Writer Peter Watts Sentenced; No Jail Time

shadowbearer writes "SF writer Peter Watts, a Canadian citizen, whose story we have read about before in these pages, was sentenced three days ago in a Port Huron, MI court. There's not a lot of detail in the story, and although he is still being treated like a terrorist (cannot enter or pass through the US, DNA samples) he was not ordered to do any time in jail, was freed, and has returned home to his family. The judge in the case was, I believe, as sympathetic as the legal system would allow him to be."

Comments

Allahu ackbar!

[Luke727]

*pushes detonator*

That's something anyway

[dbIII]

It shows the Judge thought it was bullshit that was a waste of taxpayers money via the court system as well.
Time to get some adult supervision at those border posts.

Re:That's something anyway

[jgreco]

Adult supervision? Heck, my kids know to behave better than those guards.

Re:That's something anyway

[OrwellianLurker]

Adult supervision? Heck, my kids know to behave better than those guards.

My palm is resting on my face, sir. He's implying that the guards have the maturity of children.

Re:That's something anyway

[Dhalka226]

And the grandparent is implying that it wouldn't even take an adult to see how horribly the guards were acting; even other children would get it.

Re:That's something anyway

[kramerd]

To be fair, he got out of his car while it was being searched in a routine border search. Not randomly on the street, but to make sure that you have declared everything you may be bringing across borders (you should recognize that this would be reasonable). Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol. Never mind that its posted 100 times in plain sight that you are to remain in your vehicle at all times.

The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF. Neither did a jury which found him guilty of felony non-compliance (which I have to assume is the reason he was overly restrained). This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer, and his punishment is correctly somewhere in the middle (less than 2 years in prison, more than nothing).

To be accurate, however, we would have to read the judge's notes on the case to understand the judge's thought process. There is no basis for assuming that the judge thought the case was a waste of taxpayer money (if a judge thinks this, they tend to throw the case out, not wait for a jury to come back with a verdict).

Re:That's something anyway

[WarJolt]

Or more precisely the judge thinks the government is overstepping its bounds. Viva la revolution!!! I wonder if I'm on the terrorist list yet.

Re:That's something anyway

[MichaelSmith]

If you are worried about a gun shouldn't you get the occupants out of the car first? They could have handguns in their pockets but they could have a bazooka in the back seat, so keeping them in the car seems like bad tactics to me.

Re:That's something anyway

[_KiTA_]

It shows the Judge thought it was bullshit that was a waste of taxpayers money via the court system as well.
Time to get some adult supervision at those border posts.

There will never be adult supervision at these border posts, TSA, or anyplace similar.

The reason is simple enough -- the powers that be know that most of these positions are complete wastes of time. They're there to placate the rubes. That's all. If you want in the US, you get in. It's not hard. It will never be hard.

In addition, very powerful, very important people put very stupid children in positions of power at these places, in order to fill up the resumes of these very stupid children before they can become the new generation of very powerful, very important people (the stupid is assumed redundant by this point).

Any form of adult supervision would break both clauses -- an adult would take one look at the extreme waste of money and energy and run screaming (or break down crying), and/or fire or penalize the very stupid children (or, more likely, attempt to and then be smacked down by the aformentioned broken down crying adults who have already given up).

Re:That's something anyway

[jgreco]

Sorry, I see how that was unclear. I was intending to question the word _adult_. I'm used to kids who are able to keep an eye on what's going on and who report bad things to their parents, or will even step in if doing so will prevent someone from getting hurt. I meant to suggest that I know some kids who would be able to supervise those guards successfully, but I see how I failed to state that clearly.

When your kids can tell the difference between rude, mean, nasty, and actual danger, it makes you wonder why border guards cannot. Sorry for any confusion.

Re:That's something anyway

[blackraven14250]

Its not like he couldn't have read up on how border crossings work prior to heading across the border to learn that his vehicle may be searched and that at no time should he leave his vehicle unless explicitly asked to do so by border patrol.

He's a writer, not a reader, duh!

Re:That's something anyway

[kramerd]

Its not just a gun.

He could have a knife, a baseball bat in the passenger seat, he could be on drugs, he could be a terrorist, he could just be some civil rights jackass who will make a routine stop take two hours instead of two minutes (plus everyone else gets to wait). I assure you, if he has a bazooka in the back seat, one way or another, he is not getting across the border.

Meanwhile, having everyone get out of their vehicle and following a procedure to be searched (because once out of a vehicle, you must be searched) at a border is absurd. You would have to have everyone waiting in line watch a video regarding procedure (in 20 different languages), take an exam on it, and then make it a felony to do other than procedure, which, while not just ludicrously expensive, would also not make it any safer for officers or travelers.

If you are border patrol and you think someone might have gun, the phrase is "hand where I can see em while you have yours drawn and the vehicle surrounded.

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, man. So great. For getting brutalized and locked up, spending days in fear, Watts doesn't even get jailtime. Land of the free.

Re:That's something anyway

[OrwellianLurker]

Sorry for any confusion.

This is the internet. I expect to be confused.

Re:That's something anyway

[shutdown -p now]

Perhaps the judge had crossed the border recently.

I have to do it as part of my work, and I can easily believe his account.

Re:That's something anyway

[JWSmythe]

I've questioned that action before. Basically, it's about control. It's pretty obvious if your detainee turns around in the vehicle to aim a gun. If you invite them out of the car first, it's pretty easy to get out with a gun in hand but still covered by the vehicle, and then someone's going to get dead.

From what I remember of my training, in normal vehicle stops, you should keep complete control of the situation. This is for the officers safety. A non-combative detainee should have no problem complying.

1) Instruct the driver verbally (in person or over your loudspeaker) to turn off the vehicle.

2) Instruct them to put the keys on the dash, roof, or toss them out the window (as appropriate for the level of the stop).

3) Instruct them to keep their hands on top of the steering wheel. This could be "keep your hands where I can see them", but to avoid confusion clear instructions are to be given.

When then approaching the vehicle, it is typical to have your holster unsnapped (as appropriate) and your hand on your sidearm. As walking up to the vehicle, you pay attention to things in the vehicle by looking through the rear and side windows.

You should not stand in front of the driver (like by the side view mirror), but stand at the B pillar (just behind the drivers head). Make them turn their head to look at you, which puts them off center for any sort of attacks. It's hard to draw a weapon and aim behind you very quickly.

Once satisfied with the safety of the scene, you may step forward at the officers discretion. You are opening yourself up to an unsafe position, but it may be necessary.

The detainee is to be verbally told not to proceed with any actions which could be dangerous. That includes reaching into pockets, or putting their hands into areas of the vehicle that can't be clearly seen (such as a console box).

Not every officer follows this protocol, and occasionally it turns out badly.

Since I opted to not follow that as my career path, I'm never on the more dangerous side of it. Instead, I do what I would expect to be told. In an average traffic stop, I:

1) Put on my hazard lights for my safety, and to let the officer know that I am complying with his request to stop.
2) Roll down the front windows for clear visibility into the vehicle.
3) Stop the vehicle in the safest location possible (turn down a side street and stop immediately, rather than stop on a busy road.)
4) Prepare my license, registration, and proof of insurance for inspection.
5) Shut off the engine, and place the keys on the roof.
6) Place my hands on the top of the steering wheel.

When they approach, if I am carrying a weapon (as I have been licensed for in the past), notify the officer if there are any weapons in the vehicle. I haven't been stopped when a weapon was present, but I would request to be searched and transfered to the back of their vehicle.

Any actions which may normally seem irrelevant I request explicit permission for. This includes reaching into my pockets, opening the console box for additional paperwork, or standing up out of the car.

Everything said must be calm, polite, and most importantly not a confession of anything. "Do you know why I pulled you over" should never be responded to with an answer. You may have been speeding, but they only noticed your taillight was burnt out. That would add a speeding ticket on top of a petty fix-it ticket, based on your spontaneous confession. "No sir" is the appropriate response. Answer every question with "yes sir", "no sir". As any good defense attorney will tell you, the minute you said something that you didn't need to, you fucked up. The best answer to any question is still "I have nothing to say without my attorney present." It may be silly for a traffic stop, but how do you know that they didn't get a call about

Re:That's something anyway

[shadowbearer]

  I remember from the first time this story was posted on slashdot, that some people made the exact same comment. I agree with it*. If the officers on the scene are really nervous about the occupants of the vehicle, and want to search it without having to worry about weapons being used by those occupants, they should ask the people to step out of the vehicle, and place themselves somewhere (a "safe area") where one officer can cover them easily while the car is searched; and where if they need to be gunned down, it can be done so without endangering other innocent bystanders.

  This is how law enforcement officers just about everywhere do it, if they have any reasonable suspicion that the occupants might be dangerous. It makes sense. Get them away from the vehicle, away from places where they can hide a weapon, and somewhere they can be supervised more easily. I also seem to remember reading somewhere in that same thread that many professional law enforcement officers thought that the training given to border guards was horribly inadequate.

  Obviously this won't protect against potential "booby traps" within the vehicle itself; but that is part of the hazards of the job, regardless. It also might slow customs searches down somewhat, but so what?

  * I believe I did as well, but don't remember and am too lazy to search for it.

SB

 

Re:That's something anyway

[dbIII]

That is a Judges job and there is no "viva la revolution" about it. Portions of government overstep their bounds all of the time and get quietly told not to treat citizens, corporations non-citizens etc in certain ways.
No conviction is pretty well equivalent to "he did it, there is a law against it but nobody in their right mind should really give a shit this time". At least that's how a lawyer explained it to me.

Re:That's something anyway

[shadowbearer]

He's a punk who thinks the 'Man' is trying to repress privileged white guys.

  You are an idiot.

SB

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the Man is trying to repress everyone.....

Re:That's something anyway

[poetmatt]

jgreco's reply was quite appropriate.

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is a search by American border guards of a vehicle entering Canada "routine"? Seriously, it may be standard procedure now but it's a new enough policy that without an explanation up front it's going to be a very confusing situation. When all this started a lot of folk were assuming it was a typo in the stories that he was searched by US guards while returning to Canada... surely he was leaving Canada and entering the States... why else would American guards be searching his car? This was not a normal everyday border screening, it was some new policy that was not explained to him before it was enacted.

Re:That's something anyway

[kramerd]

I at no point had that assumption. It would not matter which direction he was heading; it is reasonable to assume that when crossing an international border, you may be randomly or non-randomly searched.

Re:That's something anyway

[Sabriel]

Check Peter's history. He has a previous conviction for being belligerent to a cop.

From Peter's blog: I do not have a criminal record in Canada. I have never been convicted of anything in Canada; those of you who want to find evidence to the contrary, knock yourselves out and good luck.

So cite proof or retract.

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Cowpat]

From what I remember of my training, in normal vehicle stops, you should keep complete control of the situation. This is for the officers safety.

So, if a police officer and a member of the public go into a traffic-stop situation, the safety of the member of the public can be sacrificed for the safety of the police officer, despite the fact that in that situation the police officer is actually being paid to take the risk to his safety.
I believe that someone around here once told me that I have a 'slave attitude' - I now pass that title on to you. Take care of it.

Re:That's something anyway

[ChrisMaple]

This is why a Prius is so wonderful. Floor a silent car with your keys in your pocket, and you take off.

Re:That's something anyway

[Gordonjcp]

2) Instruct them to put the keys on the dash, roof, or toss them out the window (as appropriate for the level of the stop).

How does that work with keyless ignition? Most cars that have that would need you to throw the keys a good couple of hundred metres, and won't stop if you drive out of range. Not even if you drive all the way into town leaving the keyfob on the kitchen table. Yes, there's a story behind that.

Re:That's something anyway

[hitmark]

what the heck is "routine" about being stopped while leaving USA For canada, on the US side, in a location other then the actual border crossing?! Also, it may have been routine for the guards, but it clearly was not routine for him.

Re:That's something anyway

[hitmark]

i think what was dug up there was a 30+ year old issue, that i cant recall the details of at present.

Re:That's something anyway

[hitmark]

i am surprised the trial had to go to completion before the judge made that, well, judgment.

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

he got out of his car while it was being searched in a routine border search

Not so routine... he was searched by the US border patrol on his way out of the US. This isn't the normal procedure, and one that Watts hadn't encountered before. The officers began searching his car without explaining what was going on, so he asked why. This whole incident happened very quickly (sorry, I'm having trouble finding the exact timing).

Never mind that its posted 100 times in plain sight that you are to remain in your vehicle at all times.

There are now signs that say "CAUTION: EXIT SEARCH AHEAD" but they weren't there on December 8th.

Pepper spray is a light sentence

Officers aren't supposed to be dispensing punishment. You know, the whole judge and jury thing.

I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back

Sure, because making stuff up is the best way to get at the truth. It was established at the trial that he didn't fight back.

This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer

Yes, this law is a real grab bag. He was convicted of not obeying a lawful order, not assault.

his punishment is correctly somewhere in the middle (less than 2 years in prison, more than nothing)

I think the judge gave him as little as possible, given that the jury found him guilty. No jail time, the fines were $500 plus court costs.

Re:That's something anyway

[atamido]

How is anything he said unsafe for the detainee? Sitting in the car has to be magnitudes safer than between the car and traffic. The question of safety here is between the two people. The officer has at least not been a felon. The person in the car is a complete unknown. In that case it makes sense to leave the unknown in the car and have the officer walking around.

Re:That's something anyway

[atamido]

Is there some sort of new high powered Prius that I don't know about that can outrun a cop car?

Re:That's something anyway

[atamido]

An excellent comment. People don't realize that if a person gets out of the car, closing 10ft of distance takes about half of a second, and then they are wrestling your gun away from you. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, an officer never wants the person outside of their car. There is just too much potential danger. (There are a lot of real life videos from cop cars showing officers being shot and killed because of this.)

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Cowpat]

because, in the end, 'keeping complete control of the situation' involves doing what happened here, i.e. using force against the member of the public if they try to retain some of the control for themselves. It's not the police officer defending themselves against an attacker, it's retaining control through force in the name of their own safety, and at the expense of that of the public.

The officer has at least not been a felon. The person in the car is a complete unknown. In that case it makes sense to leave the unknown in the car and have the officer walking around.

It makes sense for the officer, in terms of their own control (& therefore safety). It does not make sense for the unknown who is also unlikely to be a felon and their control (& therefore safety). The difference is that the police officer is paid to risk their safety, and the unknown person isn't.

Re:That's something anyway

[atamido]

JWSmythe was describing general policy, not the specific situation being discussed. I'm not a LEO (never have been, never want to be) but I've seen a lot of police training videos and I've never seen or heard of "beating down the guy standing there to maintain control" theory that you're putting forward.

AFAIK, an officer will ready themselves and verbally command a detainee multiple times. After that they pull out their weapon of choice for protection (club/taser/gun) and make it clear to the person that they are willing to use it to enforce their command. And even then, the officer is unlikely to use a weapon (or violence of any sort) unless the person charges or shows a weapon.

The fact that the border patrol lied about the situation should tell everyone immediately that they are the ones that screwed up. If there isn't an immediate investigation, then there should be a lawsuit. Because someone needs to clean up that crew.

Re:That's something anyway

[honkycat]

The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF.

I'd believe it because the record doesn't say anything about his fighting back though. Pepper spray is absolutely not reasonable against someone who's just asking questions. It's great that the signs are there and perhaps he should have known not to get out of his car, but in the absence of violent actions or serious resistance, their response was absoutely out of proportion.

IIRC the jury indicated that their conviction was based on the fact that the actions of the officers was not on trial, which is unfortunate. IMO this is a pretty clear miscarriage of justice, which is unfortunately consistent with the law. Law != Justice.

Re:That's something anyway

[JWSmythe]

    That was actually an exercise we did in training. The student playing officer was in his 20's, ex-military, and was an MP. He was real quick (and full of himself). He had a dummy pistol (bright orange plastic, no moving parts) holstered. In the use of the dummy pistols, we would just say "bang" to indicate we would take a shot. He was given the instructions that this was a random incident with a confrontational person.

    The aggressor was one of the officers training us. He was not armed.

    The aggressor stood about 10 feet away. The officer was to diffuse the situation, but use any force necessary including shooting the aggressor. He was already warned, "In this exercise, I will disarm you and shoot you. Try not to get killed."

