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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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 jurors watched complete video of the entire encounter, and then found Watts guilty.
They also said that the border guards acted like assholes, but given the law and Watts's actions, they had to find him guilty.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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.
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
I'm finding it hard to believe you put both of those guys in the same sentence.
>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.
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.
I'm finding it hard to believe you put both of those guys in the same sentence.
Why? They're both notable historical figures. Ditto the Marquis de Sade.
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 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."
On the prison baseball team, he will play second base.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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."
Too bad the jurors had never heard of Jury Nullification
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...
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.
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.
He was convicted of obstructing/resisting, not assault.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193
-knewter
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