Sci-Fi Writer Peter Watts Convicted of Assault 381
SJrX writes "CBC news is reporting that Peter Watts has indeed been convicted of Assaulting border guards, (discussed here). He will be sentenced April 26th."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Sci-Fi Writer Peter Watts Convicted of Assault
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute... (Score:1, Insightful)
Soon nobody will want to go to America (Score:1, Insightful)
Chinese debt collectors. They will want to come.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, the way he describes it, he was convicted for failing to comply immediately with the official's order, which is something it seems that he doesn't deny. So the videotape wouldn't have helped with that.
Let's hope that Michigan judges have discretion in sentencing. Chances are they do.
Re:yey (Score:4, Insightful)
The evil part, which you have glossed over, is that disobeying a lawful order (which he did, stipulated) should NOT equate to felony assault (which is what he was accused and convicted of). That it does, at least in Michigan, is a woeful misstep in legislation and jurisprudence, and a shameful blot on the soul of every American, including me.
Insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.
Re:Insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
I agree. Not to mention that fact that the U.S. will have to fall a long, long way before people from the real armpits that Planet Earth has to offer stop trying to get in here any way they can (I could name one in particular, but then I'd be accused of being a bigot.)
The attitude of the original poster ("Soon nobody will want to come to America") is just wishful thinking at best, truly ignorant at worst. I know a number of immigrants who hail from, shall we say, less-enlightened countries (one described the country of his birth as a "typical Communist hellhole") and there's no way you would ever get them to go back. America is still the Land of Opportunity to them: it's all relative you know.
Re:yey (Score:4, Insightful)
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
It doesn't surprise me that he'd be confused and disoriented, or that he'd be slow to comply. Try punching someone in the face some time. It hurts.
The really sad bit is that under these laws, you could not only punch someone in the face, you could pepper spray them, kick them in the nuts while they were down, and then tell them you wanted them to stand up and empty out your pockets. Don't do it because you're screaming and in pain, or trying to run away? You're committing a crime.
the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
is twofold:
1. what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job. and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.
2. the jury was not there to consider the guard behavior, but about point 1.
so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA (yep, he had gotten in just fine, it was while going back to canada that the trouble started).
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember one 4th of July night I was stopped by a State Trooper and I immediately was required to step out of the vehicle. If I had been a dick, I probably would've been in jail for a few days. They were looking for a vehicle like mine, and when they found it wasn't mine, I got a "warning" of going over 60. The officer looked in the bed of my truck (it was a Red truck, go figure) and I must've stood on the side of the highway for oh, 20 or so minutes while they conferred and other nonsense. It was bullshit, and they knew it... but other than me having to stand on the side of the road, it was just an inconvenience. (They never asked to search inside the vehicle...)
Moral of the story: Most cops are okay... but there are dicks and bitches in uniform. Getting frisky with them will do nothing but make more trouble for YOU, and the dipshits in uniform will continue to be dipshits. It's best to handle this from outside the incidents in question, rather than escalating an already asinine situation. I'm not saying that Watts was right or wrong... just the circumstances of "penises with badges" always end in disaster for the victim if they escalate it. *shrug* I don't have a perfect answer for the problem either.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pathetic. Regardless of the letter of the law, if the guy didn't do anything that should amount to criminal behavior, and his behavior was reactive - a response to being unjustly assaulted - then the jury failed utterly to do its job. If the law is being applied unjustly or unfairly in a case, as it seems to have been here (the assault was committed by an officer, not by the defendant), then jury nullification is a justifiable, and in fact morally obligatory, response.
Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading (Score:3, Insightful)
Watts' blog is biased, uninformative, and basically uninteresting, so... you link instead to the Toronto Star quoting that same blog, and quote the quote of that blog just for good measure?
At least the Star's description - resisting and obstructing, not assault - is an improvement on the Slashdot one.
The ML post, I'll grant, was exaggerating a little for the sake of snark.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:4, Insightful)
Within reason, pretty much. If they'd pulled out their guns and shot Watts, they'd be in big trouble. But there's no law that says police have to be polite or even understanding.
With the way juries and persecutors are (Score:4, Insightful)
If a cop socks you in the face for no reason, and decides to bring you up on charges for "resisting a police officer", you'll be convicted on the grounds that your face impeded the free movement of the cop's fist. (and no, I'm not exaggerating).