    The aggressor was yelling, moving around, and waiving his hands. The officer was trying to calm him down, and even had his hand on the pistol, but it remained holstered. The aggressor picked his moment, tackled the officer, pulled the weapon from the officers holster, put it to his head and said "bang". Even though he knew what was going to happen, the officer didn't have time to draw his weapon and fire. Instead, had this been a real world scenario, he would have been dead.

    Always, *ALWAYS* keep your distance from a potential aggressor. Most people don't want to go to jail, and some will use any force they can to avoid it.

    In a vehicle stop exercise (dummy weapons, real patrol cars), I played the part of the officer. It was a felony traffic stop (the plates matched someone with a felony warrant). The student playing the part of the aggressor was instructed to comply with just a little force, and he had a dummy weapon in the car that wasn't suppose to be drawn. He stopped the car, but wouldn't shut it off. As I stood up behind my car door, he drove off. The second time he stopped, I again used my car door as cover and instructed him in the same way as I described in the previous post. Instead of complying, he got out of the car, with one hand behind his back. I didn't know if he had his weapon or not, so I remained behind the car door with my (dummy) weapon drawn. He stepped towards me quickly and I saw the weapon being pulled from behind his back. I said "bang bang" indicating two shots fired.

    The instructors bitched out the student playing the aggressor, because I was suppose to have held him at the car until backup arrived (another car was instructed to wait one minute before arriving), and then arrested him. I knew the backup car was coming, because it was established that since I knew it was a felony stop, I would have called and waited for backup. The backup car had just pulled up as I fired. They did say, if this was the real world scenario, with the dashboard camera and officers witnessing, it would have been cleared as a good shooting. It was clear that the aggressor intended to shoot me.

    All of the training I received was good. Instead of working in that field, I got into IT. The pay in IT was much better, and there's less of a chance of getting shot. :)

Re:That's something anyway

[JWSmythe]

    The keyless ignition vehicles are newer than my training. I'm sure they have revised policies for that part. In reality, you could put up or toss a different set of keys. It's one step in the procedure. Not everything is fool proof. There's a reason that the police are taught offensive driving techniques too. Some people will run.

Re:That's something anyway

[Rallion]

I'd never really considered this before, but I can't imagine going through that type of training and still actually wanting to do that kind of job. Obviously, that's just me,

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. I am not a lawyer, but I do have Legal Aid lawyers on one side of my family and people who have been unlawfully harassed by police for political reasons on the other, and am friends with a couple of RCMP constables.

MOST police officers are just out doing their jobs. Unfortunately for the people they pull over, their job is to get convictions. Additionally, if you are pulled over you have no way of knowing if THIS cop is a bad cop or has just had a bad day so far.

1) NEVER pull onto a side street or other secluded area. If anything bad should happen, you want as many witnesses as possible. You do want to be far enough off the road that neither of you is in any danger though.
2) Make no comment about presence or lack of weapons. If you say you have none but the cop thinks your boxcutter or screwdriver is a weapon, you're sunk. Conversely, if you say it's a weapon, but it's not in plain site, it could be an unlawfully concealed weapon. Firearms are different though. "I have no firearm" or "I have a licensed firearm" are appropriate answers to a question about whether you have a weapon.
3) Generally make no comment other than your Name and Address.
4) Do Not EVER consent to a search without a warrant.
5) Do not call the officer "Sir". This implies higher status. The words you want are "Constable" (Canada/UK) or "Officer" (US) or their first name if you know it. These are a reference to role, not status.
6) ALWAYS get and record the officer's full name and ID number near the beginning of the conversation.

Re:That's something anyway

[nanoflower]

Okay, I haven't been through one of these border crossings but my assumption would be if the police (or border guards) are going to search my car that I should get out of the car. It's the natural assumption that they would want unfettered access to the car. It may be the wrong assumption, but it seems it would be a natural one.

Re:That's something anyway

[JWSmythe]

On #1, I was only indicating to pull over where it's safe. Going a few miles down a country road is obviously a bad thing. Turning and stopping within 2 car lengths gives you the visibility of the highway while maintaining everyone's safety. Pulling into a gas station parking lot is ideal, where there are plenty of witnesses. Leaving the officer between your car and a lane of fast moving traffic will only make him more anxious. It all depends on where you are. I was pulled over on I-10 40 miles out from Ft. Stockton, Tx. The only choice for pulling over out there is on the side of the interstate.

    Here is an example of what can happen.

    On point #2, I was licensed in my state for concealed carry. That license permitted me to carry in over a dozen other states in the US. To the best of my knowledge, once you have such a permit in my state, it is shown when they search for your license plate or drivers license.

    My statement would usually be, "I have a concealed weapons permit. I have no weapons in the vehicle."

    I never had an instance where I possessed a weapon in the vehicle and I was pulled over. Not that I didn't have one a lot. I frequently had to drive through a rough neighborhood with a history of carjackings which is why I got the permit. It was just in that time, I was never pulled over for anything.

    It's safer for me to tell them, than for them to find out and think I'm hiding a weapon in the car. This statement is actually strongly recommended during the classes to obtain the permit.

    I was pulled over in Los Angeles by the LAPD, and told them exactly what I stated above, and besides a funny (nonthreatening) look, nothing more was said of it.

    On #4, I agree totally. They can ask. You don't have to give consent. Being pulled over for a traffic violation is not grounds for searching your vehicle without probable cause. I've simply said "I'd prefer if you didn't". That's my polite way of saying it without being confrontational. If they had probable cause, they would obtain a warrant and search. My vehicle has never been searched. In my state, anything visible from outside of the vehicle is fair game. If they see the handle of a pistol under the seat, they now have probable cause to search without a warrant.

    I've only ever once given consent to search without a warrant. That was in the case of a death in my house (natural causes). The detective made it clear they only intended to search two rooms (where the death occurred, and the adjoining room). In that case, it was only a formality, since I had invited them in. We called 911. When they arrived, I yelled from the room the incident happened in for them to come to me while I was performing CPR. If we had refused, they could have easily obtained a warrant, but it wasn't worth the hassle for anyone. I actually opened up the whole house for everyone (police, detectives, first responders and paramedics). I told them to feel free to get a drink from the fridge if they were thirsty, and they were free to use the restroom next to where they were. Polite hospitality does not need to be forgotten, even in the worst of circumstances.

    On #5, I don't know their rank markings, assuming I could see them. It's easier to not insult an ranking officer by saying "sir" than say "officer". Different departments frequently use different rank insignia, if that department wears it at all. It's simply a sign of respect. If you recommend and choose constable or officer, so be it. I believe there are areas in the US where the officers are known as constables.

Re:That's something anyway

[labnet]

In Australia we have an oversight body called the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission)who looks the behaviour of the public service, and particularly law enforcement.
http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=10736

Does the USA have a similar authority?

I'm suprised the border patrol officer wasn't sacked for his behaviour.

Re:That's something anyway

[toddestan]

Not to mention that since it's a Toyota, if they track you down, you can just claim it took off on it's own.

Re:That's something anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The best answer to any question is still "I have nothing to say without my attorney present."

and after he realized I wouldn't break, we had a nice conversation

I'm confused by this. Shouldn't you be wary of any conversation they try and engage with you? At what point do you decide to stop answering with "I have nothing to say..." and take them up on their conversation?

Thanks for the detailed post though. Very informative.

Re:That's something anyway

[JWSmythe]

    Oh, I made sure the conversation didn't drift towards anything related. He started telling me about legal street car racing, and I asked questions about where it was done. He probably wanted me to come back with an admission that I've done illegal street racing, or even legal racing which would indicate my interest in speeding, but that wasn't going to happen.

    I drifted the topic to his motorcycle, and ask him about it. I told him that I like motorcycles. Then it went to driving in the rain, and finally we were talking about the weather. :) "Well, it looks like rain, I should be going, and you should go find a dry spot. Have a nice day."

    Really, there are lots of unrelated things they can ask about and hope to get something resembling a confession about. You have to be very careful about what you say. If they get you to open up, it's very easy to say the wrong things. If you want information, asking the right questions is a wonderful tool.

    I had a PI trying to dig information out of me a while back. I didn't have much to say, because it was from years ago and I didn't remember much at all. I got friendly with them, and started asking more questions than I was vaguely answering. Instead of being interrogated, I got more out of them than anyone else who was involved. They tried a few times to bring it back to ask me questions, but I still didn't have anything to say.

    It's just practice in listening and responding. Most people like to talk, and if you're good enough about it, you can get anything you want from them, even if you're on the side being interrogated. It works for interrogators, and it works for con men. Once you've dealt with enough of each, it comes pretty easily.

    What did you get from that? I drive a car (or truck, or SUV). I've talked with cops, PIs, and con men. And if I don't want to, I'll never give a straight answer.

    And most importantly, 95% of what I say is complete crap. It's up to anyone trying to investigate me to which parts are crap and which ones are truth, even in what I post online. :) I'm not really worried about investigators. I have a nice thick file with the FBI that contains all my interesting background information.

Just passing through...

[Itninja]

I can see the government not wanting a man to enter or pass through the US, but it seems a little harsh to disallow a guy to enter or pass through DNA samples. I mean, sometimes you gotta pass through those DNA samples to get to critically important chromosomes.

Re:Just passing through...

[MichaelSmith]

He should have patented his DNA before he entered the US.

Who Is Peter Watts??

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who is this guy? Some third rate author that hardly anybody has heard of worthy of being news for nerds because he's writes sci-fi? Other than this predicament he got himself in, what other stories about him can I find him on here? I thought so, none.

This is such a non-story its ridiculous.

Re:Who Is Peter Watts??

[binarylarry]

He writes erotic fiction based on well known science fiction properties. His latest book, Jean Luc Picard: Stone Cold Space Pimp, was amazing, I hear he won an award for it.

Re:Who Is Peter Watts??

[Idiomatick]

Oh you may have modded him funny mods but secretly you wished it were true. Who WOULDN'T buy a Startrek book titled "Stone Cold Space Pimp"?

Re:Who Is Peter Watts??

[Protoslo]

I owned (and had read) first editions of all five (or four and a half) of his novels before the first story about him, so I don't think that he's that obscure. There are plenty of more popular authors whose books aren't as good. And now, because of a felony "non-compliance" conviction, he will be unable to enter the United States again. That's quite a hefty punishment for getting out of your car at a border checkpoint (especially with a superfluous beatdown in the bargain). Is that the result of a "good" law? You might see him at WorldCon 2010, but he'll be SOL if he wins a Hugo in 2011 (Nevada). A felony conviction will fuck over an American citizen.

Most importantly (for slashdot), he has released all of his novels and a number of shorts for free on the web under a Creative Commons license. That makes him as slashdot-worthy as Hans Reiser.

Re:Who Is Peter Watts??

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 361,470 days left. This is who we are.

Re:Who Is Peter Watts??

[V!NCENT]

Yeah I heared some retards keep saying that based on zero scientific reasoning, just like they did before. The earth should have already imploded/exploded/pole-shifted/climate-shifted a thousand times by now...

What about the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that they can still taser a guy for not obeying two contradictory orders and wondering aloud at what's going on?

I wish that tasers would get treated like guns, and that the cops would have to answer for each time they used them. They're less lethal, which is NOT the same as non-lethal. Even if one believes that they're safe when used properly, there are serious questions about whether they're being used properly some of the time.

And that's a damn shame, because I have had the privilege of meeting some fine police officers who don't deserve to take the flak for the trigger happy folks from this story.

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

Cops do have to explain their use of taser just as much as their use of a baton or chemical weapon (pepper spray). It is less than that of a gun because it is not to be used in situations requiring lethal force. The decision to use a taser is dependent on the actions of the threat facing the officers, explicitly as a defensive weapon. For example, if the officer says "stay in your car" and you get out of your car, the officer is correct to use a taser. Always.

Here's the policy:

http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/vwebauthor/B1771739182D96E085256D550047F938

Re:What about the cops?

[maxume]

Is that "the" policy, or is it simply "a" policy?

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

Neither.

Try reading it again, in context.

Re:What about the cops?

[shadowbearer]

  About twenty years ago, I once called a police officer an asshole, to his face, in front of his immediate superior. It was justified - that man was behaving like a psychotic over a minor traffic issue (jaywalking) involving a friend of mine. The officer took out his baton and threatened to "beat me into submission", at which time his superior collared him and led him back to the squad car, came back and apologized to us. The first officer was suspended without pay and later dismissed from the force as being unfit to be a law enforcement official. My friend brought suit against the local PD - it scared her pretty badly - and although she wasn't awarded damages, the verdict by the judge contributed to the officer being dismissed from the force.

  At what point do citizens lose the right in this country to speak up when they are being harassed unfairly by an official of any kind, or when they see someone else being harassed unfairly?

  Watts never offered violence (according to other witnesses; the one border patrol officer who was required to be there at the sentencing and who claimed that Watts attacked him first, Mr. Andrew Beaudry, waived his right to a victim's statement during the sentencing; that and a few other things tell me that he was probably lying about the events.

  There are enough incidents such as this that go on to suggest that perhaps we need to start scrutinizing our border guard (and LE) hiring practices in a much more thorough manner, and disciplining them when they step out of line. Yes, it's a stressful job. Yes, it has the potential of danger. But anybody wearing the uniform who loses their head when there is no real physical threat to them simply does not belong in that job .

SB

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

That officer was terminated because he acted outside of the policy required for use of force or threat of use of force. No one is arguing that when police act outside of their abilities that such action is justified.

The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physical threat existed at the time, and acted as one should; that is, as if a real threat in fact did exist.

You, on the other hand, should not have called a police officer names to his face when he was acting like a psychotic. You could have asked the supervisor to make sure that your statement that the officer in question was acting in such a manner, perhaps with examples, be placed a written police report, and gone to court and asked that the offending officer be dismissed based on such behaviour. Instead, you added fuel to the fire, so to speak. Way to be just as much of a jackass.

I realize it was twenty years ago and maybe your cellphone didnt exist, nevermind take video, but if you hadn't called him an asshole, maybe your friend wouldn't have suffered and had to file a suit. Maybe the supervisor would have recognized how the other officer was acting and taken remedial action, and maybe the psychotic might have been able to get training or help instead of dismissed. Maybe the officer would have threatened someone else twenty minutes later and the same actions would be taken. Regardless, you had no reason to agitate the officer.

Re:What about the cops?

[Belial6]

They also increase the danger for themselves and every other law enforcement officer. Between the crimes I have personally witnessed police officers commit, the 'explanations' I have had off duty police give me for why it is OK for police to commit crimes, and witnessing police officers superior and colleges cover up crimes committed by their fellow police, I have to assume that in any physical altercation I witness between the police and anyone else, is a rogue cop.

I might be convince otherwise with evidence, but lacking evidence beyond two men in a conflict, the only rational assumption is that the person you know is a member of an organization that openly commits crimes as an matter of practice is the aggressor, and the person that you don't know commits crimes is the victim.

When the police allow members of their organization to run amok, they loose the support of the populous. That puts every officer in more danger.

Re:What about the cops?

[lena_10326]

The situation here that occured, however, is that officers attacked a man who got out of his car in an area where he should have known not to get out his car. Quite frankly, based on that information, the officers in this situation did nothing wrong. They did not know whether or not a real physical threat existed at the time, and acted as one should; that is, as if a real threat in fact did exist.

There was a time when police used violence as a last resort. It is now the first resort. It is sad that people like you and others willingly accept that.

Re:What about the cops?

[shadowbearer]

  You, on the other hand, should not have called a police officer names to his face when he was acting like a psychotic.

  And you have obviously never been in that sort of situation, when you feel that someone you care for is being threatened unreasonably.

  The rest of your post indicates to me that either you are very young, or if not, very naive. I am neither. You really should not assume so much.

  I realize it was twenty years ago and maybe your cellphone didnt exist, nevermind take video

  Yeah, back then it was word against word *sarcasm*. In any case, this officer already had a history of abusing his authority, otherwise his supervisor would not have taken the actions he did at the time. This all came out during the civil suit, and both the judge and the officer's supervisor said that my actions at the time were correct, even if my language could have been a bit more civil.

  I have to say, that I hope you never find yourself in a similar situation. I thought much the same way as you did, before that event, and afterwards I recognized just how stupid I was being in blindly trusting anyone who holds any sort of absolute (meaning physical threat) authority over me.

