Peter Watts and American Thugs in Uniform

Perhaps many of you have already heard about this. If not:

Last week, Canadian sf writer Peter Watts was returning home from helping a friend move house in Nebraska. At a Homeland Security checkpoint near the border crossing at Port Huran, Michigan, Watts was stopped and border guards began to search his rented vehicle. He demanded to know what they were doing. They responded by beating him, pepper-spraying him, and then arresting him for assaulting a federal officer. He was held overnight, and then released, with all of his possessions seized.

There are posts here and here about the incident on Watts blog. There is also a post here on BoingBoing. People are donating to Watt's legal fund - the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund - you can do that from his home page here.

If you're daft enough to think he must have done something to provoke this beating, then I suggest you read the many comments on all three pages linked above. If you think it is not unsurprising that questioning border guards results in a beating and arrest, then you are even dafter.

Sorry, Ian, but I cross at these same border crossings, and questioning the border guard does not, in fact, typically result in a beating.

I'll draw conclusions when I have access to facts. To do otherwise would be, well, daft.

The facts are there - eyewitness testimony by the victim, backed up by a witness. Plenty will attest to Watt's character.

Why do you automatically assume the border guards are automatically in the right? Because they wear a uniform?

I'm not making any such assumption.

I'm simply saying that I won't draw conclusions until I have access to the facts -- and the statements of the alleged victim and a single, unverified witness are not facts, any more than the statements of the police are facts. And the number of people willing to line up to attest to Watts's character is irrelevant to the facts of what actually happened.

The ground truth here is that this is not in any way typical at the border crossing in question. I've crossed there many times; thousands cross there every day. It's reasonable to assume that we aren't getting the whole story.

Why do you automatically assume that anyone who doesn't jump on the bandwagon must be siding with the border guards?

And why do you assume that the border guard must be in the wrong? Because they wear a uniform?

Why, furthermore, do you assume that one party is definitively in the right, and the other in the wrong?

I spent some time yesterday reading the comments on the boingboing piece, on Watts' own blog, and in other places on the Web. Everyone who knows Watts believes his version of events.

However, assume he lied. Or rather "massaged" the truth to make himself look better. For the border guards to be right, Watts had to deserve the treatment he received. I can't conceive of a likely situation in which that would be true. He pulled a gun on them? He opened his jacket and revealed a bomb? Watts is a Canadian science fiction writer, not a survivalist nutter or a jihadist.

Border guards beat up and pepper-sprayed someone because he would not do what they said. (Even the police say as much.) If you think that's an acceptable response for questioning authority, then you're clearly living in the right country.

#2

Just because something hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It would be too trivial to mention, but you are questioning the sheer plausability of the event.

Next, what actually did or did not happen during this incident, it seems this much is true:

1. Watts was maced and beaten

2. arrested, stripped and kept in jail overnight

I've asked this another poster already, but he didn't answer: can you imagine what would YOU have to have done to feel you have "deserved" such treatment by authority? Just as a test for what you think may or may not be limits to treatment of the public by the "uniformed and armed".

ETA: x-post with Ian. Anyway, I find I'm beginning to feel more freaked out by people who think Watts' treatment was somehow justified, than by the action of the guards.

Really, Ian? I'm living in the right country? Which country is that?

I'm living in the country in which this beating did not occur. Keep on making assumptions -- and rest assured that the cliché is wrong; your assumptions are only making an ass of one of us.

I'm not assuming Watts lied. I'm assuming he's not providing the whole truth. Given the enthusiasm with which BoingBoing moderators are promoting free speech by devoweling comments which so much as question whether that's the case, while Watts asks us for money, I think that's reasonable.

(And I applaud BoingBoing's, and Cory Doctorow's, laudable commitment to free speech. Or, alternatively, I note the lack thereof.)

I wouldn't be surprised to discover, in the end, that no one in this case will be able to say with pride they were in the right. I anticipate that lots of people will be able to say without pride that they were easily manipulated.

Incidentally, nowhere have I said anyone's actions were justified. Some people here don't read very well, it seems.

My mistake. You sounded more like an American than a Canadian.

I still want to hear what actions you think Watts might have done that could justify his treatment.

#7 on second thought, perhaps I should make my position clear enough to be understood by everybody.

For a person to be beaten up, pepper-sprayed, arrested and detained overnight by a group of border guards, I would expect them to at the very least have pulled a gun or turned violently berserk. Neither Watts' nor the account given by the police to the press suggest either of these happened.