Any juror who won't essentially agree to convict will be dismissed during voir dire.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:1, Insightful)
I have a question that isn't intended to be loaded; I genuinely want to know what your position is. In the past, racial discrimination laws (e.g. segregation) may have made some of the morally justified actions of people of color illegal. Do you feel it is your duty to convict them if the law is thus? If not, what is fundamentally different about Mr. Watt's case? It seems to me that the jury had the opportunity to prevent further suffering of a person whose only crime followed police provocation, yet you followed the letter, and not necessarily the spirit of the law. At what point of injury do you start to consider the results of your decision as part of the decision making process?
Re:the facts of the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Jury Nullification (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL...
You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit, if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances. You're not forced to follow the directions of the judge, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a jury at all. If I was Peter Watts' lawyer, reading your message, I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning, on grounds of misdirection.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be such a law. In fact, I think police officers should be required to be in counseling while in active, non-desk service. For their sake as well as our own: constantly experiencing the underbelly of society can turn anyone into an asshole.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you know this, but refusing to comply with a law enforcement official has a couple hundred years precedent stating that it amounts to criminal behavior.
As the juror said, two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to screw the cops, you behave like a model citizen and then sue the shit out of them when they abuse their position.
then the jury failed utterly to do its job.
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin. The Judge knows the law, but does not have the right to decide whether or not the law has been followed - that right is reserved for a jury of the defendant's peers. This is for the defendant's protection, as no man should have the power to be judge and jury.
So the Judge explains the decision making elements of the trial to the Jury, these are always extremely specific. He also explains that the ONLY things the Jury is to consider are elements directly related to the charges being prosecuted. The Judge is then there to handle the procedural side of the trial while the Jury listens. The officers were not on trial, Peter Watts was. There was absolutely no way for the Jury to consider the officer's conduct, their conduct was not on trial. Extenuating circumstances only come into play at sentencing, but they won't let you off the hook for committing a crime.
As much as you may not like it, not complying with an officer of the law is a crime (get out of the car, get down on the ground, put your hands on your head, etc), and Peter Watts definitely committed a crime in refusing to obey the officers. Now, he should be able to press charges against the officers for assault, but then it's up to the Prosecutor to bring a case against the officers. If they don't, he is free to sue the Attorney General's office, the Border Patrol, and the State for justice.
That the police assaulted him does not mean he gets to break the law, it means both he and the police broke the law and should be tried separately.
In other words, if you think this should have ended in jury nullification, you are a buffoon.
Re:Travesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bureaucracy for you, give a nobody a bit of power over someone else and half the time they'll turn into an asshole. This seems to be even more true if the person they are screwing has no recourse.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Any single juror can pronounce the defendant "not guilty," and it would have the force of law behind it. Same goes for a summary judgment of "not guilty" from the bench, or a refusal by the assigned judge to hear the case. There has to be full agreement between the grand jury, the judge, and the petit jury for a conviction. That's at least 25 people, maybe more if there's more than 12 grand jurors.
As for "only Peter Watts was on trial," the answer for that is simple. Ask all the jurors, "Faced with the same situation, would you have done the same thing? And if you did, could you still see yourself as a law-abiding citizen?" Any one juror answering "yes" to the second question would mean an acquittal.
When two police officers are giving contradictory orders, as in this case, and the result is a charge of "failure to comply," it's entrapment, pure and simple. The shocking thing is, as I type this, I see no mention of the term on here, in well over 100 comments.
Really ticked off. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read about this incident, and about the trial, I'm outraged. It really burns me up.
First up, I find myself wondering what was wrong with the jurors. Whenever jurors come out of a trial wringing their hands with anguish and making all kinds of sorrowful excuses for their own verdict, and start crying about how they "had to" convict someone who they didn't really think did anything wrong, I find myself wanting to tear my own hair out in frustration. Are they nuts? How did our society come to this point? When the jury is called upon for a verdict, they are responsible. They've got no business putting the blame on the judge's instructions, or on some minute technicality. They are supposed to think for themselves at least a little bit. This is why we have jury trials.