SB

Re:What about the cops?

[walshy007]

beating someone senseless as a safety precaution.

That you find this acceptable anywhere at any time 'as a precaution' speaks volumes about you more than anything else.

Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.

It's still less dangerous than being a construction worker or cabbie, what effective police need to do is maintain control of the situation without resorting to physical violence. Any point where it devolves into violence where none is shown by another party is a failure on the police officers behalf.

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

Wow, you quoted me out of context and made it say something completely different. Shame on you.

Try again, this time without lying about what I said or how it makes you feel about me.

For the second point, police officers do not need to wait until someone takes action against them. Quit being an idiot.

Re:What about the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

People used to respect police officers

And now they just stay away from them because they know there's no situation a cop can't make worse.

Respect is earned.

Re:What about the cops?

[AK Marc]

I haven't accepted it because it's wrong. Why have you accepted violence against the non-violent as acceptable and to be encouraged?

Oh, and the risk hasn't changed significantly. Either you are ignorant and posting incorrect information as fact when you have no evidence of it at all, or you are a liar. You are more likely to die of homicide on the job as a retail manager than a cop. Being a cop is safe. Perhaps it's because they shoot first and ask questions later, and perhaps it's in spite of it.

Re:What about the cops?

[walshy007]

Appears I missed the 'it is sad' part, but read all else, my mistake, makes you not like it but yet you still endorse it, odd.

For the second point, police officers do not need to wait until someone takes action against them.

So it is acceptable then to use force/pepper spray/taser on otherwise peaceful people? This is what I had issue with. If a person is calm, non violent and not running away, how can force be justified?

It promotes the mindset of 'beat up first, oh shit, sorry guy' which seems fine and dandy to you, oh well, perhaps some day you will be subjected to it yourself.

Getting beaten up for stepping out of your car comes under this same guise, if he was running away restraint could be justified, but a beating for stepping out of a car? come on.

Re:What about the cops?

[Abcd1234]

Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.

Citation needed. Pandering to nostalgia is the last resort of a simple mind. Every single generation thinks it was better "in the old days", but inevitably, the precise opposite is the case.

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

Actually, I already pointed out that being a cop is safe because they have policies that make them safe. There is no reason that a retail manager can't also take precautions. Police (still) don't go around beating people as step 1; they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice. I don't encourage violence against the non-violent as a matter of practice, and your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding. Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-violent. Two minutes of sitting in your car and waiting for the officer to walk over to speak with you is much better for you and the officer in the sense that the officer doesn't have to decide whether or not you are an idiot or a threat and probably you will be able to travel into or out of the US instead of ending up in a jail cell.

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

For the at least 5th time in this topic, no it is not ok for anyone to use force against someone who is not at least perceived as a threat. If you take actions that reasonably would be perceived as a threat, it does not matter if you are non-violent. The act of stepping out of your car in an area where signs are posted stating not to do so will be seen as a threat. How could it possibly not be?

I am insulted at this point as to how many people think otherwise. Put yourself in the officer's shoes.

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm

Re:What about the cops?

[AK Marc]

Police (still) don't go around beating people as step 1

Yes, they do. They approach a non-violent man standing in a parking lot, shout an order at him and then beat him. Just like the guy famous for "don't tase me bro" who was tased and beaten for speaking out of turn. OK, then not step 1. They ask nicely once and only once and then start hitting. They don't even need to leave time in there for compliance. So I'll call it step 1(a).

they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice.

Defensively? What did he do that was dangerous? Standing still in a parking lot is what they accused him of. If it was so dangerous, why did they talk to him first? And if it wasn't dangerous, why couldn't they have given him an additional 5 seconds to comply before beating him?

your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding.

That's arrogant to the point of being 100% incorrect. "If only you understood, you'd have to come to the same logical conclusion as me." There's absolutely no room for "you may have the same understanding as me and still come to a different conclusion."

I do understand. I've been pulled over multiple times for being in the wrong neighborhood. I've been harassed. I know friends harassed. I understand exactly what they do and why. "Contempt of cop" is a felony, and that's what he did. I understand that. I don't think it's right. I don't think it's defensible. There's no reason to beat an unarmed man who's standing still when they attack. He was a threat to no one.

Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-violent.

I agree. Evidently, you are ok with beating non-violent people. You think that if someone who has a distorted thought of threats thinks a non-violent person who isn't acting in a threatening might, at some time in the future, become a threat, then it's ok to start beating them before that happens. I understand what you are saying. And I disagree. No claims of "if you only understood" will change my thoughts on this.

Two minutes of sitting in your car and waiting for the officer to walk over to speak with you is much better for you and the officer in the sense that the officer doesn't have to decide whether or not you are an idiot or a threat and probably you will be able to travel into or out of the US instead of ending up in a jail cell.

You are making things up. The officer was talking to him, then walked off. He was looking for clarification of the situation from the person who was talking to him. He had no idea it would be 2 minutes until he was dealt with. There was no "pull over there and wait for a minute and I'll get right back." The officers treated him like a child. They gave him an incomplete order and expected him to guess the rest. And they acted like bad parents, spanking him when he exposed their bad orders and stupid policies. And he wasn't even trying. He just wanted to know that he was being subjected to the very-rare screening on exit and how long he'd have to wait before someone could get back with him.

Re:What about the cops?

[walshy007]

If you take actions that reasonably would be perceived as a threat, it does not matter if you are non-violent.

I have an example of a situation where by your logic a person should have been beaten to a pulp, and wasn't.

A friend (in the military) was travelling by air interstate when subjected to a random bag scan by the explosive detectors. Having taken that bag to the range it of course went off.

What occurred was he was taken off for questioning, and released after everything was checked into, total loss of two hours of time, no physical altercations, etc. I'm guessing having explosives detectors go off at an airport would constitute a 'threat' in your eyes? keeping a cool mind while maintaining control of a situation is better than doing something stupid the first moment something strikes you as out of whack.

Put yourself in the officer's shoes.

If I was an officer, why would I want to engage in physical violence where there is no need?

Re:What about the cops?

[kramerd]

Thats a pretty bad example.

From airport security perspective, explosive detectors are not, in and of themselves, a threat. The false positive rate (and the possibility of machine purposeful malfunction simply to conduct random searches or test worker reactions to prevent instant beatings, because officers are constantly tested to make sure that they aren't the type of person who will beat people without a damn good defensible reason) creates a situation where positive ID of explosive materials are a reason to move someone outside of everyone else for questioning and physical inspection of contents (possibly).Nevermind that your friend was metalless and shoesless at the time while walking through a metal detector and not having access to the bag. Your military friend was likely flagged as military when tickets were purchased/obtained, which could require an automatic search that was claimed to be random. I know that if I buy tickets for flight the same day as takeoff, every single time, I get randomly selected for additional screening. You make the mistake of assuming that the bag scan was in fact random (it could have been, but who cares unless explosives are actually found?). Your example points out officers acting appropriately based on information that you reasonably should assume that they had but don't in order to make not beating someone look like an accident.

If I was an officer, why would I want to engage in physical violence where there is no need?

This is a basis for my thought process, officers are not generally going around beating people up when they don't have to. People are (or definately should be) of the mindset that police officers are around to help them, not to infringe upon their rights. Officers are not asking you to stay in your car because they want you to step out so they can punch/tase/pepper spray you. They really want you to stay in your car so that they don't have to decide if you are someone who needs to be put in a headlock or if you just aren't smart enough to drive a car but choose to do so anyway. Sometimes they are going to perceive a threat when they might not have to (because you havent pulled a gun yet but you got out of your car and they really can't tell what that bulge in your pocket is and you look kind of angry even though they aren't doing anything at a border search) and you might get your ass beat, but it is not going to happen unless you are doing something to deserve it (like getting out of your car when you have been instructed not to, or refusing to pull over, or brandishing a weapon).

Re:What about the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

> For example, if the officer says "stay in your car" and you get out of your car, the officer is correct to use a taser. Always.

The problem is that two different cops told him two different things. One told him to get out, the other to get in, so I don't quite buy that absolute.

I'm glad that there are some standards, though. One other thing that has been effective is when there are citizen councils (i.e. non policemen) who review the department's use of force. Given that they get to see all the cases where force was used, they can have a better idea of the problems facing the officers and a good idea of when force was used inappropriately.

I can only hope that such measures are becoming more widespread.

Re:What about the cops?

[boombaard]

So, when you say "society has changed", what you actually mean is that "cops are now far more paranoid, trigger-happy fuckers than before"?
The point that multiple people have made here, and which you so strongly seem to be ignoring/denying, is that society has hardly become more violent than it was 40 years ago. The only difference is that we have more news sources today who cover similar shit.
But by all means, be accepting about the fact that LEOs perceive so many threats that they will likely soon start hitting children who "escape" vehicles during the "search process".

Re:What about the cops?

[putaro]

People with your attitude are the reason that the police beat people senseless for stepping out of their car for a moment. It's a border crossing, not a prison lock down. He didn't have a gun, he didn't offer violence. At worst he failed to quickly comply with an order. The appropriate punishment would have been a ticket, not a beating. The fact that the law allowed these officers to administer a beating and then press charges against him simply shows that the law is wrong.

Re:What about the cops?

[Abcd1234]

You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm

Well, nice work going off the rails, there... See, you said this:

Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.

Absolutely nothing in your bitter little tirade worked to support that supposition. Absolutely none of it.

But, hey, don't let that stop you. Please, bitch away. Tell me how it was so much better back in the good ol' days, when men could beat their wives and children in the comfort of their own home. When those nasty "colored folk" would, for god sake, stay in their place. When men were men, women were women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were *real* small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Re:What about the cops?

[lena_10326]

Have you ever considered there is a connection between officers using violence on the public and the loss of public respect for police officers? Respect is earned and easily lost due to bad behavior.

Re:What about the cops?

[maxume]

What context do you think is there? The story is about a federal border crossing in Michigan and you have linked an educational website in Tennessee that (apparently) advises cities. You make no mention of any legal scope (which, in context, means that "Here's the policy" implies that there is a single policy used everywhere). Nor did the AC that you replied to provide any context.

Re:What about the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say exlosive detection is not a threat because of the false positive rate. Wouldn't you agree that "every person who steps out of a car is a threat" has a high false positive rate too?

Re:What about the cops?

[lena_10326]

It's a border crossing, not a prison lock down

I've been searching for a way to describe the police state in USA. You just supplied it.

USA is in state of prison lock down.

Re:What about the cops?

[walshy007]

like getting out of your car when you have been instructed not to

By the signs that are everywhere? Something tells me if he knew that it was a bad thing and was going to get his ass kicked he wouldn't have done it. More likely something like this occurred, but with obviously worse results.

Your military friend was likely flagged as military when tickets were purchased/obtained,

This would also explain why on average I get searched every second flight, silly me had assumed it was illegal or some such to target people specifically in 'random' searches, and that it was just suspect looking young males getting picked out by a guy.

Re:What about the cops?

[MartinSchou]

It promotes the mindset of 'beat up first, oh shit, sorry guy'

That's just a flat out lie!

When's the last time you've read or heard about the police apologizing for mistakenly beating up someone? Tasering them? Or even shooting them? There's never an apology. There's some kind of lame excuse along the lines of "well, we thought he was armed" or "he looked dangerous".

But there is never an apology.

Re:What about the cops?

[atamido]

  About twenty years ago, I once called a police officer an asshole, to his face, in front of his immediate superior. It was justified - that man was behaving like a psychotic over a minor traffic issue (jaywalking) involving a friend of mine. The officer took out his baton and threatened to "beat me into submission", at which time his superior collared him and led him back to the squad car, came back and apologized to us. The first officer was suspended without pay and later dismissed from the force as being unfit to be a law enforcement official. My friend brought suit against the local PD - it scared her pretty badly - and although she wasn't awarded damages, the verdict by the judge contributed to the officer being dismissed from the force.

This is basically how things are supposed to work. An officer gets out of line, his superior pulls the officer out of the situation, and his superior attempts to correct the matter. Then the department internally recognizes the problem and takes steps to correct it (suspension pending an investigation). People get out of line in every profession, the key is what their organization does about it.

Had this been the first incident from the officer, then being awarded damages (outside of possibly paying for therapy) from the department wouldn't have made sense. On the other hand, if the officer should have been suspended already and wasn't, then that would be negligence on the part of the police department, and an award would have made sense.

Outside of the department it would be possible to sue the officer directly. He was a man in a job and he was acting out of line, completely overstepping his (and other's) rights.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad departments out there. Ones that would rather cover up the truth than face the problem. It's a top-down problem, and not one that can usually be fixed by a lawsuit. It requires a change of attitude starting from the top.

Re:What about the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

This would also explain why on average I get searched every second flight, silly me had assumed it was illegal or some such to target people specifically in 'random' searches, and that it was just suspect looking young males getting picked out by a guy.

Why would you ever think that was illegal? It seems to be like making it illegal would be massively stupid. If there's a reason to check out a particular person, authorities should be able to do so. Calling it random keeps people (both those being searched and everybody else) calmer, which is good for security.

If it were illegal, you options in the event of a seriously suspicious person would be to let them go, let it be known that there is a suspicious person in the airport (and essentially accuse a person who is probably innocent), or simply hope really hard that you pick that person's name out of a hat.

Calling targeted searches random might offend people's sensibilities, but that doesn't mean it's not the safest and most efficient option.

DNA sample?

[Anonymous Coward]

more like visiting the glory hole, lol.

Common Sense

[Frosty Piss]

Look, obviously to most people, this whole thing is bullshit - just like most of the US border / TSA crap.

But honestly, in "today's new world", if you give the TSA / Border Drones shit, you're going down. The lesson? Be polite, give 'em what they ask for, and say "yes, sir". Otherwise, expect a bad outcome.

Re:Common Sense

[Volante3192]

Erm...apparently, according to what I've read about this, even IF you give them what they ask for, they can fuck you over.

So...what what was the point were you trying to make again?

Re:Common Sense

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Yes, indeed. If there is one take-away from all this, it is obey. Hell, if a Canadian isn't polite enough, you need to be on your best behavior. So keep your head down citizen and don't ask any questions. If beaten, be sure to thank the border guard, and try to not bleed on their uniform. They hate when you bleed on their uniform.

Re:Common Sense

[shadowbearer]

  Yeah, and border guards never lie, just like cops never lie. Sure.

SB
 

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you were bullied as a child.

Re:Common Sense

[Frosty Piss]

Yeah, and border guards never lie, just like cops never lie. Sure.

You do understand that border crossings are covered by lots of CCTV, right?

Re:Common Sense

[MichaelSmith]

Robert Heinlein used to claim that an armed society is a polite society but he was wrong. An armed society has these dangerous pockets of paranoia because police, border guards, etc expect to be shot at and consequently behave as if everybody they deal with is going to do that.

I can understand a Canadian being rather confused by this situation.

Re:Common Sense

[lena_10326]

The lesson? Be polite, give 'em what they ask for, and say "yes, sir". Otherwise, expect a bad outcome.

Paper's please... pic 1 pic 2

Re:Common Sense

[Asic Eng]

The man was CONVICTED.

Of being beaten up by police. It's not enough that they beat people with impunity, they want to throw them in jail for the offense of being punching bags.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. My. God.

This Canuck MANIAC is free to go out and do it again??

Who knows how many more of our border guards will suffer injury and humiliation at the hands of this one-man literary terror machine?

Once again our justice system has failed to keep us safe. Lock your doors, keep your kids inside and DON'T TRUST CANADIANS...or writers..but especially CANADIAN WRITERS!!

Re:Common Sense

[Sabriel]

American society is not armed. That a minority own guns and a smaller minority take them out to go shooting on weekends, does not Heinlein's armed society make. Not even close.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they are. Despite that fact, the border guards in this case did lie, claiming that Watts tried to choke one of them. The evidence showed that this was a lie. Despite the fact that the guards were lying, he still got convicted for failing to lie down quickly enough when they ordered him to (after they had already punched him in the head).

Re:Common Sense

[shadowbearer]

  It's my understanding from what I read late last year that the videos showed that Watts was telling the truth.

  I don't know how much of that was shown in the trial, nor have I seen them myself.

