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This discussion has been archived.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.
If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol
Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Insightful)
at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:2)
at he can keep being a writer in lockup.
Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: (Score:2)
Who is Peter Watts?
Re:at he can keep being a writer in lockup. (Score:5, Funny)
On the prison baseball team, he will play second base.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And since we can almost certainly guarantee there is video, the question is will this appear in court or is the camera "damaged?"
Re: (Score:2)
He's already been convicted. The time to present the video has already passed.
-Restil
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Informative)
Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident. In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Funny)
Great idea! The government can pass another stimulus bill with more borrowed money to hire all the currently unemployed as counselors.
When the seedy underbelly infects the cops, the counselors will be there to listen. Then the counselors will get infected. They will return home to their wives, husbands, and kids as assholes. The kids will bring the assholishness to school. A huge effort will be undertaken to find a vaccine before it's too late, until the worst-case scenario comes to pass: the ENTIRE USA becomes a nation of assholes in just under 3 months.
Then Charlton Heston comes back from the grave to fight the asshole hordes from a boarded-up house and a 1970 Ford Mustang.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Funny)
To the mod who marked my joke "Flamebait" : I see you have already been infected!
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."
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Jury nullification (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Informative)
This is why we have jury nullification and why the correct answer to "Do you believe in jury nullfication?" is "no, I do not".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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'?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The wikipedia article linked to in the summary implies there was a video of the incident.
"A local newspaper, the Port Huron Times-Herald, submitted a FOIA request to US Customs and Border Protection to be given the video recording of the incident. On January 14, 2010, the paper reported that the agency denied the request because "it is an ongoing investigation."[15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Watts#Border_incident
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, when law is bad, the jury can rule that it was bad law. A Jury is not required to convict someone when the application of the law is inappropriate. I know, no one tells us that, but it's true. Conscience is indeed a factor when a jury renders a decision. If steeling a jelly doughnut were somehow punishable by death and the person were on trial for the crime, I simply couldn't convict someone of that crime... unless I hated him for some other reason.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (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: (Score:2, Redundant)
Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident. In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.
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:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Informative)
Jury nullification can't be explained to them. A defense attorney who tries to argue it gets an immediate mistrial.
FYI, if you're ever on an (American) jury, you can't argue for nullification there, either. A juror who argues to nullify gives grounds to the judge to set aside the verdict. If you're going to nullify, you just keep saying "I'm not convinced by the prosecution's case." Jury nullification exists only insofar as, if the jury says "not guilty" (and holds that the prosecution didn't prove its case), the prosecution can't try the accused again. As an explicit jury right, it doesn't exist, notwithstanding the arguments of libertarians. It's an implicit tactic only.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
His blog entry seems to suggest that the question the jury considered was whether his failure to comply with a command was sufficient to warrant his conviction. In other words, the issue wasn't who slugged whom first, because it was conceded that the border guard hit him in the face first. The issue was after that, he failed to comply with the border guard's order promptly and that was what he was convicted for, not for assaulting the border guard, which was disproven in court.
If his account is honest, it
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.
Only for refusal to comply (Score:5, Informative)
There wasn't really much argument about whether or not Watts immediately and obediently complied with the order - he says he asked them what they were doing and why. It took the jury about four days to decide that the law said that meant he was technically guilty of not complying. The juror who commented on Watts's blog also said that the cops had acted badly in the way they attacked Watts, but that this case was against Watts and not an assault or brutality case against the cops so they had no official judgement about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it'd be great if the article linked to items relevant to the conviction (you know, the primary focus of the article) instead of the preliminary stories that have already been reported many times on /. How about a link to the CBS story reporting the conviction? Isn't that the frickin' title of your story? FAIL SJrX.
Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement. (Score:5, Informative)
I am a criminal defense attorney. My experience is that whenever it's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime, the accused loses. In most jurisdictions in the US, judges and juries tend to believe the cops. Unless the case was tried by a jury in a large metro area with significant minority population ( and the jury is reflective of that), chances are a guilty verdict will result.
the facts of the case (Score:5, Informative)
At no point did Watts engage in a physical confrontation with the CBP officers. Upon cross-examination the "choking" accusation and the "aggressive stance" accusations were shown to have been fabricated.
