Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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).
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.
Thanks :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are you drunk? Other places being bad doesn't mean we can be better, geez