SB

Re:Common Sense

[Protoslo]

This is why I think that airplane-lavatory smoking Quatari diplomat is an American hero. If no one had diplomatic immunity, who would make humorous shoe-bomb jokes on airplanes? He should go on a tour and aggravate the Border Patrol, the LAPD, etc., keeping things in perspective for our law-enforcement professionals. Unfortunately, I fear that the humorless State Department would declare him persona non grata (that, and Quatar already pulled him from U.S. consular duty).

Re:Common Sense

[shadowbearer]

  An armed society will be a polite society - as long as the government and other powers that be don't try and treat the citizens like slaves.

  I can understand an American being rather confused by this situation. After all, I was born here and lived here for more than four decades, and I've watched my fellow citizens vote away their rights for what seems like a very long time.

SB

Re:Common Sense

[AK Marc]

The sad fact is that if you are given two conflicting orders, asking which to obey is illegal. You must do both at the same time, and if impossible, you are guilty of obstructing justice (of, as they call it here, felony non-compliance). If you put your hands to your face while being hit, you are guilty of assault. CCTV doesn't help when the laws (and application thereof) are broken already.

Re:Common Sense

[AK Marc]

I believe there are guns in a majority of households, but perhaps that's old numbers. There are more guns than people in the US. If that's not an armed society, it's at least close.

Re:Common Sense

[Sabriel]

FWIW, Heinlein's idea of an armed society was that the majority of citizens went armed in public. Keeping arsenals in our basements isn't the same.

Re:Common Sense

[ChrisMaple]

In an armed society there is a much-reduced need for police.

Re:Common Sense

[MichaelSmith]

In an armed society there is a much-reduced need for police.

So why were the police in this instance so jumpy?

Re:Common Sense

[misexistentialist]

Nazi Germany was a pretty polite society because civilians were unarmed and scared shitless of the authorities. An unarmed country like England, on the other hand, has apparently devolved into impoliteness. Heinlein's quote is ambiguous since politeness is vague in meaning and who is being polite to whom is unclear. And there is a question of how much we should even value politeness.

Even if cops didn't have to worry about guns, however, I suspect they would preemptively defend against physical or knife attacks. The number of officers who are assaulted is much higher than the number who are shot.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a real shame that those same officers will never put 2 and 2 together and realize if they simply stop tasering 16 year olds with broken backs, raping women they pull over, and trying to kill everyone on the street for the crime of 'possibly carrying a weapon', then others might not want to see them so damn dead and this threat would not have existed.

From the actions of just a few bad cops, and the obvious inaction of the 'good' cops, yes most people could care less when harm comes to them.

Obviously bad cops not existing is not an option, but I still hold the departments responsible for the fact not a single 'good' cop that I keep hearing exists, has done anything to stop these bad cops.

If I actually suspected an officer would be any help at all to call if my house was robbed, instead of fully expecting to be tasered and taken to jail myself for having the nerve to be present in my own home during a robbery, that I might even make some excuse about how they are needed.

Sadly, I can't justify my need of going to jail and being tasered for reporting a crime happening to me.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making some unwarranted assumptions there. More guns than households wouldn't be unlikely, but that doesn't mean even the majority of households are armed, much less that the majority of citizens are.

The simple point to make here is that people who own guns tend to own guns, as in more than one. Different types of firearm are good for different things, and if you're a hunter you're going to want multiple weapons for different game. For hunting large game you're going to want at least two; the rifle you use on the large game, and a small caliber pistol for things like poisonous snakes you might encounter. If you've got a concealed carry license, you're going to want a small, concealable pistol and probably have another larger (caliber or capacity or both) for home and target practice.

Really, very few people I know who are willing to own guns in the first place only have one. I'm not talking about the serious survivalist types, who may have a whole arsenal, but the kind of people who go hunting a couple times a year or like to target shoot.

And very, very few of them have concealed carry licenses. Fewer still open carry more than when they're actually going hunting or to the range, because you will get hassled for it.

Crooks can get guns fairly easily, but outside the drug trade, most don't want to use them. They know the police are much more likely to come after them if they do. Same for people in the drug trade involving people who aren't. The dangers of police running in to armed crooks is quite small outside of the worst inner-city areas.

Speaking as someone who's father is a cop in a rural area.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

But, the Canadians are armed... They've got bears and geese to shoot at.

By your logic the RCMP should be just as twitchy, yet for some reason they are not.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't +5 funny.

This is how things are now. It's easier to kill a police officer than to interact with them as a human being. They're dangerous, unpredictable and powerful animals. Evade them at all costs.

Re:Common Sense

[AK Marc]

On average, there are about 5 guns per household. And there are guns in about 42 million households with guns, and just over 100 million households. So it's about 40% of households with guns in the US. Close enough to half for my rounding.

Just wanted to note a couple things

[shadowbearer]

  I didn't read the article thoroughly enough before I posted the submission; there is more detail on the case on a link from within the story.

(It was not with the intention of gaining karma; my karma has been peaked out for years, ceased to care about it even before that)

  A note on Slashdot's submission/moderation system; I had moderator points before I posted the story, and apparently have moderator points within the story. The editors may have their reasons for allowing it, but I don't feel that it's a good idea to allow story submitters to have moderation points within a story they post. Just sayin'

  I did find this bit to perhaps be an indication of the judge's real feelings:

  He told Peter that he was a puzzle to him; that he thought he would enjoy having a pint with Peter (Peter told him he would buy; Adair said he would get the next round);

  It does sound like the judge would like to know a little more about his side of the story than what he could glean from the courtroom proceedings.

  Oh, and thanks for the minor editing Timothy, it does read better that way.

  SB

Re:Just wanted to note a couple things

[Blakey Rat]

Wow, you sound like a total dick. You don't get a trophy for submitting a story, you know... and, as a side note, when people *really* don't care about things? They don't bother talking about them.

I can't believe your self-congratulatory wank-post got modded up.

Re:Just wanted to note a couple things

[shadowbearer]

as a side note, when people *really* don't care about things? They don't bother talking about them.

  I could almost feel sorry for you. Fortunately I have too full a life for it to even be a waste of my time.

SB

contradictory orders == "failure to comply"

[ChipMonk]

Two different officers gave him contradictory orders. No matter which one he obeyed, he was "failing to comply" with the other one. On this pretense, they gave him the "bad outcome" they wanted so desperately.

That nobody involved directly with the case mentioned "entrapment" is an epic fail. His defense lawyer should be disbarred for incompetence.

Re:contradictory orders == "failure to comply"

[Sabriel]

Au contraire, his defense lawyer should be congratulated for keeping Peter's head above the muck and mire that are the US border and legal systems. And if you read Peter's blog, he speaks incredibly highly of Doug.

Re:contradictory orders == "failure to comply"

[pipingguy]

Can we please stop using "epic fail" as a description now? Thanks in advance.

Re:contradictory orders == "failure to comply"

[ChipMonk]

Fair enough, although *I* use it only about once a year.

simply standing too close to an officer..

[jeko]

"This law includes offenses ranging from assault and battery to simply standing too close to an officer..."

"Standing too close to an officer" is a crime? OK, that's about the walking definition of a bad law.

What was Watts' crime? He asked the officers what they were doing.

He didn't strike anyone. He didn't kick anyone. According to the record he didn't even use harsh language. Apparently our law enforcement community has become so vicious and cowardly they'll beat people bloody just for looking at them wrong.

Peter Watts is a geek scifi writer. Judging from his photos, he weighs about 160. My wife could smack him around. He's about as threatening as a tuna sandwich.

But somehow, these law enforcement officers felt they needed to beat him senseless, leave his blood all over the pavement, and then mace him for good measure when honestly, a wedgie probably would have been overkill.

Scifi novelists, small-town mayors, Chinese diplomats, 75-year-old grandmas, epileptics having a seizure -- Is there ANYONE law enforcement doesn't want to beat bloody before talking to them any more?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

Well, standing too close to an officer could very easily be a crime, for example if by doing so you are interefering with an investigation, or with an arrest, or stopping a police officer from otherwise completing their official duties. You obviously aren't going to get arrested for being in the next over at the doughnut shop.

For all you know, the officers in question may have reasonably believed that he had a weapon. Or that he was fighting back and needed to be restrained and that beating him senseless was the only safe solution. Or they may have been assholes. I wasn't there, I don't know. A jury found him guilty of felony non-compliance, so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car (in fact we know that he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers, so a higher reaction would be expected than in, for example, Canada).

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Once it's been determined that it's just curiousity and not ill intent, I think the beating is more than enough punishment. No need to ladle charges on top of that, unless you're trying to legitimize the through the charges. It's kind of a pity that he's not an american citizen. I'd like to see an appeal and suit. He could certainly do those things as a foreign national, but I suspect that he'll probably just be grateful to be able to go home, and that'll be the end of it.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[jeko]

A jury found him guilty of felony non-compliance, so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car.

Actually, from the reports, that's EXACTLY what he did, and the judge basically cut him loose for it.

he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers,

I am so sick of hearing this. Cowardice is no excuse for brutality. I grew up military. Come to one of my family dinners and let the Vietnam veterans in my family explain what a dangerous job is.

Looking at the Department of Labor statistics, being a cop is a VERY safe job. You know who gets killed on the job more often than police officers? Construction workers. Cab drivers. Fast food workers. Hotel clerks.

Hop over to the forums on "Officer.com" and listen to the boys on blue in their own words for a while. They'll tell you quite openly they feel absolutely no obligation to put themselves in harm's way for the "sheeple," and they proudly proclaim "I AM GOING HOME TONIGHT" no matter how many receptionists and secretaries have to die to make that happen.

I spent some time with the State Fire Association. Seems like everyone last one of those guys is missing an eye, ear or finger, and has a quietly proud story of how they traded that part of their body for some stranger's kid. I stand in awe of their dedication, sacrifice and courage.

The institutional cowardice and crutality of law enforcement stands in stark contrast.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to be rude, but so what?

Nobody is saying that what this guy did was smart. They're only saying that the treatment of this guy was unfair. Further, some of these laws are inane and open the door for all sorts of problems.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[hldn]

because they are within their rights to beat you well before that, as they should be, because what if you have a gun?

what an idiotic statement. sorry, there's no other way to describe it.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

So you don't like police officers because their policies and procedures allow them to be safe.

Look at the job description between policeman and firefighter. One is to keep cities orderly. The other is to end fires. Gee, I wonder why one of them is perceived to be more dangerous (and only recently has become more dangerous).

Officers claim they have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way because they actually don't.

Its not cowardice, and crutality isn't a word.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

Thanks :)

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

So you don't like police officers because their policies and procedures allow them to be safe.

To quote Peter himself, "... taxicab drivers suffer three times the homicide rate of any law enforcement category, that being a cabbie is the fifth-most-dangerous job in the US while Law Enforcement doesn’t even make the Top 10. If the risks associated with border patrol can be invoked to excuse the kind of violence I experienced, should we not extend the same immunity to cabbies?"

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

There are plenty of other ways to describe it. Accurate is probably the best way to describe part of a quote that you think is idiotic. I think that partially quoting me is idiotic.

If you fully quote me, you would note that this is the logic of why you don't give police a reason to beat you. As I have elsewhere pointed out, police do not and should wait for you to prove that you are a threat, they need only act when they perceive a threat. If you get out of your car after being instructed not to do so, you are a threat. You should know better. Its not nuclear physics dammit.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

Well, no, not really.

If you don't want to take on the risks associated with being a cab driver, get a cab with bulletproof glass separating the driver and the passengers, install a microphone for communication and door locking system and a money swivel, like they have in gas stations.

On the other hand, a cab driver is perfectly within their rights to get a conceal carry permit or train to legally carry a taser, just like police, for defensive purposes. Furthermore, innapropriate use will result in losing your ability to drive a licensed cab and may have further legal repercussions.

It seems like cab drivers just don't require gun safety or taser training, making their jobs less safe than that of a police officer. Granted, cabs aren't financed through tax dollars, but why would they be?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Scifi novelists, small-town mayors, Chinese diplomats, 75-year-old grandmas, epileptics having a seizure -- Is there ANYONE law enforcement doesn't want to beat bloody before talking to them any more?

Yes. Actual criminals who might actually shoot back.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[shadowbearer]

  Interesting, I'd never really looked it up. A quick look at fatal injuries per occupation yields this chart from the BLS. In the homicides category the highest numbers by a ways are in retail sales, food preparation and sales supervisors ;-?! Protective service occupations are actually a fair ways down the list.

  I assume there are different ways of looking at it, but as someone who has worked a lot of retail sales, it does make a morbid kind of sense...

  (It would be nice if they would put their statistics tables in some sort of sortable format... it's not hard...)

  I would appreciate a better link if anyone has one.

SB

 

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[pipingguy]

...they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle

I have to agree with this. Even though I once did it, many years ago in friendly Toronto. It was a speeding pullover, and the cop seemed surprised.

But I guess it's difficult for some to look at situations from a cop's perspective.

On the other hand, lots of things seem like good ideas before you reach 40 and are still invulnerable.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[SpaceLifeForm]

You are an idiot.

If you don't *know* that you are not supposed to get out of your car, and you get a gun pulled on you due to that lack of information, are you really worried about getting beaten?

police do not and should wait for you to prove that you are a threat, they need only act when they perceive a threat.

They don't *wait*. You are out of touch with reality.

At this time, for the next month, there is a huge police presence going on due to stimpac money.

Lots of overtime money for the police.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Ethanol-fueled]

so he must have done more than just stepped out of his car (in fact we know that he did so at border patrol, which by definition carries a higher risk for officers, so a higher reaction would be expected than in, for example, Canada).

I know you're just trolling, but I've lived on the Southern US border my whole life. The Border Patrol checkpoints are more safe than anywhere else. It's the Southern badlands laterally between the checkpoints, where the coyotes and armed narcotrafficantes smuggle their payloads, that are dangerous. There's no reason for those at the Canadian border to feel threatened enough to gang-beat a skinny punk.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

That is not what happened.

I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down. They are waiting for a perceived threat and using these items in a manner consistent with official police policy (or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy).

Who cares if police are using money set aside for extra police work? I'm not saying its helping our economy, nor is it necessarily an incentive for people to enter the police field who otherwise would not remain unemployed, but if you don't like your government, run for office.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

> but what trained officers are supposed to do is expect the subject to do the worst possible thing - pull out a gun and start shooting.

I think they're supposed to be prepared for that but most certainly not treat the subject as if he is going to do the worst possible thing.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

He stepped out of his car and refused to return to it when ordered to do so in an area where it was posted that one should not leave their vehicle unless instructed to do so. I'm not trolling.

You have no basis for assuming that just because Peters appears to just have been an asshole at border patrol that those guards had no reason to assume otherwise at the time. Hindsight is 50/50; you either learn from it or you don't. Peters hopefully has learned not to give police officers a reason to beat him.

The fact that the Candadien border is not the Mexican border has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of a threat. It simply means that since the criminal (he was convicted, remember) was being a criminal in english, that he probably wasn't trying to smuggle anything over the mexican border at that time.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[AK Marc]

I recently took a defensive driving course (because my insurance offered me a sizeable discount for doing so) and they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle unless instructed to do so by the officer. There really is no excuse.

Then you are an idiot. You don't understand why it's in there. It was never for the protection of the police. It was for your own protection. Think about it (I know, hard for you). You pull over on the right side of the road. Your door is on the left. You open it, and you are standing out in traffic. Safety is the one and only one reason that rule was ever started. However, since then, they've asserted that to be "normal" behavior and any abnormal behavior at all is dangerous. So now, it's an issue, not because of the police's safety, but for your own for not playing in traffic, and for your own because it will be seen as unusual behavior. There's nothing aggressive about getting out of the car. There was never an issue about it being bad for cops when the recommendation was created.

And he wasn't pulled over. So such comments indicate a lack of understanding about the situation. Every car search I've been involved in (seeing them or being searched in multiple border crossings both north and south of the US) the driver was out of the car. They want the driver to open the trunk and be there. But then, the last time I crossed the US border by car was more than 10 years ago, so they may have changed how they do things.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[AK Marc]

I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down. They are waiting for a perceived threat and using these items in a manner consistent with official police policy (or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy).