Which means the border guards' response was completely out of proportion to Watt's actions. That is an abuse of authority.

If Watts had, in exiting his vehicle, shouted and gesticulated, causing the cops to get excited, and if he then responded to a cop grabbing him by pushing back, then it would put an entirely different colour on the story.

If that were the case, then the scenario would at least make sense in terms of real-world behaviour. We'd have a fairly typical case of police escalating, rather than de-escalating, a situation, and a typical (ridiculous) charge of assaulting an officer for doing what reasonable people do when threatened. And then I'd happily be on board, criticizing the cops.

If Watts went further, if he actively continued pushing back and struggling, or (as the police allege) grabbed an officer by the throat, then he becomes the author of his own misfortune. If you actively resist arrest, the cops will use force, and even if the arrest is a case of mistaken identity, they'll be in the right for doing so, as long as the level of force was proportionate to the degree of resistance.

Ian, if you pull a gun on a cop, you don't get pepper sprayed. You get shot.

Pepper spray is used to subdue people who are physically violent, and can't be subdued by other means. Sometimes, the cops use it as a way of meting out a little extrajudicial payback on people who piss them off. That may well be the case here, as the US border guards have a recent history of using it that way.

If you resist arrest, you're going to be detained overnight. You don't have to go berserk to justify that.

The degree to which Watts was beaten is in question. Presumably, he has physical evidence in the form of bruises, which will come out when he goes to trial.

Granted on the gun thing.

If Watts is guilt of down-playing his response to being searched, then escalating what he says he did still only means he "shouted and gesticulated". The police claim he exited the car "angrily". Watts categorically denies choking any agent.

Which makes your second paragraph the most likely series of events - given that Watts has not told the whole truth. And that still means the agents response was out of proportion. And they deserve more than criticism. They should be charged with assault.

I personally think Watts is telling the truth.

There is also the questionable legality of the search in the first place.

>8 iansales: "You sounded more like an American than a Canadian."

?

Sorry. I meant he was repeating some of the rhetoric that had been posted by Americans in the comment threads on the whole thing around the Web.

Incidentally, nowhere have I said anyone's actions were justified. Some people here don't read very well, it seems.

Eh? You created a whole imaginary scenario, out of nothing factual, which justifies the guards' behaviour--bad enough, but then you continue:

The degree to which Watts was beaten is in question.

Now that is really disgusting. "the degree"? In question by whom? You? Because there is some "degree" of beating Watts may have deserved? What is, according to you, a permissible "degree" of beating before one is beaten too much? How many bruises, where, visible for how long? Blech. To think I chose Canada over the US thinking I'd escape that mentality...

Watts has stated explicitly that he did not raise his voice, use profanity nor initiate physical contact, or assault the guard. Not to believe him is your prerogative, but I don't understand the effort to make the guards' behaviour somehow understandable--i.e. to justify it. In my opinion (and that of at least hundreds of people who wrote in his support), nothing that he reasonably could have done--and says that he has done--justifies the way he was treated. No--not even mouthing off to the guards, asking questions and failing to hop to their orders.

#13

I don't know what krolik's question mark is asking, exactly, but I'll testify to a general difference between Canadians and Americans. It's not ethnic-based--there are "Canadians" in the States and "Americans" in Canada; it's a question of philosophy, attitude, psychological makeup. But it is real and very noticeable.

LolaWalser, your intellectual dishonesty is staggering. Please quote the "imaginary scenario" that I created prior to your post 6 in this thread, to which I was responding in my post 7 that you quote. You can't do it, because that "imaginary scenario" does not exist.

The only "imaginary scenario" I create is in post 10, subsequent to that post. This does not excuse the guards' actions; it simply proposes two hypothetical alternatives that would make events more plausible -- and in one of those scenarios, the cops are still in the wrong. This was in response to Ian's request that I clarify under what circumstances the cops might be justified.

Secondly, the question of the severity of the beating is germane to the issue. This is all about questions of degree. To what degree was Watts uncooperative? To what degree was the guards' response justified? To what degree did they exceed reasonable force?

"Beating" is a loaded word, and Watts uses it deliberately (he is a writer, after all) for rhetorical effect. It's legitimate to ask when the use of force becomes a beating.

Finally, your snide insinuation that I'm an "American" in "philosophy, attitude, (and) psychological makeup" is beneath contempt.

I see no reason to continue this discussion.

#15

Let me guess, the Americans who think like you are the honorary "Canadians", right?

That would mean that Canadians who don't share your particular view of the world are the "Americans".

