait. Typically, until you get out of the car, the Police won't even open their door (they're worried you'll do a runner).
Note to Australians in the US: when you are pulled over by the police, STAY IN YOUR CAR WITH YOUR HANDS ON TOP OF THE WHEEL. If you have to reach into the glovebox (eg: for registration papers), clearly communicate to the officer you are going to do this before you do it. Getting out like you would at home can lead to results ranging from confusing (the cop telling you to get back in) to terrifying (yelling, guns drawn, etc).
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.
You mis-read. The GP was saying that the fact that simple failure to comply escalates the charge to felony resistance is the absurdity which should be removed from the books. What makes it far, far worse is that his failure to comply was such a blindingly reasonable response to having been punched in the face merely for asking, "what's going on?" a point which appears to have been clearly established in the case.
No matter what happens, both officers really must be dismissed at this point. Their claims were shown to be false in court and they committed severe breeches of protocol in getting into the vehicle and beating the driver without any cause or notable resistance beyond his having been foolish enough to get out of the car to ask what was up.
It's been conclusively proven that the story about the scuffle and Watts trying to choke one of the officers was a lie.
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.
Jury nullification is never described as an option here in the States either, because it's not considered an option under the law. That's not to say it doesn't (or shouldn't) occasionally happen, just that as far as the justice system is concerned, it's not supposed to.
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
Watts is an asshole, pure and simple.
Choke and die motherfucker. Please.
You're blaming the victim.
No amount of being beaten for failing to follow retarded orders is ever okay. The police have those powers so they could theoretically use them to save lives, etc - not so that every little bullying action is swept under the rug.
IF what he did was a crime, and by crime, I mean in the eyes of the people who fund the system not just in the cops' eyes, then warning followed by arrest would have been warranted, not beatings. There's a world of difference between temporary non-compliance and a threat needing subduing.
That they've managed to cherry-pick the specific set of actions that makes him a criminal without discussing their actions that make them violent psychopaths is a mere legal technicality not a societally valid defense.
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.
It's not a question of who said what
Sure, if we leave it for slime like you, it's not. You'll twist anything to draw useless distinctions between simultaneous events.
the jurors saw the video. They convicted. End of story.
No asshole. The middle of one story, about someone being beaten for no good fucking reason. And the beginning of the story for a room full of jurors who only now hear about how they could have just refused to convict for the crime of failing to stroke police ego (er, sorry, failing to follow pointless orders with a smile). That's going to leave them bitter and wondering why they bother paying taxes, worried someone will rig another innocent jury and do the same to them some day.
Yeah yeah, this trial, these charges, etc. All hand-picked of course to remove any question of the legitimacy of the orders, the urgency, etc. Their conviction was assured because they were talking about such a narrow issue, but that's why it's totally irrelevant to the larger issue of abuse of authority.
If Watts is stupid it's for being born into a world full of thugs and thug defenders like you.
The DHS is Bin Laden's greatest achievement.
Exactly. Nothing justified this.
If they were afraid and needed to control him they wouldn't close to punching range in his car where he could grab a weapon, they'd have backed off and used pepper spray. (If words didn't work - surely five minutes of talking someone down is cheaper than applying force.) Fists and batons are pretty much always pointless violence.
And this isn't efficient or useful. Better roadside manner would have gotten more cars searched which is what we're paying these jackasses to do.
People start arguing technicalities and lose sight of the real issue, which is that these people are our employees and we're not getting good value. At best they're engaged in pointless busywork. I bet everyone on the law enforcement side got a ton of overtime out of this.
It's telling in these police-brutality threads that the thug justifiers always use the brutality as tautological proof of why you shouldn't do something. "They told him not to, he did, and then they had to beat him." They never get into why a public trained to unconditionally follow orders would be a good thing.
...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.
The jurors convicted after watching the video. That should tell you something.
They're dangeroius morons not fit to call themselves rational human beings?
FGD 135
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.
I'm not defending the police's subsequent actions - what I am saying is that if he hadn't been such an ass-hole when he was first stopped, none of this would have happened. He was behaving like a jerk, and he ran into someone who was an even bigger jerk.
If they hadn't been cops, just armed thugs, he would have complied with their original request to get back in the car. It's specifically because they were cops that he felt he could ignore their original order to get back in the car while they searched his trunk.
If he hadn't been such an ass-hole when he was first stopped, none of this would have happened. He was behaving like a jerk, and he ran into someone who was an even bigger jerk.
If they hadn't been cops, just armed thugs, he would have complied with their original request to get back in the car. It's specifically because they were cops that he felt he could ignore their original order to get back in the car while they searched his trunk.
There is no way I'm defending the police's subsequent actions - what I am saying is that if Watts hadn't been such an ass-hole when he was first stopped, none of this would have happened. He was behaving like a jerk, and he ran into someone who was an even bigger jerk.
If they hadn't been cops, just armed thugs pointing guns at him, he would have shit his pants, shut his mouth, and complied with their original request to get back in the car while they searched his trunk. It's specifically because they were cops that he felt he could ignore their original order to get back in the car while they did their search.
His behavior was at the very least the same sort of passive-aggressive crap that spoilled brats pull every day.
First, everyone who's been near a TV for the last 20 years knows about jury nullification.
Second, if Watts hadn't been such a passive-aggresive ass-hole when he was first stopped, none of this would have happened. He was behaving like a jerk, and he ran into someone who was an even bigger jerk. Karma is a bitch.