Or they wait for some idiot hippie to speak out of turn, then they tase him despite his eloquent objection, "Don't tase me, bro!" He was no threat to anyone. He may not have been complying as fast as they liked, but he wasn't endangering anyone.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

He was instructed not to get out of the car (by signs), did so anyway, and when verbally instructed to get back in his car, refused. That was the crime for which he was convicted.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but I don't recognise any kind of law that says a police officer can beat you just because they feel like it. If any cop tried to lay a hand on me for such reasons while I am going about my own business, I'll break their arm in self defense. If they really press me, they'll be dead before they hit the ground and if I happen to die in the process of killing someone like that, then my life will have been a complete success. It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Just because some stranger says that I have to follow some specific code of conduct over a piece of OUR planet that they somehow have the right to "own" doesn't actually mean that I have to. I exist in this world too and I get to decide what is right and wrong for myself, no matter where I am. My personal code is simple: leave me alone and I'll leave you alone.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

A firefighter's prime purpose is to save lives. They let stuff burn if there's no lives at stake. They risk their lives running into burning buildings to save people, not extinguish fires, unless doing so saves lives. Firefighters are beyond brave... they're nuts. There are hero cops out there, and there are very decent cops out there, and there are clock puncher cops out there that have never crossed "the line," and there are cruel, stupid, paranoid, dishonest and violent cops out there. I've read about the first kind, met at least a few of the second kind, would guess most cops are of the third variety (like in every other vocation except firefighting), but have crossed paths with a disturbing number of the last kind. The cops that are really great would say to you "Firefighters are noble," the clock puncher doesn't care.. and the last type beats you, arrests you, and unless you have money or political friends, uses all the deception in his power to destroy your credibility and your life. So for that guy alone, yeah, cops beat firemen.... but in all other instances, firefighters rule.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Ethanol-fueled]

The fact that the Candadi e n border is not the Mexican border has absolutely nothing to do with the perception of a threat.

You're right. In the absence of real danger, they will perceive a threat anyway, to justify their gross demonstration of their authority.

Also, this, which all started with a couple neighborhood watch vigilantes(er, "neighborhood protectors", that's rich) with itchy trigger fingers.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

That is a completely different situation from staying in your car. Police aren't walking around gas stations beating people for being there. The law is that police officers get to defend themselves when they find a perceivable threat. Going about your business is the opposite of that.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[kramerd]

OK, so 2 people who were not trained how to be neighborhood watchdogs improperly used guns. Amazing, the issue is the idiots both creating a perceived threat when they should not have, yet has nothing to do with police or border search policies.

Way to be offtopic.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[ignavus]

There could be any number of reasons for this behavior, but what trained officers are supposed to do is expect the subject to do the worst possible thing - pull out a gun and start shooting.

In that case, they should be shooting everyone trying to come into the country, because who knows what those dang foreigners will do when they get onto our soil.

Now that is expecting every subject to do the worst possible thing. WHat you described is more like "poor exercise of judgment".

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[AK Marc]

He never refused. He may not have complied with the preferred speed, but that is not a refusal. From the statements of the officers at the time of his arrest, there was less than 10 seconds from the time he was ordered to get in his car to the time he was physically prevented from entering his car by the officers. And he never stated he was unwilling or unable to comply, nor indicated that he was intending to not reenter his car. Nothing I've seen indicates the word "refused" is the correct one for this situation.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

Sorry, my point was more that I don't like anyone who abuses the privileges of their station, such as policies and procedures that allow them to be safe, to inflict cruelties on others.

Perspective anecdote: one of my personal "unknown heroes" is a highway cop who stood there calmly listening to this frustrated motorist he pulled over deliver this obscene tirade of vitriol. He just asked questions, wrote the ticket, and let the guy vent. No shouting, no arrest for disorderly conduct, no mace, no "he tripped in the car and hit his face on the steering wheel", nothing. Totally kept his cool. You could have balanced tigers on his cool. So when I read of situations like this, where a guard flies off the handle and beats the crap out of a tourist for daring to ask what the problem is, I know one bad cop doesn't mean all bad cops - I've seen the proof otherwise.

When an officer of the law resorts to the use of violence (and I mean bloody violence, not some wrestling lock or whatever) on a non-violent "offender" (regardless of any verbal aggressiveness), I consider that officer has failed in his duty. But what truly disturbs me is not that it inevitably happens - we're all human - but that it can be excused and abetted when it happens so blatantly. When the testimonies of those guards present not only don't match but contradict, when the guy laying on the ground covered in mace and his own blood gets dragged through the courts and convicted of a felony, when the officer who put him there does not even get an official reprimand let alone arrested himself... it has gone way past one officer losing his temper and making a mistake.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

"The institutional cowardice and crutality of law enforcement stands in stark contrast."

Yep, just like the coward cops who stood waiting in the parking lot at Columbine High School...

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Siridar]

so, what, you're saying that the beating was okay because he was curious? Or its okay for the police to hand out punishment? Don't you think that's the role of the courts?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Fyzzler]

I am certain that under specific hypothetical situations I might react in various ways, but officers are not walking into wal-mart and tasering people for the sake of watching them fall down.

I beg to differ with you. http://www.graphictruth.com/2007/12/35-year-old-woman-tasered-in-front-of.html

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Hunter-Killer]

Your interpretation of the statistics does not appear to take proportionality into account.
If Job A has 6 fatalities and 100 workers while Job B has 3 fatalities and 10 workers, Job B is more dangerous since the odds of death are higher on a per worker basis.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[nacturation]

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNNz5kl4w-A

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[wzzzzrd]

Standing too close to an officer is clearly not by necessity a crime. However if it is done in a threatening manner...

Uhm? I'd understand that threatening an officer could be a crime, but standing close to one "in a threatening manner", come on. It wouldn't even make a good threat: "If you go on with syntactical arguments, I'll stand close to you in a threatening manner my friend!" Whooo, shivers.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Hognoxious]

Just because it's written on a sign doesn't make it the law. Same for what some fat doughnut muncher tells you to do. All this "failing to comply" is bullshit, it's just an excuse for cops to invent laws on the spot, and it's high time it stopped.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Solandri]

To quote Peter himself, "... taxicab drivers suffer three times the homicide rate of any law enforcement category, that being a cabbie is the fifth-most-dangerous job in the US while Law Enforcement doesn't even make the Top 10. If the risks associated with border patrol can be invoked to excuse the kind of violence I experienced, should we not extend the same immunity to cabbies?"

Your post intrigued me enough to go and look up the statistics myself. You're playing a little fast and loose with the statistics yourself. Cab drivers suffer a much higher homicide rate than law enforcement officers (about 4x higher per 100,000 in 1998). But law enforcement has the second highest homicide rate. If you correct for the fraction of time actually spent out in the field (most officers only spend part of their time doing patrols out of a 40 hours work week, while cab drivers work about 60 hours a week), I imagine the homicide rate per hour interacting with the public may actually be higher for law enforcement than for cabbies.

That's not to say any of this is relevant in this case. I'm not even familiar with the facts of the case as this slashdot article was the first I've heard of it.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Cowpat]

That may be Watts' claim or your interpretation, but the charges for which he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer. This obviously does not jive with what Watts' claimed, though I found his original summary and the nauseating prose linked to in the article totally totally unsympathetic. I guess there was no video of the border crossing...I was hoping it would come out so the truth would be readily apparent.

You need to catch up on the story. The choking thing was shown to be a complete fabrication on cross-examination. The only thing that he was convicted of was not getting back into his car immediately.

nobody is going to assume that there is no knife, gun, etc present.

That is exactly what they should do. When the SAS was deployed to Northern Ireland, they were specifically told that if they shot someone who didn't turn out to have a gun, they would have no defence against a murder conviction. You should assume that somoene does not have a knife or gun until it becomes apparent that they actually do.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[ChrisMaple]

In some states a policeman will pull a gun on you if you get out of your car when he pulls you over. THEY think it's aggressive behavior, likely because it's hard to draw a gun -- either you or he -- seated in a car.

I doubt very much the original intention was the driver's safety. Lawmakers don't give a damn about your safety, they want power.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Hognoxious]

Exactly. If the bad ones really were a tiny minority they'd be weeded out one way or another. If internal affairs don't get them then there's all kinds of "informal disciplinary procedures" from ostracizing to being a little slow to respond to assistance requests.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[ChrisMaple]

Excellent, except for the word OUR. You and I each own what we own, no more, no less, and everywhere else we're there only by the owner's permission (usually implicit). Aggression by a policeman deserves to be treated accordingly, alas, it seldom is.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Gordonjcp]

You would think with all the news about police beatings of people with curiosity that people wouldn't be curious anymore. Really, the common sense that is taught in pretty much all education is don't do things to give police a reason to wonder whether or not they should beat you

No, common sense teaches that the only sensible thing to do if you see police is to shoot them on sight, before they have the chance to attack you.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, standing too close to an officer could very easily be a crime, for example if by doing so you are interefering with an investigation, or with an arrest, or stopping a police officer from otherwise completing their official duties.

Ok, so here's an idea: why not simply make interfering with an investigation, etc. a crime, and leave "standing too close to an officer" out of it?

Or are we going to make "jumping over a fence" a crime too, because by doing so you could very easily trespass into someone's property?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Rogerborg]

he was convinced were assaulting/resisting/obstructing an officer, including both refusing to obey directions (get back in the car) and later choking an officer.

He was charged with assault. He was convicted only of not obeying ze orders. The trial evidence was that he was beaten down by a short-assed goon who charged into the situation, sprayed first and didn't ask questions afterwards. The assault charges were fabricated to protect said goon from retribution for inflicting a punishment beating - take that up with the jury, who convicted him on the least of the charges, and the judge, who let him walk.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[hitmark]

No, what he was convicted of, was not getting on the ground fast enough when told so.

This was however after getting out of the car after what, to him, was an unusual event, stopped while heading towards the border to leave USA by border guards, not police, but not at any border crossing checkpoint he was familiar with. Then the guards started searching his car without any request about him opening the trunk or similar, so he tried to get a response about what was going on from a nearby, unoccupied, guard. That meant he had to step out of the car. When doing so, he was quickly told to get back into the car, did so, only to have another guard come into the vehicle also and hit him. Then the same guard that hit him ordered him out of the car again, and told him to get on the ground. When he didnt respond fast enough, he was pepper sprayed and forced to the ground and handcuffed.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, you're an asshole.

+1, Informative. I just love Slashdot.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Lars T.]

Really, the common sense that is taught in pretty much all education is don't do things to give police a reason to wonder whether or not they should beat you, because they are within their rights to beat you well before that, as they should be, because what if you have a gun?

So if you had a gun, why would you wait to use it until an officer came close enough to beat you, let alone actually let him beat you? And wouldn't it be easier to draw a gun undetected while in your car than outside?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Lars T.]

In some states a policeman will pull a gun on you if you get out of your car when he pulls you over. THEY think it's aggressive behavior, likely because it's hard to draw a gun -- either you or he -- seated in a car.

It must be in those states where they never watch any movies. You know, the ones where, while the cops walk over, the driver gets his gun from the glove compartment or simply the passenger seat and then shoots the cop in the face.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

Police aren't walking around gas stations beating people for being there.

That is EXACTLY what they are doing.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71096

http://cops-busted.com/articles/52/1/Larry-Pugh-Jacksonville-Texas-Police-Officer-incarcerated-for-Rape-and-Retaliation/Page1.html

That is the type of person you are defending! You are a sick sick human being.

I wouldn't even wish rape and being left for dead on YOU, the very person here saying how perfectly justified it is!

The law is that police officers get to defend themselves when they find a perceivable threat. Going about your business is the opposite of that.

No it is not. In our country (The one being discussed in the article) the law allows for ANYONE to defend their life.
Our law does NOT say only police can defend their life, and you as a citizen are required to allow the criminal to kill you.
Here, we are all allowed to defend our life.

Posting anon just in case a police officer is reading, and wants to defend his life from my slashdot posting.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[the_arrow]

they pointed out that in the little book given for drivers for the written test, it explicitly states that should you be pulled over, at no time should you exit your vehicle unless instructed to do so by the officer

Do you get that booklet in all driving courses over there, or just for that special one? I wonder since most people outside of the US would have no idea about that specific "rule". Which means that I would probably be beaten and tasered because I could act threatingly by just stepping out of my car if I was to visit, drive around and somehow be stopped by the police.

Anyway, thank for the advice!

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Lars T.]

Your interpretation of the statistics does not appear to take proportionality into account. If Job A has 6 fatalities and 100 workers while Job B has 3 fatalities and 10 workers, Job B is more dangerous since the odds of death are higher on a per worker basis.

While you are right that law enforcement is a more dangerous occupation, you are for the wrong reasons. Even if we accept your inherent claim that there are more "law enforcement workers" than people in "retail sales, food preparation and sales supervisors" - you are obviously overlooking that the proportionality is taken into account by the given numbers: " The figure shown is the percent of the total fatalities for that occupation group."

Let's recap: of the 24 workers classified as "retail sales, food preparation and sales supervisors" who died at work, 62% (15) were victim of homicide. Of the 144 law enforcement workers, 33% (47 or 48) were victims of homicide, while 38% were killed on the highway. IOW if you get killed while selling stuff at a store or making burgers, you probably were murdered, while as a cop you are more likely to have died in a car crash than by a bullet.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Lars T.]

IOW if you get killed while selling stuff at a store or making burgers

Correction: "selling or making burgers" - selling stuff is a different section, where there are actually more homicides (absolute and relative) than in law enforcement.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

Thankyou for providing the link. I don't think one can "correct" for the fraction of time spent in the field, as that would no longer be apples to apples, but while his first point (cabbies at more risk than officers) still stands I'll ask Peter for his source given the discrepancy you note re the second and third.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Alarindris]

I was pulled over once near a gas station, so I pulled into the lot to get off of the street. When I pulled up, I got out of my car to talk to the officer. He FREAKED out, pulled out his gun, and told me to put my hands on my head and lay on the ground.

After he patted me down I asked him what the fuck was the problem. My license was expired. He told me not to get out of the car in the future because that makes them 'nervous'.

Don't get out of your car.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[TheRaven64]

He told me not to get out of the car in the future because that makes them 'nervous'.

And in your country, it's considered sensible to give a gun and a badge of authority to people who get nervous enough to freak out when someone looks at them?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Smallpond]

That's ok, they don't need you to get out of the car to tase you. Refusing to testify against yourself is enough.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/223578_taser10.html

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[networkBoy]

Dude! WTF? Just read the linked articles...

That's fucked up.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[SirGeek]

He was charged with assault. He was convicted only of not obeying ze orders. The trial evidence was that he was beaten down by a short-assed goon who charged into the situation, sprayed first and didn't ask questions afterwards. The assault charges were fabricated to protect said goon from retribution for inflicting a punishment beating - take that up with the jury, who convicted him on the least of the charges, and the judge, who let him walk.

Should the very fact the guards fabricated ANYTHING call for the dismissal of the case all together?

If that was fabricated, how can you trust anything that guard says after that point ?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

That is exactly what they should do. When the SAS was deployed to Northern Ireland, they were specifically told that if they shot someone who didn't turn out to have a gun, they would have no defence against a murder conviction. You should assume that somoene does not have a knife or gun until it becomes apparent that they actually do.

Which has what relevance here? Nobody was shot, and I have not even read about guns being drawn? When faced with a belligerent person who did not respond to orders at the border crossing, the border guard took control of the situation in a completely non-lethal way. Having seen no pictures of Watts, I don't even know how much of a beating he took, but it certainly seems like there was 0 threat to his life or health?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

I am going off of the url linked in the story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/19/watts-convicted.html, which says verbatim what I said (assaulting/resisting/obstructing)

Where's the further information? I must be missing something as you and one other mentioned stuff I can't find?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

Law enforcement officers put themselves into situations that you or I hopefully NEVER have to be in. Every traffic stop is a potential bullet in the face (which while rare, DOES happen). LEOs are not above the law, but they deserve special protections due to the situations they are forced to be in. You can deliberately miss the point and argue semantics but the point of this statute is clear--to protect officers from people who are potentially dangerous and acting in unpredictable fashions.

You may not realize this, but some people completely lose all rationality when the blue uniforms come around. Read the slashdot articles and comments here for some vitriol and hate.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

You need to catch up on the story. The choking thing was shown to be a complete fabrication on cross-examination. The only thing that he was convicted of was not getting back into his car immediately.

Apparently I do, where is this discussed?

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

There were no posted signs. This wasn't a Customs checkpoint, it was an impromptu exit search at a toll booth.