Secondly, I find myself wondering about the prosecutor. Somebody made the decision to press this case and bring it to trial with this evidence and these arguments. He clearly wasn't doing the public any service. His community should be told about this. His neighbors should be told about it. Let him face their opprobrium, and then see if he's eager to pull this sort of stunt again!
Re:the facts of the case (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it. Here's is my response.
I was not comfortable with my vote
I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
Actually, you do. Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.
but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice. Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray. It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.
That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours?
On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing. What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"
In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.
Re:yey (Score:2, Insightful)
They shouldn't have convicted. If even one of them had understood jury nullification, they wouldn't have (or, at best, they'd have gotten a hung jury): at least one person claiming to be one of the jurors has posted on here that he wished he hadn't had to convict, and that he'd had the chance to try the cops. Acting like a jerk isn't justification for assault and battery (which is what the cops did to him).
The law is wrong. It is abusive, vague, and tyrannical. Police are supposed to be our servants, not the other way around. This case should have been nullified.
All that being said, he was really lucky to get out of an encounter like that alive. I read for too many stories about victims who were murdered by cops because they weren't respectful enough. Of course, those shootings get reviewed (by fellow cops) and are always found "justified."
Cops have gotten worse than the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:2, Insightful)
searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently
There are three things on trial in any trial such as this. Both offense/defense and the law itself. You decided that the law was not on trial, fine (btw it should be). You do not have to 'vote' what the law says. That is why there is a jury trial. Seriously? You convicted him? At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged'. You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail. For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing'. If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that. Neither should you. You *LET* them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules. Let me be probably one of many who say it here. You suck. But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.
The day we are asked to 'just conform' is the day we are asked to ignore this http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 [usconstitution.net] and http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5 [usconstitution.net]
Re:the facts of the case (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing you've never been on a jury before, and so have absolutely no idea what a jury is there for. Juries don't know the law. They aren't expected to. That's what the Judge is for. Judge and Jury act as two sides of the same coin.
The jury is there is part to decide if the law should apply in this case. If we just wanted people to decide if the law had been followed, we would be better served by creating professional juries who were trained in the law. Lawyers (and judges are lawyers) don't want the general populace to understand this because it reduces the importance of their carefully written laws that require years of study to understand what they mean. The purpose of juries is to decide if the defendant has committed a crime, regardless of what the law says. The justification for the judges' very strict instructions is that the jury's discretion is only supposed to work one way: find the defendant not guilty even if he violated the letter of the law, if the jury thinks the defendant is guilty of what should be a crime but did not violate the letter of the law, they are supposed to find him not guilty.
Re:One more reason out of hundreds (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few things:
1. The border patrol agent is the face of the american government, and thus the face of USA
2. The agent acted out of line, with physical abuse (punches to the face, unneccesarily maced)
3. It's caught on camera.
4. The agent seem to have no consequences from it.
5. The unlucky victim is found guilty of breaking the law, by essentially asking why he was punched in the face
Are you still wondering why people react? That guy should be given a public apology, and the border guard should be kicked out.
Instead, the law (aka government, aka USA) supports him, and criminalizes the victim of the abuse.
Re:so how are you going to change the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the guard is performing, or has just performed, an illegal act (e.g. assault and battery), thereby revoking their privilege of authority.
I have to wonder if that's covered anywhere under "colour of law" legislation. If it isn't, it should be.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are glorified thug security guards given license to threaten, intimidate, bully, harass average joes in the name of "national security." I know because I deal with those assholes and their checkpoints on a regular basis. It's a staring contest, and if you lose, you get pulled to the side while agents interrogate you and rummage through your vehicle, often with dogs. That's not even counting the false positives when they bring out the dogs to begin with. And if you don't think that's a problem then try explaining to your boss who saw the dogs pawing at your car before you were pulled over to secondary and yanked out of your car humiliated.
Those of you Southern California folks know exactly what I'm talking about if you've driven through the I-8 checkpoint in the mountains outside of Pine Valley. First, you drive past a sign that says "Terrorist threat level - Yellow", then you drive past another sign that says "keeping America Safe - X pounds of drugs confiscated, X citations issued, X illegal immigrants detained, X DUIs referred to CHP, etc."
Grand Jury (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing here? Grand juries can issue subpoenas and do all kinds of things normal juries cannot.