The conviction stemmed solely from point #5 Here are a couple of post-trial juror statements. One was posted on Watts own site. The other was posted as a comment to the Port Huron report on the verdict; see
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed [thetimesherald.com]
As a member of the jury that convicted Mr. Watts today, I have a few comments to make. The jury’s task was not to decide who we liked better. The job of the jury was to decide whether Mr. Watts “obstructed/resisted” the custom officials. Assault was not one of the charges. What it boiled down to was Mr. Watts did not follow the instructions of the customs agents. Period. He was not violent, he was not intimidating, he was not stopping them from searching his car. He did, however, refuse to follow the commands by his non compliance. He’s not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents escalted the situation with sarcasm and miscommunication. Unfortunately, we were not asked to convict those agents with a crime, although, in my opinion, they did commit offenses against Mr. Watts. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge.
Peter,
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.
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: (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
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.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:4, Informative)
Allowing a jury to determine whether the law *should* be followed or not undermines the criminal justice system, and is a bad suggestion.
And yet jury nullifications [wikipedia.org] can and do happen. So clearly juries are 'allowed' to use their own criteria if they choose to, at least in the sense that there is no way to stop them from doing so.
Re: (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)
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: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: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you've never served on a jury.
The jury's job is to decide if the law was broken. Period. They don't get to "make allowances" for how nice people are, they get zero say in the sentencing.
I had a similar experience where I had to vote guilty to a guy who I don't believe deserved the punishment the court would be required to hand down, but there was nothing else I could do... he did break the letter of the law.
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Peter is lucky he isn't deaf. That could have ended a LOT worse.
Re:the facts of the case (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]
Every citizen eligible for jury duty should know about this.
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.
Not convicted of assault, only refusal to comply (Score:2)
One of the jurors in the case commented on Watt's blog that he wasn't convicted of assault, just refusal to comply with the officer's orders. It wasn't clear whether he was also convicted of obstruction, I think not. The juror also commented that he thought the officers acted criminally in their treatment of Watts, but that wasn't part of this court case so they came to no official conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you stop to think about it, you'll be convicted of disobedience. When a thug with a badge asks you to something, avoid rational thought, and simply do, with no thought for your own safety.
First draft... (Score:5, Funny)
He will be sentenced April 26th
The sentence will be sent to his editor May 5.
They'll have it proofread and the final edit will be done June 7.
Armed truck drivers will deliver the sentence to Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Borders locations on an undisclosed date.
The sentence will go on sale August 11.
Please, no spoilers before the release date.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatt? (Score:4, Funny)
So when someone said "Watts the problem",
He said "I'm certainly not!"
That kind of attitude with the police can earn you a can of pepper-spray!
Also, that kind of attitude in court could certainly earn you some jail-time!
"Convicted of assault" is very misleading (Score:5, Informative)
From Watts' own blog [rifters.com]:
Making Light put it more caustically [nielsenhayden.com]:
Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading (Score:4, Informative)
Both the blogs are biased, uninformative, and basically uninteresting.
Furthermore, the source chosen for the slashdot posting seems to have been searched for and specifically chosen so as to be the least informative and lacking in interest. A better one is at Toronto Star [thestar.com]
Among the information in that paper is a statement by Watts that the trial was fair, and a direct contradiction to "Making Light's" timeline of events.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So surely there's an appeal possible around a plea of self-defence, and indeed remarkable constraint in not putting the border guard's head through his car window?
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:the problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: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: (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 wait
Would make a great headline (Score:5, Funny)
"Watts arrested for resistance"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Police have too much power.
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.
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!
so how are you going to change the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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: (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
NOT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT! (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus Christ, it's bad enough when the mainstream press repeats crap like this, but I would have thought Slashdot posters were capable of reading plain English.