--Peter Watts

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Vayra]

Aye, and if it is later proved that he was not a threat they should take the full consequence of their actions (ie charges for unprovoked assault or whatever is appropriate). The police/border patrol are the enforcers of the law, but they are NOT above it.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[joebagodonuts]

Episode #4,987,998 of "Internet Tough Guy".

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[joebagodonuts]

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1589664&cid=31552060

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[joebagodonuts]

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1589664&cid=31552060

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Vayra]

What it means, is that when someone is abusing their powers (SAS shooting someone who does not have a gun, or border patrol beating someone who did not pose a threat) they are basically a civilian who broke the law and has no valid defense (ie should be convicted automatically of murder/assault/whatever is appropriate).

And there is no need for a beating to be a threat to life or health for it to be a crime.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[splatter]

I don't know about all that but in Miami I got a 3 am wakeup by the police for a fridge in the next door apartment which was rotting.

Long story short I was charged with assult because I hit the officer with the door knob after telling them to pound sand.

Assult by door knob.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Imrik]

You get that booklet by going to the DMV and picking one up or by taking any driving course. You can also find a copy at most state DMV websites if you're curious.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sir_Lewk]

You know what is a far more dangerous job than being a cop? Being a pizza delivery guy.

Pizza delivery guys put themselves into situations that you or I hopefully NEVER have to be in. Every delivery is a potential bullet to the face (which while rare, DOES happen (more often than it happens to cops)). Pizza delivery guys are not above the law, but they deserve special protections due to the situations they are forced to be in. You can deliberately miss the point and argue semantics but the point of this statute is clear--to protect pizza delivery guys from people who are potentially dangerous and acting in unpredictable fashions.

FTFY.

Clearly pizza delivery guys should have the right to beat the shit out of anyone who "stands too close to them".

We already have laws against threatening police officers, laws against "standing too close to police officers" are stupid. And why only police officers? Surely if some crazy dude "stands too close" to a regular citizen, they should deserve protection as well.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

Thank you, that substantively changes my analysis of the situation, though I do wish there was something NOT written by Watts available. The choking being made up is very troubling and I hope that officer is punished is that was indeed a false claim.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Moridineas]

I think you're somewhat confused here--can you cite the law you're talking about that allows police to "beat the shit out anyone who stands to close to them"?

Secondly, I don't see pizza delivery statistics explicitly in your link, but you've inadvertently stumbled upon a smart point. Being a pizza delivery guy IS a very dangerous job. If people are willing to risk jail time by robbing / killing pizza workers (all for the max gain of a pizza or two and < $100 cash) I'm sure you can imagine what people (many of whom, as we've seen here have a loathing of authority figures) do elsewhere. Pizza delivery guys aren't asked to run into a house where people are screaming, enforce laws, breakup fights, etc.

I personally would allow pizza delivery workers to open carry, btw.

Surely if some crazy dude "stands too close" to a regular citizen, they should deserve protection as well

I think you might want to google that one...

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[jbeach]

Neat that this post was left by Anonymous Coward. : )

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

Okay, I asked Peter. The discrepancy is because (a) he used a 1997 study, actually from the same journal you cited the 2000 study; (b) the 1997 paper studied job fatalities in general, while the later one was exclusively about job homicides.

Thus while police had the second-highest homicide rate, overall they didn't make the top ten most dangerous occupations for getting killed (while cabbies did).

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[EvilJoker]

Last time I read my state's book (Ohio, http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf), that detail was not there. It is a rule I have learned through the media, not the law.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

Oh, stumbled onto 2008 data. Cabbies are down to 10th position. Don't know if it mean it's now safer to be a cabbie or if other jobs are now more dangerous. :/

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

or they get sued and suspended or dismissed for breaking such policy

.

Don't forget that federal officers and employees are immune to prosecution so they have a much higher incentive to abuse their powers left and right without fear of retribution, especially when their supervisors are in it with them. That pretty much means no one is safe unless they're a high profile, high level politican or celebrity. In that case such a person may be a bit safer but otherwise ... the victim (of the federal officer abuse) is screwed. The officers are always free to make up whatever stories they want and hide or destroy any evidence that may prove otherwise.

I've been keeping a record of all the police abuse stories I've been finding and that list is getting mighty long. I'm hoping to use it to help push new anti-police abuse laws through congress someday. Yea, good luck to me huh?!

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[metaforest]

This is common sense. Do not do anything to frighten a cop. They will kill you. It is even worse when you frighten a bored cop since they will now have extra incentive to make sure you don't get to testify against them....

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[jimnorcal]

Exactly. I don't ever recall reading such rules or guidelines about remaining in the vehicle during a traffic stop until instructed to do so either. It obviously must be something we've picked up in the media. Of course, now a days, it seems that you also must hold your breath and try not to blink until the traffic stop is over and the officer has driven away. Only then can you remoisturize your dry eyes and breath a sigh of relief that the officer didn't beat you to near death and plant weapons and drugs on you to justify the brutality.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I applaud your candor, do not come to New York City, what with it's helpful "bag check" crew in blue at random metro stations (translation: obedience training stops for the sheeple, and entertainment section for the Pig Department).

Your life expectancy might be just that higher.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Alarindris]

Well we don't vote cops into service, it's not up to the general public who gets to be a cop. I'm not sure what your snarky comment is supposed to imply.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Ol Olsoc]

You seriously need to watch the first Indiana Jones film.

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Sabriel]

Thankyou. That's the guy. Driver's not quite as vitriolic as I remembered, but that cop's still cool. :)

Re:simply standing too close to an officer..

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I was countering the absurd assertion that anyone (i.e. including police officers) should be allowed to respond to another person in a manner consistent with assuming the presence of nonexistant weapons.

When faced with a belligerent person who did not respond to orders at the border crossing, the border guard took control of the situation in a completely non-lethal way.

Your use of the word belligerant is inflammatory and misleading, but putting that to one side; the border guard did not 'take control of the situation in a non lethal way' he pepper-sprayed an unarmed man who posed no threat to him.

My use of the SAS example was just the first one I could grasp on to, and was to demonstrate the far more reasonable principle that you can't respond appropriately to the presence of a weapon merely on the assumption that it is present. Of course, that principle has been eroded somewhat in the UK now that a judge has allowed a police officer to sucessfully argue that they thought a carton of milk might have been a weapon, and issue a swift beating to the person who was holding it. The CPS also having declined to charge two police officers who shot dead an innocent man holding a table leg in a bag because a paniced member of the public who had seen him momentarily called them up to report that he was carrying a shotgun.

some fine police officers who don't deserve

[jeko]

I grew up military. What I heard over and over again was that "The honor of the unit lies with each man."

You see, the fine police officers you know? They have a DUTY to police themselves. That's why "the few bad apples" argument doesn't hold up. Those fine police officers you feel sorry for? They have a duty to ARREST and TESTIFY AGAINST those bad apples.

That's why you can't say, "It's just a few bad cops." The supposedly "good" cops have an obligation to put a stop to it, and they're shirking their duties by refusing to do so.

This makes them culpable as accomplices. That's why there are no "fine police officers" any more, because if there were, they'd clean their house.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[indiechild]

Agreed. It's a tragedy that most people don't share your stance, including members of the military, many of whom will vigorously defend fellow soldiers that massacred civilians.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

jeko, I like you. You've been talking more frigging sense in this thread than every other poster I've seen on this topic combined. I'm glad to see there's still some sanity in service families; all the ex-soldiers, soldiers, cops, and ex-cops I've met has been the kind to use "sheeple" when referring to civilians, or worse.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[jeko]

Aw, you're making me blush. :-)

Thanks.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

> This makes them culpable as accomplices.

To be fair, the people I know aren't in a department with any dirty cops I've ever heard of. So, to use your analogy, they're in a different unit (but they still get the organizational blame).

But you're right that the fellow officers should crack down on these bad apples. And I really think that proper oversight would curb the worst abuses here. I especially hate how hostile many cops have been recorded as being to people with cameras, for example.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[Schoenlepel]

Problem is: if an officer testifies against one of his coworkers, he gets the whole force on his neck. If he leaves the force for not agreeing with that kind of misbehavior, he gets the whole force in his neck. If he moves to another jurisdiction, he just gets that whole force in his neck.

The problem isn't corruption in itself, the problem is fear of harassment among the officers. In addition the law enforcement is above the law, which seems fine, but actually helps corruption and abuse quite a bit. The rules are 200 years behind in relation to the needs of today.

Re:some fine police officers who don't deserve

[Dolohov]

The "bad apples" argument holds up better than you think if you remember where it comes from. Apples ripen and rot by ethylene gas, they produce it when the ripen, and produce a lot of it when they rot, and being in an ethylene atmosphere induces faster ripening/rotting. It's a positive feedback loop. When you put apples in a barrel or other container you have to be careful to leave out the ones that are starting to go bad, or they'll start a chain reaction and the whole barrel will go rotten very quickly. So, it might only be one bad apple at the start, but the whole barrel winds up spoiled.

It's just as you say with bad cops: just one of them can spoil a whole lot of good cops. But it's not quite as bad as you say; there are a lot of barrels out there with no bad cops at all.

Handy "Do they think I'm a terrorist?" checklist.

[goodmanj]

although he is still being treated like a terrorist (cannot enter or pass through the US, DNA samples)

Hi! Are you wondering if the U.S. federal government is treating you like a terrorist? Sure, we all are. Here's a handy questionnaire to find out.

Is there a Predator drone overhead firing missiles at your car?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

If you checked "No", congratulations! The U.S. government might not trust you or want you in the country, but they're not treating you like a terrorist.

It's worse than you know

[shadowbearer]

In addition, very powerful, very important people put very stupid children in positions of power at these places, in order to fill up the resumes of these very stupid children before they can become the new generation of very powerful, very important people (the stupid is assumed redundant by this point).

  The real problem is that they can't find enough honest, decent, qualified and willing people to fill the expansion of border security positions we've had in the last ten years.

SB

Re:It's worse than you know

[cynyr]

perhaps the pay isn't good enough? 40 hours a week should present one with livable wage from the US government. so around 30k-50k starting out, and go up from there based on inflation, and "dedication". not fucking up gets you inflation, above and byond the call gets you a raise, just like everywhere else should.

Re:It's worse than you know

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the land borders and handled differently, but I know that at airports, they get exactly that. Starting at the higher end of the range that you mentioned, actually. Also, like with all federal jobs, "not fucking up" gets you much better than inflation. You simply get automatic raises fairly regularly.

Not in my house, they don't.

[jeko]

My Lai was a national disgrace. The Wikileaks/Reuters video depicts cold-blooded murder. You can hang them all as far as we're concerned. We don't want to share a uniform with filth like that.

Re:Not in my house, they don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Canadians Don't Travel to United States

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a million reasons to go to the USA and a million Wonderful people.

Until they actually do something about this sickness don't go - you're not welcome. If you have to go, don't stay any longer than you absolutely have to.

In my heart I think justice is being torn from the United States one senseless act at a time.

felony non-compliance

[shadowbearer]

  Bend over, citizen.

SB

Re:felony non-compliance

[kramerd]

How could I do that when I haven't left my car?

Re:felony non-compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

How could I do that when I haven't left my car?

You were given an order! Comply!

but what trained officers are supposed to do

[jeko]

but what trained officers are supposed to do is expect the subject to do the worst possible thing...

No. Not even soldiers are trained to do that. Civilian law enforcement is trained to use good judgement. It is more important to know when NOT to shoot than it is to know when TO shoot. Keep running Mad Max fantasies through your head like anyone who COULD pull a gun WILL pull a gun, and you end up shooting a kid for no good reason like one ex-officer I personally know.

If you haven't been in a situation where a person wants to argue with cops and then for some unknown reason pulls out a gun,

Here's another nonsense argument I'm sick of. Since you're pressing the point, yes, I have been shot at. No, it's not pleasant at all. No, the fear that someone MIGHT take a shot at you is no excuse for beating civilians bloody.

Re:but what trained officers are supposed to do

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the run ins I had with our local incompetents, err, cops had a couple of them asking me questions.
I was in jeans and t-shirt, no shoes (gravel driveway) sitting on my steps petting my black and white cat (he was purring up a storm) while one of the cops asked me calm normal questions. The other asshole, err, cop, kept pacing back and forth, throwing false accusations and loaded questions at me, and grabbing his gun.

What horrible thing did I do? I yelled at a stupid female (I won't use the term lady to refer to her) to get off her fucking cell phone and get that pickup out of the intersection.
Yeah, with a pull off only about 100 feet away in plain view, she parked in the intersection (blocking it) to make a cellphone call to somebody, and wouldn't move.

The psycho cop rather freaked me out. As to the oxygen thief that started the whole mess, she doesn't even know that I saved her from some nasty shit. A large percentage of the people I know immediately started to hunt her down to do nasty things to her, electronic/datawise, and realworld stuff. I was able to persuade all of them to leave her alone. As to the nutcase cops, well, he's not exactly an uncommon type in our city, good thing his partner of the day was one of the few calm rational people in our local police. Even so, I'm not going to call him a good cop, since he puts up with, thus passively supporting, the egotistical nutjobs that make everyone hate the cops in the first place.

It's sad to say that when I was a kid, pretty much everybody looked to cops for help and protection, but now, almost everyone avoids them unless they have no real choice.

So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[jeko]

Officers claim they have no obligation to put themselves in harm's way because they actually don't.

Thanks. I was wondering when our boys in blue would give up even the pretense of that "protect and serve" nonsense. Now we can all acknowledge them as the knuckle-dragging cowardly bullies they are, instead of "the City's Finest."

BTW, no, "crutality" isn't a word. It's a typo. Probably because I was thinking of the word "cruelty" when I was typing "brutality."

Try not to tase me for it. :-)

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[kramerd]

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service. The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.

To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[AK Marc]

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service.

The police have gone to court multiple times to fight for the right to neither protect nor serve. It may be a reminder, but if so, it's a reminder of what police were like 50 years ago, not what they are now.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[kramerd]

Try again, this time reading more than just the first sentence in my post. Then, you can respond in context.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[AK Marc]

To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best.

They are lying violators of their oaths who break the law more often than those who haven't taken such an oath (much like those in Washington who take oaths to enforce the Constitution then pass laws that directly violate it). Cops are more likely to, say, beat their wives than non-cops. There's nothing I've seen to make "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" seem like absurdity. Obviously, the knuckle-dragging is a little absurd if taken literally, but it is a nod to the very neanderthal-like behavior exhibited. Compared to the average person, they are less likely to be killed on the job (while lying about it to make it sound like they have a dangerous job), more likely to assault innocent people, like their wives, and aren't known for actually protecting or serving anyone, unless serving them up beaten and broken counts.

See, I took a sentence other than your first and responded. Feel better?

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Maxo-Texas]

Watch Adam 12.

Then compare it to police you've interacted with.

Police have fallen a long way in only 40 years.

I had a cousin who became a cop and he went from a nice boy to a bully telling "funny" stories about intimidating civilians (not criminals). It only took a couple years.

I also know police go to hookers one day and then spend the next day arresting them. Policing used to be about the law- now it's about power.

That's why I support mandatory 24x7 filming of all police activity. Sure- it protects them from false accusations. But the primary benefit is to keep them in line.

The first controversy in my city when the red light cameras went in was about the police running red lights when they were not on a call.
Even when called on it- they felt running reds was just a privilege of the job.

Pathetic.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Ethanol-fueled]

The protect and serve motto is a reminder of police officer's dedication to service..."knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.

I'll try. The fault with the statements above is that they equate police officers with DHS guards. Despite having been on the wrong side of the law many times, I do believe that the vast majority of police officers are honest folks who foster good relations with their citizens and have honest intent(the only bad publicity seems to come from Los Angeles, with its officers up against crotch-grabbers and coked-up madmen using babies for human shields). I also agree that they're not out to cause trouble because they want to go home to their families without any bullshit.

However - DHS guards are not police officers. They are glorified security guards gone mad with the power they attained in the wake of 9/11. The vast majority of them face no danger, and the last one to be shot to death(since the '80's) passed under mysterious circumstances with his gun stolen, an obvious cover-up. This ICE "officer" drove at night with tinted windows and plowed through a stop sign, killing 3 women. Calling them "federal officers" is an insult to everybody else with "officer" in their title. They're on par with prison guards, for fuck's sake. I know because I get eye-fucked and sent to secondary on a regular basis by those assholes, because I always lose the staring contest. Why don't you try driving through a few of their checkpoints being preemptively treated like a criminal and having dogs run your car beacuse you "might" be a criminal?