If they hadn't been cops, just armed thugs pointing guns at him, he would have shit his pants, shut his mouth, and complied with their original request to get back in the car while they searched his trunk.
I suspect that a large part of it is that the police in the US, unlike here in Canada or in the UK, are far more likely to be facing someone with a gun at hand and the willingness to use it. That sort of day-in, day-out stress has to have a long-term effect.
Then there's also the failed "war on drugs" effort. Dealing with the crimes that result from drugs, rather than treating the underlying causes of drug abuse, so you end up with the revolving prison door, and the highest incarceration rates in the world. That's a second morale-buster.
Add to that the whole "we're at war" security theatre stuff that everyone is subjected to ... it's no wonder that cops in the US are more likely to be one mis-step away from an altercation.
Per the post above, this apparently is not what happened.
* 1. The incident occured as Watts was exiting the US. He was stopped by US border patrol for a random "exit inspection"
* 2. Watts initially got out of the car and requested an explanation. At that point, one of the border patrol officers told him to get back in the car. He did so
* 3. An officer named Beaudry rushed over to the scene, got into the car with Watts, struck him in the face and told him to get out.
* 4. Watts exited the car and Beaudry ordered him to get to the ground.
* 5. Watts did not comply, but rather demanded an explanation.
* 6. Beaudry pepper-spayed watts and threatened him with a baton. At that point Watts lay down, was handcuffed, and placed under arrest.
So he got out (unwise), got back in...
then it went south-- what the hell was the other officer doing getting in the car, hitting him, and then telling him to get out- he'd already complied.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
As recently as 1969, it was still viewed as a legitimate option. But the trend is towards suppressing it.
Doesn't matter what they say- it's a legitimate option. Even more so with the judiciary and law enforcement officers as corrupted by power as they are these days.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Nope. He was told to get back in his car, refused, was told a second time, again didn't comply, and it was only when the officer went to arrest him that Watts went back into his car - too late.
Well if the crooks running the scam tell you to do something, particularly if it enhances their power over everyone else (including you) and enriches them in the process ... well, that means of course that an upstanding, justice-loving Canadian citizen should obey immediately and then salute and sing Oh Canada while standing at attention, no?
Should we rename this place to Sheepland, baaaaah?
"It's specifically because they were cops that he felt he could ignore their original order to get back in the car while they searched his trunk."
You keep saying that as if repetition will make it true. He did get back into the car as requested, and was then assaulted without reason by this asshole.
Why are you so desperate to defend the actions of these people? They should, and in my country would be in serious trouble for such outrageous behaviour. It is NOT against the law to be an asshole, and these poeple are paid to do their job, not punish someone because they are an asshole.
When a cop last tried shit like this with me I was parked near the main police station.
I made it clear that if he continued his appalling behaviour he would spend the next 2 weeks filling out paperwork to defend agaist an official complaint of police harrassment. That shut the useless officious prick up real fast. It seems it is time the US took complaints against fasctist pigs seriously, and introdused a similar complaint system.
Personally, after reading of peoples experiences i cant imagine why anyone would on to visit a country so uncivilised as to allow their law officers to behave so appalingly.
--
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) ?
It's not behaving like an asshole to question orders, get out of a car, etc. But even if it was, it's still not a justification for violence in a non-emergency.
There is no way I'm defending the police's subsequent actions
Bullshit, by talking about what he did you are justifying their actions. Why else do you think you're talking about it?
everyone [...] knows about jury nullification.
The same everyone who is always instructed by a judge that they do NOT have that right.
if Watts hadn't been such a passive-aggresive ass-hole
Sorry shithead, but cops/border guards/etc are OUR employees. Like starbucks clerks, this is what they're paid for.
If they hadn't been cops, just armed thugs pointing guns at him, he would have shit his pants, shut his mouth [...]
And if I made a credible threat to kill you, you'd stop posting. Which means what exactly? That you're an asshole for not shutting up without me having to?
Same lesson as Viet Nam.
Same lesson as bailing out Wall Street.
Ever sat on a jury?
I have. Jurors know. Maybe it's just American jurors who are too stupid/sheeple to exercise their rights, but Canadian jurors have done so often enough, to the point of forcing the laws to be changed because jurors here won't convict if they think the law sucks.
Ever sat on a jury?
I've seen some jury selection, and read questions used in others. Without coming out and asking anything that'd give the rest of the jury any ideas they do their absolute best to weed out anyone who knows ANYTHING, especially about law.
After that the judge instructs the jury as to their specific role, always leaving out their ability to refuse to convict and usually specifically denying this.
Jurors know.
Some. Those who survive the cull, know which legal views of the judge to ignore, etc.
It needs to be part of the instructions though, and judges need to be fired/charged for lying about a jury's role. Because should-know obviously doesn't equal does-know and an uninformed jury is dangerous.
Same lesson as bailing out Wall Street.
Let's see. Wall Street had done nothing wrong, pulled through a border stop, got out of its car at the "wrong" time, got beaten and charged with assault?
And this author guy, he conspired with thousands of himself to defraud the government and public to the tune of trillions. When caught he suffered no punishment and was actually given more money to prop up his ponzi schemes.
Yeah, I can sure see the similarity there...
No, actually, the issue is that cops shouldn't beat people. That's my issue.
This incident started when the border guard needlessly beat an unarmed person, wasting time, money, and trust in the government, as well as merely hurting an innocent.
I don't care what was done to disrespect this officer's authoritah. He's got a job and his temper isn't a valid excuse for beating customers.