He was convicted of failing to follow direction quickly enough for the border guards. The accusations of assault were found to be baseless.
Wasn't convicted of assault... (Score:3, Informative)
He was convicted of obstructing/resisting, not assault.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193 [rifters.com]
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Canadian guards will grow the same way when everybody tries to leave the dying empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian guards will grow the same way when everybody tries to leave the dying empire.
Like the Canadian border guards who murdered the Polish immigrant in Vancouver?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html [www.cbc.ca]
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=264ccebb-1696-44e7-9474-ff5a06f63db4 [canada.com]
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1332958 [nationalpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.
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: (Score:2)
the funniest part is that watts was about to leave, not enter.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded
Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan used to hate America, but now they love you!
or they need our money
Uh, what money? How many trillion are you in debt now?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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). S
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CBC story is wrong - Watts was NOT convicted of assault.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
Re: (Score:2)
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
I can't even imagine where this timeline of events was created. Probably in your head. It doesn't appear in any credible news source.
Re:yey (Score:4, Informative)
He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
I can't even imagine where this timeline of events was created. Probably in your head. It doesn't appear in any credible news source.
Ah crap. The command was to lie down on the ground, not to get back in the car.
As for the source, it's direct from Dr. Watts himself:
"So what it came down to, ultimately, was those moments after I was repeatedly struck in the face by Beaudry (an event not in dispute, incidentally). After Beaudry had finished whaling on me in the car, and stepped outside, and ordered me out of the vehicle; after I’d complied with that, and was standing motionless beside the car, and Beaudry told me to get on the ground — I just stood there, saying “What is the problem?”, just before Beaudry maced me.
And that, said the Prosecutor in her final remarks — that, right there, was failure to comply. That was enough to convict."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>He was told to get back into his car after the officer had just punched him in the face.
Em, no, that is incorrect. After being repeatedly struck in the face, he was told to lie down, and when he asked what is going on (and presumably why he was just beaten up by the border guard), maced. He was convicted of failing to comply with the order to lie down after being beaten up without any kind of prelude or communication prior to the beating. Not assault.
Re: (Score:2)
So presumably sentencing is still in the future, with the two year jail term a potential outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. Sentencing is April 26th.
He could get anything from an absolute discharge to 2 years.
Re: (Score:2)
He was told to get back into his car. This is SOP.
As an Australian this doesn't make sense to me. If a cop here told me to get in my car I would assume I was good to go, which doesn't appear to be the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cameras only see what the operators want them to see. I don't think (unedited) video evidence will be shown if the border guards were messing with him and provoked a physical confrontation. On the other hand, if he just jumped out of his car and dove on one of them, it would probably already be uploaded to youtube with the word terrorist in the title.
Re: (Score:2)
With all those hundreds of video cameras tracking your every move at the border, why isn't there some definite evidence showing up here?
Because they're the new special "smartcams" that have been deployed all along the border. They only record when law enforcement looks good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The jurors watched complete video of the entire encounter, and then found Watts guilty.
They also said that the border guards acted like assholes, but given the law and Watts's actions, they had to find him 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:don't f**k with the police! (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure why you got moderated up, because the court threw out the accusation that he attempted to strangle the officer. The guards' testimony was demolished on cross examination as inconsistent and the only thing that the prosecutor had at the end was that, after the guard had punched him in the face several times (an event which the prosecution did not dispute), he did not immediately comply with an instruction to lie on the ground.
Events like this that make life difficult for the majority of police officers, who actually want to do a good job and protect people from criminals. They undermine the public faith in the police and in the judicial system. If you can be convicted of not following police instructions after they have assaulted you, then why on earth would you ever go near the police, let alone cooperate with them? Whichever legislator thought up that particular law deserves jail time.
Re: (Score:2)
Juries are human computers. They aren't supposed to weigh the evidence in any larger context. Similarly, when Peter Watts was asked to comply, he thought instead of reacting.
Re:Travesty (Score:4, Insightful)