In particular, they could have charged the *officers* with a crime had they wished to...
Re:the facts of the case (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't get to "make allowances" for how nice people are, they get zero say in the sentencing.
No, they do. Juries get to decide whether there will even be a sentancing, by voting either Guilty or Not Guilty. Juries are not required to give a reason for their vote. Although often the judge will tell them they can only consider the law, this is not the case, and has not been since the inception of America.
Juries have the right to vote Not Guilty for no other reason than the promptings of their own conscience. The fact that officers of the court routinely try and suppress knowledge of this right is an indication of the fact that they know the law is going against what the common man believes is right.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:1, Insightful)
This is obviously where we differ. The whole idea behind the current system of law and governance is that the average person has at least some modicum of control over the system (although I'll readily admit that it's a huge joke at the moment; a choice between the equal of two evils). Contrast that with someone's sense of morality - you have absolutely no control over that. You can argue and argue until you're blue in the face, and people will still believe what they will (incidentally, I'm not arguing to convince you - it's futile, I'm arguing to convince any undecided readers). Moreover, unlike the law, there's no safety nets over what people believe - not even self-interest. There are suicide bombers, Scientology followers, liberal WASPs/minority conservatives, people who stay in horribly abusive relationships, and all manners of other self-flagellating beliefs.
The other major advantage of the law is that it's known ahead of time. I guess it becomes a question of whether you'd prefer to know whether you're going to get screwed or not, but I always say that if you know you're going to get screwed, you can at least try to do something about it. If I end up with in front of a jury of people who strongly disagree with my lifestyle (For a nerd, I'm pretty standard, but let's pretend I'm not ;)), you better believe I want them following the letter of the law, because I would have tried to act in accordance with whatever asinine law I'm charged with - ie, something that I can control. To put it (yet another) way, it's the reason vigilantism is so highly frowned upon. Many victims of vigilantism deserve what they get (see the Chinese Human-Flesh Searches), but vigilantism is still discouraged because an unregulated mob can't be trusted to temper their emotions, so you end up with punishments in gross excess of the crime at best, and wrong convictions at worst. What you advocate is technically a form of vigilantism - subverting existing judicial systems to apply justice as you see fit.
Finally,
If my sense of 'right and wrong' is that the letter of the law is a better metric than my emotion, then surely my actions would be right in your book (NB: the reciprocal is not true), even though (from your perspective) they're warped? Perhaps it seems foreign to you that someone can defer their emotions to a logic or rules to such an extent than it feeds back into their conscience - but I've been saying this whole time that people believe the craziest thing (so from your perspective, I'm walking proof).
Re:the facts of the case (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason a jury of your peers is involved is so they can refused to return a guilty plea if they think the crime wasn't committed, was justified, or the law is bogus.
The legal system has been so corrupted that following the laws as written just means you are screwed. Hell, they've probably executed a couple hundred innocent people at this point.
Every time you serve as a juror (as i will next week), you protect your right to jury nullification. If they ask you questions about your beliefs on it (or "will you follow the law as written") then your correct answer is that you will do so. And then once you are on the jury- do what is right- do what is just.
Don't argue jury nullfication in the jury room and do not tell any other juror you believe it . Simply say, "not guilty- not convinced- not sure- but not guilty".
Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:4, Insightful)
Although the way you wrote this is a bit inflammatory, I'd have to agree. Most people here (Australia) would be aware of MLK and what he did, but only in rather vague or general terms. Hitler on the other hand ... Australia along with most other Western nations spent the best part of 6 years fighting him so no introduction needed there.
I dare say most of the world would be similar. MLK was a great man, but his achievements were primarily US domestic ones. A bit like if I, as an Australian, were to mention Eddie Mabo [wikipedia.org] - most outside of AU would not know off the top of their head who he was (not that I'm trying to say Mabo was on the same scale of importance as MLK).
Still I don't think it's invalid to put them in the same sentence. The GGGP didn't try and state that they were equally influential ... just that both of them wrong interesting things while locked up :) Which is true.
Re:the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cops don't fuck around - it's their life on the line
Hah! Not only is their job far safer than many others, but they're far more likely to kill or seriously injure the person they stop than vice versa. In the vast majority of cases they're the only armed parties and usually are not there alone.