I'm not sure what mentality you thought you'd escape by coming to Canada, but you seem to have brought along a penchant for meaningless cliches. Lucky us.

The Canada you live in is not monolithic. Those who fail to share your outlook are no less "Canadian".

So too, the United States is not a monolithic nation. It is that simplistic type of thinking that is most often scornfully attributed to Americans by self-satisfied Canadians. Ironic, no?

"use of force" can be loaded as well for many people - it intimates that force was justified and is the term of choice for law enforcement.

I would rather give benefit of the doubt to citizens than to law enforcement. Here in my city the police beat a homeless guy to death three years ago and still have not admitted any wrongdoing, though the county settled with the family for almost a million. I've noticed a very troubling tendency for law enforcement to back each other up in a "my team right or wrong" kind of way.

I hope Watts is able to start a serious conversation here on my side of the border about the entire "use of force" issue and how far it has gone to the side of law enforcement. Seems to me that force should be a real true last resort, even when using non-lethal weapons such as tasers or rubber bullets or whatever.

ACAB

I know Peter Watts. This is a guy who takes in stray cats and feeds them at his own expense. Not saying the dude can't get angry, but the likelihood of the genteel Peter Watts exploding and presenting himself as a threat to ANYONE is utterly ludicrous.

I've had my own experiences with border guards. They are a, erm, special breed of animal...

11> Pepper spray is used to subdue people who are physically violent, and can't be subdued by other means.

You can't seriously expect us to believe that, when the evidence is clear that they use it instead of their brains, for the most part.

I was speaking with a retired police officer, and his take on pepper-spray was: the tool for cops who don't know how to think, and don't want to expend the effort. Seems insightful, when you remember the source.

Ask yourself this: how did they handle 'violent' or 'uncooperative' persons before they had this nifty little accessory? Hmmmmm?

(fixed typo)

21: Nice try taking it out of context. I was clarifying the doctrine surrounding the use of pepper spray, not its actual use -- as the two following sentences (that you didn't bother to quote) make clear:
"Sometimes, the cops use it as a way of meting out a little extrajudicial payback on people who piss them off. That may well be the case here, as the US border guards have a recent history of using it that way."

You've just taken the prize from LolaWalser for "Most Intellectually Dishonest Post on LT for 2009." Congratulations.

Peter has provided more details and updates re: his assault by Yankee border pigs on his blog, in case anyone wants to find out more:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/

I've glanced over some of the remarks on this thread and I can find nothing in "ajsomerset"'s comments that were offensive. He's willing to give the cops the benefit of the doubt or allow for the possibility that Peter somehow provoked them. I don't agree but that's the way these things go. My own experiences with police are negative, my impressions of them very poor. Ajsomerset has a different take but I'm certain if more details and evidence emerged that implicated the cops, he would speak out strongly against them.

Just thought I had to make that point...

22> You sure are a sweetheart, aren't you? Can you make a statement without adding a personal attack? Perhaps we should create an award for the "Most Sanctimonious Prig on LT for 2009?" You'll notice, perhaps, that I did not suggest that you should be the winner, but that's just good manners.

I didn't see your statement as anything but a statement, and responded to it. Your posts seem to lean toward support for the HS border guys, so it was not a reach to respond to that mindset.

Maybe you should go easy on the caffeine, in the new year?

CliffBurns writes: "I've glanced over some of the remarks on this thread and I can find nothing in "ajsomerset"'s comments that were offensive."

How about this, from #22: "You've just taken the prize from LolaWalser for 'Most Intellectually Dishonest Post on LT for 2009.'"

I think if I were either of the two posters ajsomerset is referring to I would be offended. Wouldn't you, CliffBurns?

23> I appreciate your viewpoint, yet I find calling someone 'intellectually dishonest' very offensive.

#25: I meant ajsomerset's statements re: the border cops and Peter Watts. His remarks relating to the original post.

#24, K. J. wants a new award, the "Most Sanctimonious Prig on LT for 2009". There are many many contenders for this award. In my experience on LT, Ajsomerset wouldn't even rank near the bottom of the long list. K. J. I think before awarding such a title you should probably get out more.

28> Perhaps you missed the part where I refrained from giving him this accolade, and no, I do not wish for any awards to be created from my suggestions. As for your experience of him, it should be apparent that mine is obviously different, unless he has placed the same mantle on you.

I surmise he is still bristling at having his wings clipped regarding the definition of a word.

