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

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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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 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..

[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..

[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?

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: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: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?

[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.

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: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: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: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.

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?

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: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?

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. :-)

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.

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?