Sci-Fi Writer Peter Watts Convicted of Assault

SJrX writes "CBC news is reporting that Peter Watts has indeed been convicted of Assaulting border guards, (discussed here). He will be sentenced April 26th."

Re:Quite understandable

[Tablizer]

American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.

Canadian guards will grow the same way when everybody tries to leave the dying empire.
     

Re:yey

[tomhudson]

He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP. He refused.

This is the same procedure Canadian police use during a traffic stop. When you're pulled over, you're supposed to wait in your car. If you get out, you are told to get back into your vehicle. If you refuse, you have disobeyed a lawful order, end of story.

He admitted he got out of the car, and didn't get back in it when he was told to, instead trying to see what the police were doing when they were searching hit trunk (a legal search, btw). So he was also interfering with a police search.

The guy's a jerk and gives Canadians a bad name. If he had done this in Canada, he'd still have ended up in court, so what's the big deal? Oh, right - AMERIKA BAD!

I make enough "In Soviet Amerika" jokes, but in that case, it simply doesn't apply. Peter Watts has only Peter Watts to blame.

Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.

[nmb3000]

Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog [rifters.com].

It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.

In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it. Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).

Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.

[erroneus]

Great! So as he has been convicted, it is no longer "an ongoing investigation." Now can we see for ourselves what happened and then, if their case is BS, file an appeal?

Re:the problem...

[MichaelSmith]

I visited the US with my then girlfriend in 1997. We applied for visas at the US consulate in Melbourne, Australia. We had such a bad experience at the consulate that I am sure it would have ended as badly as this if we had been in the US at the time.

But then we entered the US at Newark and departed at Los Angeles and had no problems at all. The officials we interacted with were very polite and professional. I think its just the luck of the draw.

Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading

[Random Data]

Perhaps you should go back to the grandparent and the parent, and read Watts' own words. He states that he has no problem with the trial, judge, defense, prosecutor, jury or even the guards conduct in court. It's the law itself in this case, which says that if you don't immediately comply with a command you are guilty of assaulting a police officer. That's what he's been convicted of, and although not happy he claims he will abide by the court's decision. It might be interesting to grab the transcript. Watts claims that the jury asked if non-compliance was sufficient to convict. That sounds to me like they weren't entirely happy about having to find him guilty, but followed the law as written. Non-compliance in this case is asking "what's the problem?", instead of immediately lying down after being hit in the face. I understand that there is video evidence of this, but until the FOIA request from the media is resubmitted and the footage obtained, that'll be something only those directly involved can comment on.

Having experienced US justice...

[YankDownUnder]

I obviously grew up and spent most of my life in the US. Michigan is where I hail from. Being from a "poorer" stock than most middle-of-the-road Americans, I saw and experienced a completely different side of the justice system - starting with the police. I have, MANY times, been in a situation where I was assaulted by police, abused, jailed - for literally nothing. I also know from family experience - both my grandfathers were Detroit policemen, several of my uncles were police, marshalls and Feds - that there was at that time (from the 70's) and onwards a "fascist" and "paramilitary" mentality within the multitude of "law enforcement" agencies. Whether or not Mr. Watts is innocent or guilty, no one seems to want to point to the fact that millions (yes, millions) of people on a day to day basis are abused by law enforcement, given unfair trials with uncaring legal support, and have no means by which to be compensated. There are many that are within the penal system that should not be there at all - jailed for menial crimes and/or charges and these people have really no means by which to fight back. As far as the respectability of "the officers on duty", I would start with questioning their personal attitudes. I'm more than well familiar with that particular "border crossing" as well as the "border crossing" in Detroit - for the tunnel and the bridge. Neither of these places is hostile - it's Canada for God's sake - so there's definitely more to the picture than meets the eye.

Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup.

[The Archon V2.0]

I'm finding it hard to believe you put both of those guys in the same sentence.

Why? They're both notable historical figures. Ditto the Marquis de Sade.

Re:the facts of the case

[CODiNE]

Peter is lucky he isn't deaf. That could have ended a LOT worse.

so how are you going to change the law?

[pydev]

From all the comments, it appears that Watts was convicted not for assault, but for non-compliance with instructions from a border guard. The jury convicted him for that because, technically, he really was guilty of that, even though it may have been understandable.

So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law. But how do you want to change the law? Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?

Re:yey

[rpresser]

Having just read Dr. Watt's latest post [rifters.com] I'll stipulate that the conviction was not on the original charge. But the docket is most confusing.

Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.

[narcberry]

Not just pretty much, it's very much that way. Even if a police officer opens fire on you, your legal options are still to comply and then fight it out in court later.

Police authority is pretty awesome, and something most citizens should be very mindful of.

Re:yey

[tomhudson]

Why should I not watch them search my trunk? How do I know that they aren't stealing and/or planting stuff there? If I can see it happen then I can testify to who did what and when; if I just find out after the fact that something has been planted or is missing, I can't testify to who did it, how he did it, etc.

How about "You have no legal right to. It's a bridge, they're doing a search, for your own safety and that of everyone else, just stay in your car, and the whole thing is being recorded on camera"

The jurors convicted after watching the video. That should tell you something.

Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.

[Jeremi]

This is why we have jury nullification and why the correct answer to "Do you believe in jury nullfication?" is "no, I do not".

Actually the best answer is "Sorry, I don't follow you. What do you mean by 'jury nullification'?"

Common law right to resit an unlawful arrest

[tdwebste]

California Criminal Law Review, Vol. 2, July 2000

Abstract:
The national trend, during the past forty years, has been to do away with the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. The right has been abrogated by judicial decree as well as legislative enactment. Elimination of the right is based on several factors, including the development of modern criminal procedure, the ability of criminal defendants to seek redress via other means, and the improvement of jail conditions. In the rush to eliminate a right perceived as against contemporary public policy, the courts have paid little attention to the original justification for the rule - that an illegal arrest is an affront to the dignity and sense of justice of the arrestee - and instead have focused on the alternatives to forcible resistance that have been developed, such as civil suits and the writ of habeas corpus.

Mississippi is one of a dozen states that still permit a person to resist an unlawful arrest. Almost all of these states are located in the South. The question this geographical anomaly raises is why has the right to resist arrest survived in the South, and Mississippi in particular? This article suggests that a possible explanation may be the influence of uniquely Southern conceptions of honor and the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Historians have long acknowledged that Southern culture strongly supports the importance of personal honor and condones a "subculture of violence." This article examines the development and history of the right to resist an unlawful arrest at common law and in the United States, scholarly criticism of the common law rule, and the current status of the rule in the United States, the Southern "subculture of violence" and how that relates to cases involving resisting arrest in Mississippi. All Mississippi cases involving claims of a right to resist unlawful arrest are examined. The language of the Mississippi cases provides support for the argument that the right to resist arrest has remained entrenched in Southern law, and helps to explain why Southern states generally and Mississippi in particular have chosen to retain a common law rule which has fallen into disrepute in other regions of the country.