As for my social life, I do get out enough, and calling someone intellectually dishonest in my locale will get you a cuff around the ear hole. But, that is the benefit of the internet for bullies - they can freely make statements that would in real life get them their much deserved rewards.

(typo)

"I surmise he is still bristling at having his wings clipped regarding the definition of a word."

What?

Apparently, you have a longer memory than me. I think geneg's suggestion is sound.

30> You agree with geneg on that? Quel surprise.

Since it is not the first time you have exhibited the same refreshing personality, yes, I do remember. Do you do it so often to so many that you forget the recipients of your graceful verbal discourse?

I have to ask this, and don't feel obligated to sate my curiosity, but is there some benefit to you, when coming across in a discussion as mean-spirited? Are you somehow empowered by this? I know, that was two questions.

It's becoming pretty clear that you erected the straw man that I objected to above out of some grudge, K.J., left over from some other thread I've long forgotten. I'm sorry, but I have better ways to spend my time than indulging your desire for an online slugfest.

32> No grudge from my side, and I have never projected a desire for a slugfest. My point about the clipped wings was meant with humour, for that is how I saw that circumstance. It was funny at the time, and still brings a smile to my face, so there is no grudge from this side of the pond.

The situation here is your doing, AJ, It was you who placed the mantle of intellectually dishonest on me, not the other way around. I would expect you to deflect any responsibility back on me, and your sudden disappearance after this statement is to be expected, also. When you mature, you might be able to see your responsibility more clearly. A'bientot.

Added after: The link for one of our previous encounters. Notice the humour: http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=69518 Posting #70

And, November was such a loooong time ago.

Let it go, lads. Continue this as a personal (private) correspondence, if you like--it doesn't seem to be going anywhere and just making you crustier at each other. Move on...

34> I agree, and I have.

In case anyone wants to donate to Peter Watts' defense fund, here's the link:

http://www.rifters.com/real/donation.htm

Sounds like the folks representing the border guards are going to the wall, trying to prove that Peter provoked the assault, yadda yadda yadda. Any other scenario, of course, and they seem like a bunch of fucking thugs. And they can't have that. It would make them look bad to their sheep-like fellow citizens...and open them up to a massive lawsuit (and don't they know it). So Peter's going to need legal representation in the States...and his ordeal continues.

I heard from him recently and he has been getting a tremendous amount of moral and friendly support--but every dime in the kitty helps, especially when your opponent (y'know, the American government) has virtually unlimited resources.

Peter's a good guy. There's no WAY he did anything to bring this on himself. Somebody snapped and fucked up and Peter's going to pay the price unless he gets help. If you have a PayPal account, it's easy as pie...

36> Thank you for posting the donations link.

Damn. Watts has been found guilty.

38> I am not surprised, but I am greatly disappointed.

Very cranky about this. I think Peter's blog post on the verdict was amazingly magnanimous. No blame or vitriol. Shows what a classy guy he is:

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186

American justice. Watt's lawyer apparently ripped the prosecution's case to shreds but because - after being physically attacked - Watts "failed to comply" with an order to get on the ground, he could spend up to two years in jail. Who needs the Nazis?

And his failure to comply, Ian, was asking: "What's the problem?" Jesus CHRIST! And from that he gets assaulted and now faces some jail time. Kafka-esque? Oh, yes. He's lucky he didn't get renditioned to fucking Syria by these goons...

Not to rekindle old fires here, Cliff & Ian, but it appears that the jury's view of the prosecution's case may have differed from Watts's.

As Peter points out, the jury had to rule between very narrow parameters and based on the judge's instructions. Also, they had no way of knowing Peter, the kid of person he is, no way of determining just how ludicrous the testimony of his accusers was. And as I wrote to him: "Activist juries only exist in Sidney Lumet movies".

I DO know Peter. And it is manifestly clear to me that he has been railroaded. The man would not lay an angry hand on another human being. These fuckers were having an off day or one of them was hungover or hadn't gotten laid and they decided to take it out on the first "asshole" who so much as looked at them the wrong way.

Where's video surveillance when you REALLY need it?

#43 The jury asked if "failure to comply" was sufficient to find him guilty, so it looks like they went for the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Bear in mind that no video evidence was admitted, despite there being CCTV cameras at the Border post.

Given that the only person who has behaved like a human being throughout the whole ordeal is Watts himself, I'm inclined to believe his take on the matter.

Indeed, but we don't know if the failure to comply only occurred after he was beaten, as Watts contends.

That contention seems to me a little far-fetched.