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Hognoxious]

Whatever. Close the door on your way out.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Hognoxious]

You're arguing with the guy who can't even spell his username properly.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Hognoxious]

The painters charged by the letter, so they took "To protect [themselves] and serve [their own interests]" and shortened it a little.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Hognoxious]

They aren't equating the two. It's just subject drift.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Protect (your own ass) and Serve (yourself)

I agree that there are 'good cops' and there are bad cops. Those cops that don't deal with, or even worse, help protect, the 'bad cops' are also bad cops. There are way too many of those. It's gotten to the point that in many cities the only thing the cops uphold is themselves, your just dirt under their feet and a means to their own ends. I wish I knew a way to solve this, but honestly, I don't.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Gordonjcp]

While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement. If you ever plan on doing so, let me know when and where so I can watch.

I don't know about the original poster, but the last thing I would ever consider doing in *any* situation is calling the police.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[atamido]

I had a cousin who became a cop and he went from a nice boy to a bully telling "funny" stories about intimidating civilians (not criminals). It only took a couple years.

It depends a LOT on the department. When you have a police chief and underlings that put up with crap like that, then it fosters a bad environment. It's difficult to live in an environment that doesn't change you to fit it, so a bad cop environment makes for bad cops.

If you have a good police chief, command structure, and an enforced set of well designed rules for the officers to follow, then you end up with good officers that respect others.

Of course, if they are working in a prison, then good luck.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[Anonymous Coward]

To claim that police officers are "knuckle dragging cowardly bullies" is absurd at best. While I would never wish for you to need the services of a police officer, if you ever find yourself doing so, I assume you wouldn't make such a statement.

Why is it the police apologists always harp on this?

No, motherfucker, I don't need the cops... at least in my state we have CCL. Physically assault me on the street, break into my house, try to harm one of my relatives in a serious manner and I'll triple-tap somebody with .45acp right to the thoracic cavity. Good ole' slow .45.. I love em. A nice slow round that dumps that energy right into the body with minimal over penetration. Right up there with the .357 it has an incredible one-shot stop effectiveness. I wish we could have carried them instead of 9mm in the military as a sidearm.

Two other things:

I have relatives who are cops (more than two; you need not know anything else). They even admit they're crooked as fuck and they serve in a major burb of a mid-sized city. They don't give a fuck about you; they care about coming home to their families at night. Mouth off to one of them and they *will* break your nose on the hood of their car.

Secondly, it sounds like a catch phrase but it is the truth: cops are only minutes away when seconds matter.

And before any of the anti-gun fools respond: your self defense is your responsibility. Full stop.

Re:So much for "The Thin Blue Line..."

[AK Marc]

I started today by having an experiment;

Yes, others call that "trolling." Thanks for coming out of the closet.

I'm not going to bother reading any other responses, but trust, they are pretty much all just as stupid as yours.

Yes, troll and run. You know how to do it. When you purposefully troll, you shouldn't be surprised people think you are an ass and reply in kind.

All court needs is Precedent.

[Anonymous Coward]

No need for jail.

But the next person down the line, better beware.

Precedent has been set. This case can now be referred to. So not only will you be breaking the "law", you'll now have to fight against judicial precedent.

Good Luck.

Re:All court needs is Precedent.

[Protoslo]

There is no need for precedent. I had assumed that since it was a border stop federal law was at issue (a situation which would still not likely involve precedent), but I assumed wrong. He obviously (well, assuming the facts of the trial) violated Michigan Penal Code Section 750.81d, which states that,

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

Re:Handy "Do they think I'm a terrorist?" checklis

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight.

Non-terrorists only get the 40mm cannon.

"HE'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!"

[jeko]

they need only act when they perceive a threat

Dammit, Boys, IT'S A CANADIAN! Git him before they burn the White House again!

Military family, remember?

[jeko]

The purpose is to remind officers and citizens of the spirit, dedication, and professionalism of the police force.

'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.

Really, Kramerd, you can tell your boys to rest easy in the squad car seats that have molded themselves to their hindquarters. We're a military family, and if I need to whistle up some help from the angry avenging terrifying Wrath of God, I'll call our women. :-)

Re:Military family, remember?

[kramerd]

'Cause God knows we're not gonna see any of that outside of the motto.

Not really my point. Most publicly traded companies do the same thing with mission statements (albeit with their own specific purposes). Its more of CYA than anything else. I'm fairly certain that both officers and civilians have these expectations whether its written on the patrol car or not.

Re:Military family, remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

if I need to whistle up some help from the angry avenging terrifying Wrath of God, I'll call our women. :-)

And they'll come a-runnin' from the kitchen, right?

Re:Military family, remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, the Baby-killer in green is arguing with the Piggy in blue about which group is more unnecessarily brutal

Pot, meet kettle

I'll bring the popcorn!

(Posted AC because I don't want to be tased to death or Abu-Graib'ed)

Re:Handy "Do they think I'm a terrorist?" checklis

[thefear]

If you checked "No", congratulations! You are not yet aware that you are being treated like a terrorist!

Fearing for Kramerd's sanity at this point

[jeko]

Peters hopefully has learned not to give police officers a reason to beat him. ... It simply means that since the criminal (he was convicted, remember) was being a criminal in english, that he probably wasn't trying to smuggle anything over the mexican border at that time.

Dude, seriously? Let me guess. You're mall security waiting to hear back from the department on your test results? Got a whole closet full of badges and uniforms you like to try on in front of the mirror late at night when no one's watching, do you? Got the whole "You talkin' to me?" speech in flawless De Niro accent down cold, huh?

Good and bad times to argue

[mhotchin]

Handy rule - don't argue with the man who has a gun.

It doesn't even matter *why* he has a gun - officer or lunatic, he has a gun.

For lunatics, contact the police. For police, there are ways to express your concerns, up to and including lawsuits.

I know people will say that civilian complaints against the police are ignored, but that beats the hell out of what happened to this guy.

Re:Good and bad times to argue

[hyades1]

Yeah, it's always a mistake to stand up for what you believe in...or even demand to be treated like a human being. Better by far to grovel and kiss the ass of the douchebag with the gun. You'll survive, probably. And what could be more important than that?

Re:Good and bad times to argue

[mhotchin]

I didn't say 'grovel'. I said 'take it up with higher authorities'.

Part of freedom is not just knowing the good fight, but knowing who to fight it with.

The douchebag with the gun is the *immediate* problem. The authority that gave the douchebag a gun is the *real* problem.

Don't think of it as getting modded down.

[jeko]

Think of it as votes on a jury.

Look, Kramerd, I've been pretty hard on you tonight, and I apologize. I'm sure your Dad is a cop, and you look up to him, and wanna defend him, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But your Dad and his friends, well, they've been kinda hard on the sheeple lately. When you taser a dozen autistic kids, baton pregnant women in the stomach, taser and club an epileptic for not obeying commands while he's having a seizure, and beat a little girl while she's trapped in a holding cell....

Well, let's just say the other men who carry guns in uniform lose respect for you. And the sheeple, oh my, well the sheeple do truly horrible things.

They start voting against you on juries.

So do me a favor. Go tell your Dad that if he and his little buddies can't get their act together, then We the People are about to introduce them to the wonderful world of private security, where they can make almost a whole eight dollars an hour. :-)

AC Sock puppets... c'mon, we're better than that

[jeko]

Aren't we, Kramerd?

Technology will Solve This

[MacGyver2210]

In this day and age, I'm about 99.9% sure some or all of the guard-patron transactions on the borders is recorded in some way. If this guy is as innocent as he says, the tapes will clearly show it and any judge with half a brain will reach the same conclusion: he wasn't in the wrong.

Re:Technology will Solve This

[Anonymous Coward]

The tape (and witnesses) did show that he wasn't in the wrong. The jury still had to convict him, because of the way the stupid law is written down. No one in that courtroom wanted to do anything other than let him go. The problem is the law itself.

Frank Serpico would like a word...

[jeko]

The problem isn't corruption in itself, the problem is fear of harassment among the officers.

Actually, that harrassment IS corruption. It's also a felony called witness tampering and intimidation.

The world doesn't work like this

[SmallFurryCreature]

You live in lala-land. A fantasy land you have constructed in your own head that has nothing to do with the real world.

If you are lucky, then as an average white middle aged guy you will have little to do with the police other then perhaps to have reported some crimes, that go typically unsolved. You think of the police as a bunch of semi-idiots who don't really matter all that much to you. As you get older, you might have your life saved by one of these semi-idiots, but young guys typically aren't self-aware enough to realize that when the shit happens, you need someone else to fix it because you will be a gibbering mess. (Just count the number of people that will protest this, but will be unable to deal with broken traffic lights on a busy intersection).

The "justive" system, of which police and border guards are part are the "parents" of society. And sometimes if you find two kids fighting, you just kick the shit out of both of them so they won't do it again. Bad parenting? Maybe, but law & order ain't so much about the two kids lying bleeding on the floor after some applied justice but about all of society, all the other kids on the playground who might get the idea to start fighting to.

Civilization is very very thin. If you look at places were Law & Order has broken down, most of Africa, New Orleans after Kathrina, then it shows that when people get it in to their head that their are no cops with sticks to beat them down, will get up to all kinds of nastyness. You might argue poverty and all such excuses for theft and robbery, but how does it excuse rape? "Oh I am poor and the system is against me, so I rape someone from my own class?"

But Law & Order ain't subtle or nice. We don't like police "brutality", which is the police doing what we think they should do to other people, not to us. Normally we can go about our business, closely following the rules blindly and being carefully regulated by years of training. Go ahead, drive the wrong side of traffic, walk against the stream of people. When you come to a double door, which door do you take? Wanna bet it is the same door as the side of traffic you drive on? Do you first let people out of the elevator before going in, arrange yourself so the person that has to go highest goes furthest to the back?

These are simple rules that are so ingrained in us, we don't even think about them, that make civilization work. They make it possible for a society to exist with more then two people getting constantly in each others way.

The BBC is airing a docu about India's railway. The people in India seem to have a careless disregard for what we in the west would see as simple basic unbreakable rules. Forget about crossing the lights, they think it is normal to cross the track anyplace, even on stations. Lots of people die and established official procedure is when a person gets killed for the driver and guard to pull the bits out, put them beside the track, drive on and leave a note at the next station that there is a body to collect!

THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT IT AND HOW WE DO THIS IN THE WEST.

All train traffic is stopped on the section and the emergency services are called and do their work and traffic be damned, first priority is to secure the scene and investigate what happened. And no way in hell is that train driver going to be allowed, let alone expected, to continue the journey. In India trains run with bits of human stuck to them! Law & Order broken down, no, not entirely, it ain't Africa. But a significant part of it doesn't work, the railway police has been unable to stop people from breaking the law and so they no longer can enforce the law and so the law is no longer followed.

And the effect goes further then just a lot of dead people (3000+ in Bombay). You can forget about running faster trains. And how many murders are going unnoticed? Who investigates whether that body was mangled before or after the train hit it? Nobody.

The US has borders that it wishes to control. There a

Re:The world doesn't work like this

[Zironic]

Are you drunk? Other places being bad doesn't mean we can be better, geez

sympathetic Judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The judge in the case was, I believe, as sympathetic as the legal system would allow him to be."

This is the Judge being sympathetic?, I don't think so. What happened here is typical of the Us legal system in action. Assault a man going about his business and then extort $2,000 under threats of jail time.

Wait, he kill himself...

[Anonymous Coward]

...in the X-Files episode "Millennium"?

I am tourist, would that be a good excuse?

[fantomas]

I visited the US and drove around as a tourist once, got stopped by the police and did what folk in the UK do - I got out of the car to wait by the side of it to show the police that I wasn't going to do a runner. I didn't know that you sit inside the car until the police come to you in the USA, nobody told me this when I got my tourist visa stamped at immigration or when I picked up the hire car.

Things escalated very fast and I found myself surrounding by two or three police cars with people shouting stuff and pointing guns at me. Very scary when you're not quite sure why this is all happening. Fair play to the police officers, after a couple of minutes of me putting my hands in the air and shouting "Sorry, I am a tourist, I don't know what I've done" things calmed down to the point that we could have a chat and sort things out pleasantly (we all shook hands at the end of it and the cops pointed out where a local hotel was, my mission of the moment).

Not sure what the answer is, should foreign nationals have to read the local written driving test / read the handbooks before being allowed to drive a car in another country?

Re:I am tourist, would that be a good excuse?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK I had a policeman walk up to me when I was waiting on a red light, open my damned door and ask why I am taking photos from the car (I was in the passenger seat). Other unpleasant things happend to me when dealing with "law enforcement" in other countries and I've heard some first-hand stories too. The moral is that law enforcement are abusive pigs and I cannot bring myself not to hate them whenever I see them, even though I have not committed any crimes.

Re:I am tourist, would that be a good excuse?

[im_thatoneguy]

Welcome to the US. In the US we're all "safe" because we all have these things called "guns". And by "safe" I mean we get really nervous when someone can access their pockets.

I'm sorry handgun advocates but this is obviously an instance where handguns are a problem. Sure the driver might have a knife but you can keep your distance from someone with a knife. It's pretty hard to 'keep your distance' from someone with a gun.

Violence against cops is going down, not up.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was time when police officers let drunk drivers continue to drive because "the car knows where its going."

Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.

I was curious about your statement, and checked a bit: It is plain wrong, at least for the last 35+ years. The relevant statistics are published by the FBI here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

The data is unfortunately varyingly formatted; here's a sample showing progress (from 1995 to 2004): http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2004/table1.htm

Here's another one covering 1998 to 2008 (which is the last data point): http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_01.html

Pulling out the data from the 1996 through 2008 descriptions, I created a table of "Felonious killings of police officers" covering 1987 to 2008:

1987 74
1988 78
1989 66
1990 66
1991 71
1992 63
1993 70
1994 79
1995 74
1996 61
1997 70
1998 61
1999 42
2000 51
2001 70
2002 56
2003 52
2004 57
2005 55
2006 48
2007 58
2008 41

As you can see, a slow progression to lower risk for police officers, with about half as high risk today as it used to be (but with
  How about assault, then?

1987 16.8 assaults per 100 police officers (from table 31 of the 1996 paper)
1988 15.9 assaults per 100 police officers
1989 16.4 assaults per 100 police officers
1990 17.4 assaults per 100 police officers
1991 15.5 assaults per 100 police officers
1992 17.6 assaults per 100 police officers
1993 14.7 assaults per 100 police officers
1994 13.5 assaults per 100 police officers
1995 13.5 assaults per 100 police officers
1996: 12.5 assaults per 100 police officers, 4.0 assaults with injury
2001: 12.2 assaults per 100 police officers, 3.5 assaults with injury
2008: 11.3 assaults per 100 police officers, 3.0 assaults with injury

So, from the early 1990s we seem to have had a clean decline in assaults, too.

This change is what is sad, not my attitude regarding the realization of how the world currently works. It is sad that officers have to resort to pepper spray or tasers because these cause less harm than beating someone senseless as a safety precaution.

How exactly have you not accepted this (willingly or begrudgingly)?

How exactly have you not accepted that you have to actually check your prejudices, and can't just make up of how the world is (willingly or begrudgingly)?

A gut feeling isn't an argument. Most often, when it comes to societal questions from somebody that hasn't studied societal statistics, the gut feeling is wrong. I hope you've just learned that you can't trust yours, and shouldn't use it to decide how to do societal development until you've checked it against the statistics.