This border guard for instance had NO reason to fear for his safety at all. He'd already been in the vehicle with the suspect - the very place he'd have been knifed, etc, and was now safely back out of the vehicle. If he had felt threatened he'd have backed off and waited until other heavily armed guards could arrive - in seconds.
I think you meant to say: "Cops fuck around when it's only your life on the line."
Canadian police use the exact same procedure (keep the person in the car
It's policy!? OMFG. Well why didn't you say so!
It's also passive aggressive. You've been stopped. You need to leave your hands visible, not make any sudden movements, and now sit and wait - often ten or more minutes. (And that's for routine traffic stuff.)
I'm sure they love the freedom that comes from you being afraid and sitting in your car - it gives them time for a snack, but it's thoroughly unreasonable to say that merely getting out of your car to go talk to them is confrontational. People have a right to question those who stop them, and can reasonably be expected to do so.
It's just another in the endless list of unknowable laws you can break and procedures you can interfere with that will be used to criminalize you.
Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way, don't be an ass.
Ahh yes, because questioning orders makes you an ass.
Clearly delaying laying down by a few seconds would have cost the hostages their lives - oh wait, no hostages, no urgency, no problem.
Like I said, this is potentially life or death for these guys, they don't have the luxury
Again, pity the people with all the power, the protection, and the weapons. Pity them because they might break a nail while beating someone.
Customs agents certainly do not die at the hands of border crossers often enough to qualify it as a dangerous job. However enough border crossers are beaten and killed without good reason (ie, no weapons, smuggling, etc) to qualify crossing the border as a dangerous action.
... kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get away
Strange definition of kind you have - merely not beating him would have sufficed.
Pft. If a drug runner decided to shoot his way out he wouldn't wait until he'd been given a stupid order and then question it, he'd just start shooting.
These are all just pointless excuses, and pointless justifications from you, for something that is at best a total fucking waste of tax money. If all you have to offer is trying to sweep things under the rug then shut the fuck up.
Re:so how are you going to change the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Enforce it. If the officer was in jail for 50-life for abusing a position of trust while carrying a deadly weapon, criminal conspiracy to hide evidence, etc, then a year or two for Watts might not be so thoroughly unreasonable.
After all, if an officer actually had any liability for illegal or unwarranted orders, uncalled for violence, etc, they might actually save their orders for important things. And then disobeying those orders might cause unwarranted risk to others and there'd be a reason for punishing you for failure to obey.
There's always something you can be charged with and with overly restrictive jury instructions there are never any mitigating factors. It's essentially SLAPP, but for criminal charges. Remove the prosecutor's immunity and let us charge them with conspiracy to cover up an assault by filing a nuisance charge against the victim.
Instead you want new rules, because obviously our problem now is not enough rules.
What happens when a guard assaults someone? (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that the prosecution doesn't contest that the border guard got into Peter's car and punched him in the face.
Nobody seems to be arguing that there was any need for the guard to do this in order to perform their job.
Does this mean the border guard will be investigated for assault and sacked?
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:1, Insightful)
That's why the only solution is to kill all cops. It's that simple. Open fire as soon as you see one with your eyes. Don't let a single one get away.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:3, Insightful)
That is because all laws are Divine and Unassailable, clearly. For example, a law (of the time) stating that if a dark-skinned-non-person dares to drink from a water fountain clearly labeled "Whites Only" requires to be whipped witin an inch of his/her life, the only option of the 12 law-abiding Citizens in the jury box is to (oh-so-sorrowfully, tear-dropping-regretfully) convict.
Cue in a reporter interviewing juror "Corbets" after he steps out of the court-house and onto the square with the whipping-post: "Well, we didn't like it ... [muffled due to the sound of the whip and screams of agony in the background] .... but ... but ... the law" - here Corbets straightens up and puts his fist on his heart and his eye gleams - "said so. We had no choice. If we did not, the entire criminal justice system would be undermined!" - a visage of fear and terror enters Corbets' (and the reporter's) face at this ghastly thought ...
And then great cheering and applause from assorted Fascists and KKK members all around for jury-man Corbets raises from the lynch-mob on the square - for the great man Corbets understood that it is the letter of the law, not some flimsy concepts of "justice" or "right and wrong" that counts!