But to clarify, before this gets out of hand: I followed the reports (not Watts's, but the media's) from the preliminary hearing and trial. It seems clear to me that the third man in was, to put it gently, overzealous in his execution of his duties. However, it also seems that there was no shortage of evidence that Watts was obstructive.

Are we now to cower before the cops every time they get a wild hair up their collective butts? I believe more and more control freaks are making their way into the realm of the nation's various police forces. Police duties and the desire to control simply because one can represents a conflict of interest. Do we want thugs in uniform, or do we want policemen?

I'm not sure what you mean by "obstructive".

Watts is Canadian, so he's not been trained from birth to jump whenever someone in uniform says jump. Federal officers working a border post with Canada would, you'd imagine, be aware that other nationalities respond differently. Especially after being beaten while sitting at the wheel of their car because they'd asked what the problem was instead of leaping to obey.

Incidentally, you should check out what happened to Cheryl Morgan recently on her arrival in the US.

I'm also Canadian, Ian. And I have substantially more direct experience crossing our borders than you do. At that specific border crossing, I might add.

I'm not disputing that the border guards were, as I said, overzealous. I'm just saying that I also find Watts disingenuous.

As before, we find that simply stating that Watts's account might not be 100% truthful results in people lining up to shout me down, ranting about armies of jackbooted thugs.

Whatever.

49: Well, saying "Watts's account might not be 100% truthful" is sort of the same as saying "Watts is a liar," right? I mean, if words mean anything at all.

And given that some of the posters on this thread are personal friends of Watts, their reaction surprises you? I know I'd get upset if my friend's integrity was questioned.

I have a fair amount of experience crossing borders, traveling, having to brave security guards in international airports, etc. and 90% of the time they are pretty polite and do their jobs OK but in the 10% of the time they don't, well, they don't. They don't have the right to get 'overzealous' as they are supposed to work for the citizenry not the other way around. They do need to get called on this and they need to be somehow sanctioned when they overstep their boundaries.

This is an ongoing issue here in my US city, several disturbing events where police shot someone or hurt someone or kicked someone to death (all of these people either being unarmed or not posing a threat according to eyewitnesses) and were found to have "done no wrong" because their internal review process, surprise, never seems to find any wrongdoing.

It also sounds like in this instance the burden of proof was placed on the accused, and that some evidence was withheld that would have perhaps shown the jury another picture, which is disturbing as it is not the way justice is supposed to work.

#49 If the border guards were telling the truth, they'd have video evidence to back it up. Oh wait, they didn't submit it...

I'm a little puzzled A.J.--what part of Peter Watts' account do you find "disingenuous"?

I didn't suggest, #50, that anyone has the right to be overzealous. Why do we persist in presenting this false dichotomy, in which Watts is either 100% right or 100% wrong?

Yes, I think he's not being entirely truthful; I think he's selectively omitting facts, and putting his own spin on things. Any critical, disinterested reader should get that from his blog. When I was writing news, I never would have taken his word for it, and I'm not about to now.

As for the video evidence, Watts had the right to subpoena it, so that cuts both ways.

Who here, out of curiosity, is basing their opinion on sources other that Watts himself?

53: I am more concerned that the dichotomy of our current court system falsely presents law enforcement as being 100% right. It's not your interpretation I am worried about, it is that of the judicial system. I would argue given this case and several others I've been following recently, it's law enforcement that gets the benefit of the doubt over the citizen.

But the point raised when this incident first came to light was that, short of physically attacking the border guards, there's nothing Watts could have done which should have resulted in what happened to him.

To which most seem to have responded: oh, the border guards are like that sometimes, but they're all right if you treat them right. Which I find frightening.

Or: he must have done something to make them beat the shit out of him. And yet the only possible incident in the reports is his "choking" of Beaudry. Which Watts claims his lawyer showed to be untrue during cross-examination -- and if that's "spin", it seems especially foolish to lie about something which is documented and can be easily disproved.

Cliff, oh jeez, where to begin?

The claim that he did absolutely nothing, and was attacked out of nowhere?

If Watts said, yes, I got a little stroppy and called the guy an idiot, and then he beat the shit out of me, then I'd have a lot more respect for him. (Not that this is necessarily what happened.)

I'm not suggesting that calling the guy an idiot justifies the pepper spray, etc. -- quite the contrary.

Consider the Canadian in BC who was pepper sprayed last year when he responded to a request from an American border guard by saying, "Say please."

Obviously, the pepper spray in that case was completely unreasonable and the guard was miles over the line. But the account was credible, because the guy honestly admitted that he was a smart-ass in response to the guard's abrupt manner.