New Rule for posting about border crossings

[deadend44]

If you're going to bitch about what you think it is fair or not fair for a border patrol officer to do post the number of times you've crossed the border in question, or any international border. My number, at least 30 crossings each way in the last year, of the exact border in contention, the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of you who are posting about how out of line the guards were or all of your ramblings about how things should and should not be handled have never even seen another country. The Blue Water Bridge is one of, if not the most, important land crossings for international trade. Two major interstate highways end here, meaning that any trucks going from the midwest into canada go through here. After 9/11, this bridge and surrounding area was considered one of the highest threat areas in the US due to the crippling effect it would have on international trade. Ok, all of that being said, the officers were probably in the wrong. They over-reacted to what seems like a misunderstanding of a situation. Personally, I would rather they over-react then under-react and end up having something catastrophic happen. That's the way they have to think, yes it sucks but it is the world we have come to live in. If somebody stops listening to the directions they are given and exits their vehicle the guard's only choice is to assume that the worst could happen. In hindsight they should have handled it much differently, and there are ways to restrain someone without threatening or injuring them. In conclusion, Judge Adair made the right call for the sentencing. A $1600 fine shows that yes, Watts was at fault but not to the extent that the bridge officials were trying to state. To Watt's, I'm sorry your trip to Port Huron was not a favorable one, we really aren't that bad of a town.

Re:New Rule for posting about border crossings

[Miroslaw.Baran]

I call bullshit. I'm living in Ireland now, have been routinely travelling through Europe since quite some time, and while I've never visited the U.S., I've been to Canada quite recently.

It's pretty obvious, that you guys are already conditioned to see nothing wrong with that behaviour, but it's still not the norm. It's not the norm even in the US, as one of the previous comments has shown.

Let me tell you, the behaviour you're describing as normal is not normal at all. I've seen this type of attitude only once, in 1989, when travelling through the West Germany / East Germany border. For those who don't remember, East Germany was not exactly friendly to their neigbouring country.

Re:New Rule for posting about border crossings

[thygrrr]

Totally, even when going into Switzerland or Poland, they have a quick look at your ID and let you pass. Random inspections and searches do happen, but even then it's not a very tense thing. I admittedly don't know what it's like to get into the UK nowadays, though, seeing how they developed a very similar paranoia to the US.

Frankly, what's going on there at the US/Canada border reminds me of the old FRG/GDR borders, or at least the Pre-Schengen-Agreement Germany/Czech Republic or Austria/Hungary... borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement

What the hell, you guys have been neighbors all the time, you speak the same language, you are both developed countries; and all of the sudden the border security just climbs and climbs and climbs...? What reasons are there?

Scary, to say the least.

Re:New Rule for posting about border crossings

[multipartmixed]

What the hell, you guys have been neighbors all the time, you speak the same language, you are both developed countries; and all of the sudden the border security just climbs and climbs and climbs...? What reasons are there?

The Americans are insane.

Specifically, they are in the midst of transforming a free society into a fascist dictatorship.

Naomi Wolfe explains this much better than I could:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Democracy in action

[Mathinker]

30% Informative
40% Flamebait
30% Insightful

I love Slashdot also, but for a different reason, perhaps. (Yes, I know, it has its warts, also.)

Furthermore

[Anonymous Coward]

(quoting the grandparent)

because they are within their rights to beat you well before that, as they should be, because what if you have a gun?

What if they have a gun? I know I'd sooner trust the average civilian with a gun. They don't have the legal right to use it in offence against me, only defense.

Customs

[Anonymous Coward]

Customs going to and coming back from other foreign first world nations has gotten to be absolutely ridiculous, and needlessly time consuming.

I can remember when I used to be able to cross into Canada in about 5m, and about the same on the way back into the US. Today it's still about 5m(as long as there isn't heavy border traffic), and at least 45m getting back into the US(again assuming light traffic). It's to the point where I don't even consider traveling to a foreign country unless the trip is truly needful.

Re:AC Sock puppets... c'mon, we're better than tha

[Anonymous Coward]

We are - he isn't. (Well, sometimes we are...)

vitriol and hate.

[jeko]

Hi Moridineas,

As someone who's been shoveling out the abuse on this topic, let me explain.

What an Officer of the Law is supposed to be, is a wonderful thing.

What they have allowed themselves to become, as an institution, breaks my heart. I listen to them in their own words over at the forums on "Officer.com," and the constant stream of comments about "dumb-ass sheeple," how the civilians can go frack themselves because "I'M GOING HOME TONIGHT," and the non-stop jokes they make about how they abused the badge and broke the law for their own amusement makes me ill.

I work the security side of the fence. I listen to a lot of cops talk. Some of them should be under indictment by their own words. More aren't worthy of the badge. The few who are trying to do the right thing are cowed into submission.

One of the guys I know with left the force after an incident where a child was shot because one of the officers lost control of his temper. Enough alcohol had pried his tongue loose one night. When I asked him why he didn't testify against about what he saw, why he went along with the "official" story, he angrily told me I didn't understand how things work. The guilt is eating this guy alive.

He trusted me with this horrible story. And I can't look him in the eye any more, because I know that not only did he let a child's murderer walk, but he actually helped that filth escape justice. Which makes him an accomplice in the murder of a child.

Your problem is that I'm not the only guy with a story like this. Consider the audience on this board. We're a bunch of pretty mild geeks -- and even a bunch of engineers can't stand the police any more.

You problem isn't a bunch of "cop haters," Moridineas. Your problem is that the police have made their reputation, and are justly suffering for it.

They made this bed.

   

Re:vitriol and hate.

[Moridineas]

Hi jeko, thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm not a LEO and don't directly work with many most of the time, but I do work connected with a number of CJ folks. There are many stories to be told, some good, some bad. My thoughts to some of your comments:

What an Officer of the Law is supposed to be, is a wonderful thing.

I guess? A LEO is a LEO. They are there to deal with the kind of people you and I shouldn't have to deal with, and hope never to deal with! I don't know if they're supposed to be wonderful or not. They're people, just like everybody else.

What they have allowed themselves to become, as an institution, breaks my heart. I listen to them in their own words over at the forums on "Officer.com," and the constant stream of comments about "dumb-ass sheeple," how the civilians can go frack themselves because "I'M GOING HOME TONIGHT," and the non-stop jokes they make about how they abused the badge and broke the law for their own amusement makes me ill.

No offense, but if you look at ANY internet message board, I think you come away appalled at humanity. Some computer/engineer-type friends of mine who are a bit less on the geek spectrum read slashdot every now and then just to get a kick out of the comments. I don't think any insular group has any idea how ludicrous they sound to outsiders (and I bet I could pick 10 examples from this article in about 60 seconds if I had to). I would suspect any LEO dumb enough to post that stuff online is, well, dumb. As you said elsewhere in your posts, cops like to talk...sometime's it's just talk. When it's more, that's a problem.

He trusted me with this horrible story. And I can't look him in the eye any more, because I know that not only did he let a child's murderer walk, but he actually helped that filth escape justice. Which makes him an accomplice in the murder of a child.

If there's any reality to this story, it's horrible and involves multiple LEOs who should be punished. A colleague of mine who used to work in the NYPD and ended fairly high up said that one of the biggest problems with working in law enforcement is that (as I've said elsewhere) -- cops are people just like everybody else, they are asked to do things that most people are not asked to do and hope never to do, and like everybody else, sometimes nerves take over. In the Diallou case for instance, how the hell do four officers shoot over *40* times at an unarmed civilian? Well, Diallo did not listen to the cops, he made sudden moves, one officer thought he was going for a gun and shouted "gun", another officer fires, one officer falls, thinking he had been hit, the other officers fire more. 41 shots can happen in a matter of a seconds. Heartsbeats. Nobody--NOBODY--is going to argue that the Diallou case isn't absolutely horrible, but when you look at, neither is it obviously a case of ill-intent, bad officers picking on a black dude, or powerhungry pigs going on a shooting spree.

Your problem is that I'm not the only guy with a story like this. Consider the audience on this board. We're a bunch of pretty mild geeks -- and even a bunch of engineers can't stand the police any more.

I think it's much simpler than that. Throughout the last 50 years the left has had a severe problem with police, military, etc. Slashdot is a rather leftist place and it's not surprising.

You problem isn't a bunch of "cop haters," Moridineas. Your problem is that the police have made their reputation, and are justly suffering for it.

Everybody hears about the abuse cases--and rightfully so! It's like catholic priests. How many catholic priests DON'T molest children? The vast majority. How many catholic priests spend their entire lives serving their community, helping people, and being put in positions where people intimately trust them--without doing anything illegal? Again, the vast majority. Yet the institution of catholic pries

Re:vitriol and hate.

[Compaqt]

I think one of the reasons people are concerned is that it's not just "leftists" (long hair, tie-died, peace necklace) that are getting bashed.

It's "normal" people just sitting in their minivans getting beaten up.

You don't carry around your political affiliation on your shirt collar, so cops are just as likely to beat up conservatives as leftists, which is why more and more people are freaking out about police power and abuse of it.

Re:vitriol and hate.

[Moridineas]

You don't carry around your political affiliation on your shirt collar, so cops are just as likely to beat up conservatives as leftists, which is why more and more people are freaking out about police power and abuse of it.

You think it's more now than at other times? I think it's at a high level on places like slashdot (again, highly linked to leftist political orientation) but I doubt public trust in police is lower than historically, and probably higher than at some times in the last decade. I have no numbers or anything to support this though.

Blade Runner

[Spatial]

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Getting out of your Car

[thygrrr]

Getting out of your car when pulled over or at the border seems like such a big deal in the US, it sure as hell doesn't in most European countries.

It has always baffled me that it is that way in the US (I'm from Germany). My sister was once yelled at - at gun point! - to get back in the car when she got pulled over near Detroit for speeding once.

Whenever I get pulled over (rarely, so far mostly routine inspections, and one 10km/h speeding ticket), my first instinct is to actually get out of the car because it's impolite in my eyes not to. I had my car and baggage searched at the Czech border once and we were of course standing around the car while the officers were looking through our bags, glove compartment, etc.

I suppose I need to keep my instincts suppressed on my upcoming trips to the US, though I don't plan on getting pulled over in the first place. :)

cop fanboy much?

[Hognoxious]

Well, standing too close to an officer could very easily be a crime, for example if by doing so you are interefering with an investigation, or with an arrest, or stopping a police officer from otherwise completing their official duties.

Wrong. In those cases the crime, if any, would be interefering[sic] with an investigation etc.

Is wearing a red shirt a crime because someone might be wearing a red shirt while committing a robbery?

Just because you might, in some hypothetical case, do action X in connection with crime Y doesn't make X a crime in itself. That's what leads too the kind of "law creep" we're getting.

This is why I won't go to the USA anymore

[Otis_INF]

This kind of border crap is something I want to avoid at all cost. Last time I entered the USA (through seattle airport) I was questioned 10 times (TEN TIMES) what my business was there. And not by polite people who were friendly, no, by soldiers with M16's.

Why would anyone voluntarily want to go through all that?

No Jail Time

[ps2os2]

Now how about going after the guards and Cheney and Bush?

Bad cops need punished. If that is not happening,

[jeko]

I'm here to tell you it's not happening, and it is a problem.

From the officers who deserted their post to join the looting in Katrina to the incident that happened yesterday where two law enforcement officers robbed a convenience store and attacked the clerk while flashing their badges:

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/officers-accused-of-crossing-the-line
"HARTLAND TOWNSHIP, Mich. - Clerks who work at a Clyde Road gas station are forced to dial 911 after two police officers allegedly lost control. They are accused of doing everything from stealing pizza and punching a clerk to posing as Homeland Security. ... There were plenty of witnesses, including an off-duty Livingston County deputy, who happened to be getting gas at the time and tried to intervene."

No charges have been filed. Neither LEO has been arrested. They've been clearly identified from the videotape and the testimony of a sheriff's deputy. Robbery. Assault. Using the badge to facilitate the robbery. DUI. All of it documented on tape and by eyewitness LEO testimony. The deputy saw it, and did not arrest his fellow LEOs, apparently deciding the extent of his duty was to merely try to persuade his fellow LEOs not to commit felonies.

Tell me again how it's just a few bad apples.

Oh, right, these are just ordinary people asked to do extraordinary things, so we have to expect this kind of behavior. That's odd, because I grew up in a world where randomly drafted 18-year-old kids were expected to maintain discipline even after they'd been shot and bullets were still flying.

Special legal status and protection. Endless training. Uniforms. Partners and Radios. Body armor. Backup. Souped-up armored hotrods. Chemical spray. Batons. Swithblades. Tasers. Guns. License to use dealy force with the assumption your use of violence was justified.

But somehow, even with all of those advantages, we're still supposed to think, "Well, they're just human, we should expect bad behavior from time to time."

Funny, I was always taught that mistakes are understandable right up to the point that a firearm enters the room, and that when a bullet is present, there are no more "accidents."

But hey, because a few Catholic priests turned out to be heinous pedophiles, we shouldn't indict the entire Catholic clergy. Actually, when you find evidence that the Pope himself shielded child molesters, that's pretty much exactly what you should do, because the Vatican knew of the abuse, and became accomplices by protecting pedophiles from being called to account.

Few bad apples, few bad apples, I keep hearing this phrase, "Just a few bad apples," and that's strange because the whole saying is that "A few bad apples spoils the bunch."

How many more bad apples do you need before you concede the problem is systemic?

Re:Bad cops need punished. If that is not happenin

[Moridineas]

Ok, I'm kind of changing my assessment from "that was a thoughtful reply" (see previous post!) to "you're actually rather rabid." Since you're basically just ranting in your last post and completely talking past me, I'm keeping my reply somewhat short. I'd be happy to reply again if you do...

No charges have been filed. Neither LEO has been arrested. They've been clearly identified from the videotape and the testimony of a sheriff's deputy. Robbery. Assault. Using the badge to facilitate the robbery. DUI. All of it documented on tape and by eyewitness LEO testimony. The deputy saw it, and did not arrest his fellow LEOs, apparently deciding the extent of his duty was to merely try to persuade his fellow LEOs not to commit felonies.

Read the article you linked! ... Frederick is facing a misdemeanor assault and battery charge. ... ...both the Wayne County Airport Authority and the TSA have launched internal investigations into the officers' actions. For now, we are told Zima has been placed on administrative leave and ... Frederick is suspended and has entered rehab."

These two people were *off-duty* and did some horrifically stupid stuff. Bad? Yes. They've been suspended from their jobs and are facing charges. What more do you want? In your conception of how such cases should be handled, what would be different?

Tell me again how it's just a few bad apples.

Here's why you're rabid--the plural of anecdote is not data. If you can answer this question--what percentage of cops commit crimes / abuses of duty that warrants their badges taken away?--then I think we could have a base to talk, but I'm 100% sure you don't have a clue, and will just keep finding random incidents such as the off-duty cop you cited above.

Oh, right, these are just ordinary people asked to do extraordinary things, so we have to expect this kind of behavior. That's odd, because I grew up in a world where randomly drafted 18-year-old kids were expected to maintain discipline even after they'd been shot and bullets were still flying.

If you're confused by what I wrote, reread my post, but your question is completely answered there. I'm not going to have a discussion with you if you won't read or comment on what I said. Secondly, the military -- all militaries! -- have occasional outbursts of the exact same kind of problems, so I don't understand your point?

But somehow, even with all of those advantages, we're still supposed to think, "Well, they're just human, we should expect bad behavior from time to time."

Please quote where I said that.

Few bad apples, few bad apples, I keep hearing this phrase, "Just a few bad apples," and that's strange because the whole saying is that "A few bad apples spoils the bunch."

I didn't say anything about apples, and I didn't see any other commenter on this article say anything about bad apples--are you thinking of something else perhaps?

By my googling there are perhaps 900,000 police in the united states. If even one half of a percent of them do something dumb in a year, that's THOUSANDS of cases for people like you to scream about the abuse of power, how all cops are bad, etc. We (unfortunately) don't live in a perfect world, people are not perfect, law enforcement officers often work in high stress environments and in high stress situations. You are NEVER going to be able to eliminate all abuses, accidents, etc. It's impossible. See my example of the Diallou case (or even the Watts case) for examples of how slight escalations can easily pile up. Your example about the drunk off-duty cop has absolutely zero relevance to this and is a complete strawman.

I call BS

[John Jamieson]

Having been through this border crossing many times, and even having had my car come up for the "random search" I can state that at no point have I ever spotted this sign.

No sign like this near Buffalo, not at Detroit, not at Sarnia and not at Sault Ste. Marie.

B.S!!!!

Re:Bad cops need punished. If that is not happenin

[hrimhari]

Thank you for putting into words what I have been feeling from reading this article's comments but didn't have the talent to express.

We have some people here with some bad experiences that seem to be working really hard to discredit an entire and important corporation.

I can only hope you'll have the time to break each of the trolling threads like you did to this one.