The fact is, in that case, the victim did nothing that would justify the assault. But he didn't pretend that he was just sitting there smiling sweetly, when out of the blue....

He never said he was doing nothing. He has admitted that he angrily demanded to know what they were doing when they searched his car. And when they asked him to step out of the car, he didn't do so.

Even a disinterested, critical reader should be able to see that much in his account.

But the point raised when this incident first came to light was that, short of physically attacking the border guards, there's nothing Watts could have done which should have resulted in what happened to him.

That's not the issue here, Ian. As I said, the guy was "overzealous"; the third man in seems to have prejudged the situation, overrode the two officers who were there before him, and used far more force than was reasonable given the circumstances. The "choking" claim was clearly disingenuous from the get-go; you could see that at the preliminary hearing.

What's at issue is whether Watts is being entirely honest about events, or is portraying himself as pure as the driven snow. I don't buy it.

The issue comes down, quite simply, to this: did the sole obstruction here consist of Watts asking what was going on, after he was attacked? This is what Watts claims today. Sorry; I don't find that credible.

Anna, you get the false dichotomy of law enforcement because the officers are not on trial here; Watts is. That the officers aren't going to ever be on trial, in most cases, is a serious problem in its own right.

See Dziekanski, Robert, Taser death of.

I think we crossed responses. See #57

58: "That the officers aren't going to ever be on trial, in most cases, is a serious problem in its own right."

Yes, we agree wholeheartedly on that point. That's actually the main point I've been trying to make through this discussion.

Hopefully, Watts will sue and win in civil court.

59: Yes, point taken.

I don't know him personally, but at this point, I'm more willing to believe Watts than the guards. There've been multiple times when I've been traveling, myself and my friends and family have acted within the law, and we've still been threatened with physical harm and jail time.

A year or so after 9/11 my dad and I went on a hunting trip to Africa. On our way back, IN NEW YORK, a worker at one of the bag x-ray machines freaked out because we had a pair of hunting rifles in a locked hardcase, with the bolt removed, and the magazine emptied, exactly as required by law. We came this close to being arrested and possibly assaulted, because one dumbass didn't bother to read up on the rules and laws he was theoretically helping to enforce. law enforcement are human beings, they have their problems, and until things change, I'm going to assume Watts is innocent until we see the damn CCTV coverage, because thats supposedly his right in this country. The fact that that footage has mysteriously disappeared is more than a bit worrisome.

eta: fixed embarrassing goof-up.

Did the footage mysteriously disappear, or was it simply not presented as evidence?

I think what people are missing is that I don't believe either Watts or the guards are telling the whole truth. That's what happens when you spend a few years writing news stories.

Some good points made here on the incident on Cheryl Morgan's blog.

#63 I think the Homeland Security didn't make it available.

Some good points made here on the incident on Cheryl Morgan's blog.

#63 I think Homeland Security didn't make it available.

Um, not sure why that double-posted. Sorry.

They have to make it available on subpoena. If the video is not missing (which would be damning), then I think the fact that neither side wanted it in evidence strongly suggests that neither side wanted the jury to see what actually happened.

The best outcome of this would be to see the judge basically give him a non-sentence. Unfortunately, he'd still have the conviction hanging over him, which would make it hard to visit the States, but he shouldn't go to jail over this. That's because most reasonable people will resist in some way when threatened. It's natural. When the cops escalate the confrontation, the State shares responsibility for what follows.

I'd like to think that will happen too.

"When the cops escalate the confrontation, the State shares responsibility for what follows."

Except it doesn't, A.J., that's the problem. Instead, the State covers up; it whitewashes, it has cops investigate cops. It raises the blue wall. It denies, denies, denies. And paints the victims as the criminals and aggressors. Effective tactics but morally execrable...

Yes, true. I mean morally, the State shares responsibility.

To my mind, we have two questions here:
1. is Watts guilty of obstruction/assaulting a peace officer?
2. are the cops guilty of assaulting Watts?

I think we all agree that, shamefully, the second question rarely gets examined in court. See RCMP, British Columbia, itself, law unto.

62: I think you mean "innocent"?

67> They have to make it available on subpoena.

I'm not certain that this is correct, anymore. Now that Homeland Security has taken over all aspects of US security they might be able to claim 'National Security' on this, if they wish to do so. If I was one of the legal beagles for the Feds, I might take that approach.

71> Thanks for the catch. Went back and fixed it.

ACAB... not much more to say.

It seems even the jurors are unsure why Watts was indicted in the first place, but felt obligated to vote guilty inasmuch as he had broken the letter of the law by not complying with the border agent's orders.

Aha. And the video. From Watts' own blog:

"Secondly, there seems to be some misapprehension regarding the video. It was shown, without resistance. The Prosecution originally wanted to show their own version (slowed down and with the timestamp edited out), but we ended up all agreeing to show the raw data instead. It was useful for establishing entrances and exits — and we had a PI on the stand who’d developed a forensic timeline, establishing that I was out of the car for less than 20 seconds total (things started getting physical at around the 10-12 second mark). But the footage was grainy and distant and frequently blocked by intervening semis passing through. It was not definitive."

So where does this story about the prosecution withholding the video come from?

It sure would be nice to see less speculation and more facts.

I vaguely recall it being mentioned in an early piece on the affair on the Times Herald web site. Sadly, the relevant page no longer exists, so I can't verify it or determine whether I've remembered it wrong.

Not trying to open old debates, but the the thread ended before Watts was sentenced.

According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth): "He faced a maximum sentence of two years in prison. On April 26, 2010 Judge Adair handed down a suspended sentence, and a fine. However, due to immigration laws, Watts' felony conviction prevents him from re-entering the United States."

Peter will not be appealing. The outpouring of public support and from his colleagues was heartening and, he felt, completely exonerated him. The judge's absolutely minimum sentence indicated that the "offense" was minimal, there were mitigating circumstances, etc. But it is troubling that this will affect his travel to the States--especially since the lad is bound to be nominated for more Nebulas and Hugos and is going to win one at some point...

They should really make an exception in certain cases, IMHO, this being one of them. If it was just some thug, it'd be one thing, but for an author who publishes in a country to be banned from ever entering the country because he was convicted of a crime he didn't commit is a complete flaming pile.

I completely concur.

If we lived in a decent country this would never have happened. But since it's currently fashionable to be scared shitless and we are subject to the need to be irrationally violent in order to compensate for being frightened this kind of crap can only get worse.

My heart goes out to this guy.

Maybe I'll just stay on this side of the pond. It seems to be saner over here.

It's stupid & expensive on many, many levels. On a banal, mundane and relatively harmless scale it took over 7 months and many hours of many people's time for me to get a lame background check/id that allows me to continue with the same job i've done for 25 years. The shrub via an executive order made it mandatory for every US govt employee and contractor have a background check and "official" id. The implementation of this order at the NIH alone has been ludicrously expensive and intrusive.

I would LOVE to find out if the following is true..Today I finally got my new, improved badge, that has to be encased in a metal sleeve since way too much personal information is encoded in the card - Of course the computer link for the security software between NIEHS (in North Carolina) and NIH central in Bethesda, Md was down so I and another couple of guys waited around for a couple of hours for the system to get back on line. The local security folks are fine and totally aware of the absurdity of the non-system. One of them said that up @ the NIH main campus the process has become so bolixed up and staff awaiting badges so frustrated, that the other day the "real" police had to be called in to get one day's very annoyed NIH staff (a lot of geeky PhDs and MDs) out of the security offices after the our brave new security network crashed, again, and no badges could be issued. Just the upfront costs of the background checks have cost several billions of dollars.

I would still like to know what he had in the car.

books ?

#86 He didn't have anything. It was a spot-check. There were no mention of what was in the car in any of the reports on the court case.

If he'd had anything in the car, there would have been further charges.

The fuss was all about how he reacted to being spot checked.

He must have had something in the car, but I guess it's pretty clear we're not going to find out about it.

What do you mean "he must have had something in the car"? Border guards perform checks on randomly-chosen vehicles. Watts did not respond to the check how the border guards thought he should have done, and so they attacked him. It's pretty clear from the reports on the court case. He was charged with failure to obey an order given by a federal officer.

Yes, I understand.

I have read this entire thread, and I am perplexed (somewhat) at why some think that this author does not deserve his sentence and other consequences. It is even admitted by those who know/like this author that Mr. Watts did disobey a federal officer, so he wasn't completely innocent, as was claimed...

That said, since Mr. Watts was also beaten and pepper sprayed by said border guards for questioning the search, said border guards should be disciplined also. Yes, the US guards did use excessive force, IMO, but I'm no legal expert....

You Canadians aren't going to like this, but the USA doesn't seem to like you much. (As a US citizen, I offer my apologies for that. You'd think we'd be nicer to those that do us a hell of a lot less harm, if any at all.) We seem to like the Mexicans better (even though they violently export their illegal drugs and weapons into our country). There are two Border Patrol agents that did some jail time (their sentence was commuted by Bush) for shooting a Mexican smuggler(s?) in what appeared to be self defense.

When the law disrespects me, I sure as hell ain't gonna respect the law. The police are our servants, not our overlords. We are being herded into an Authoritarian state as fast as the police and the courts and the law-makers can manage it. Our one job, as a member of the middle class in the US is to shut up, do our jobs, spend our money on all manner of useless shit, and go on about the business of our keepers.

Does that sound like freedom to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me!

If that was directed at me, you might want to reread what I said. If you think I was advocating Authortarianism, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, police are our servants. They are their to protect us too. Part of that is the random searches at border crossings.

I admitted that the police used excessive force. They should be disciplined as well. They were acting like thugs once they beat and pepper sprayed Mr. Watts. It didn't call for that, IMO.

Now, if you were just making a statement about how insane and anti-freedom the US is becoming, please disregard what I said above with my apologies. If it was just a statement about what the US is turning into, I whole-heartedly agree with your entire statement.

@ 94 geneg: What it sounds like to me is the same old same old that I used to repeat 40-50 years ago. LOL. Maybe there's still time to tune in, turn on, and drop out. Until they start up the draft again. Do you think they will?

BTW the USA is far less authoritarian now than it was in the 50's and sixties. I don't know about Canada.

I'm still boggled that failure to get out of the car when told to, or failure to get back into the car when told to, is actually a crime.

As are most sane people I'm sure. What bugs me just as much is Watts being barred from the country. We have no evidence he committed violence against the officers except hearsay. I'm fine with drug runners, rapists, terrorists, etc,being kicked out and barred if they're from another country. Barring a person for a non-violent crime in which they were closer to a victim than perp is ludicrous.

I have a feeling that if we had all been able to see this incident on a video we would all be much more in agreement over it, one way or another. Like when the cops beat up Rodney King.

At long last, Canada is moving to a system that will place police behavior under arm's length civilian overview. The cops and rightwing legislators have fought this for ages but recent ugly examples of police misconduct and excessive force have really hardened folks' attitudes toward the men and women serving in the front ranks of law enforcement. Something has gone wrong along the way. The police no longer command respect like they used to and their general air of moral rectitude and decency just ain't there. Part of the problem is that they (like politicians) have forgotten that they are public SERVANTS and should behave in a polite, deferential manner in any interaction with the general populace (yup, even when handing out a speeding ticket).

"Random searches"--there's something wrong when "random searches" become natural, ordinary occurrences. Just another annoyance to put up with. ("Your papers, please...") There's something, I don't know, unconstitutional, illegal and downright invasive about "random searches". Stopping people with no pretext, who represent no clear threat, who were selected by the most arbitrary means possible and subjecting them to treatment that should only be accorded to true criminals.

Not my idea of a democracy...

Forgive me, I do tend to see "random searches" as normal, I guess. I was born and raised right next to the largest US (if not the world's) military installation. Stopping every 5th, 10th, 16th (depending on the day) car for searches was just a way of life. And, this was before Pres. Bush and 9/11. The fed has always had more "privileges" than the individual states.

When I said what I said about Mr. Watt's culpability, I was not making a moral declaration. I was making more of a legal declaration. When I said that those US border guards were out of line also, I was making a guess about their legal culpability (and I hope that I'm right).

Justice was not served in either case, even though both sides had a share in being wrong. And that is morally wrong.

The "random search" in this case occurred at the border. We've always been subject to search at the border.

The release of the Braidwood Inquiry report here in Canada is a big deal. That's the inquiry into the Taser death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport. The RCMP released their usual pack of lies, but unfortunately, a bystander had it all on tape. The inquiry essentially took the boots to the RCMP. One of the outcomes will be to create a body in BC that will police the police.

People in Canada should be much more disturbed by what's happening at the G20 than by Peter Watts's belated discovery that he doesn't have the right to argue with a search.

I'm surprised no one has yet posted the latest news on Peter Watts: he had a near-fatal bout with flesh-eating disease, but is now, mercifully, on the road to recovery.

No one can say his life hasn't been eventful of late.

Speaking of thugs in uniform, I thought this was rather shocking (though to be fair to the police, apparently they were the kind that does not wear a uniform)
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/02/16-3

The guy has had a horrible time of it. And he's such a nice guy and cracking good author. Fuck.

>103 ajsomerset: Some discussion here, with a link to his blog.