Peter Watts beaten and arrested at US Border

[Insert Edit]

Asphalting a road is an extremely hard and thankless job, when did you last commend a common road-man for its hard job? How often do you stop to thank them for allowing you to drive without bumps?

Are we talking the guy driving the automated paving machine, or the poor sods who hold the 'slow' signs?

[Werthead]

This was cited in the comments of the CBC news outlet:

“The Times Herald continues to print that Mr. Watts was found guilty of assault. HE WAS NOT!!! He was found guilty of obstructing/resisting, and that was due to the time that transpired between him being ordered to do something and him actually complying with the order.”

Repeated rumours to the effect that Mr. Watts choked a border guard were soundly discredited in court, as can be seen from the record. Surely a respectable news organization such as CBC would endeavour to print factual statements and not simply parrot other news headlines.

Is the court record publicly available then? That would sort out that particular point very quickly.

[TheKassi]

Considering that Mister Watts is presenting anonymous comments posted in an article's discussion section made by individuals with names like “proudinjun” as members of the jury speaking out on his behalf I think it is time to stop considering his blog and comments based off of it a reliable source of accurate information.

[mormont]

Haven't seen the court record, but this article reports comments from the prosecutor:

As he crossed the Blue Water Bridge on his way to Sarnia, U.S. customs officers pulled him over. When two guards began rifled through his car, Watts got out and asked what they were doing.

During the melee, one of the guards said he felt like he was being choked by Watts, so he repeatedly elbowed the author, Kelly said.

Outside the car, the guards ordered Watts to the ground, but he stood motionless, asking what the problem was.

“After several commands, he was maced,” Kelly said.

Sounds to me like the situation re: assault, as we might commonly use the term, is far from clear.

[slim da reaper]

Where did I say that?

Asphalting a road is an extremely hard and thankless job, when did you last commend a common road-man for its hard job? How often do you stop to thank them for allowing you to drive without bumps?

If someone is "twisting things" it's you.

If you make a sweeping statement and selectively use mine where I say there are many corrupt law enforcement officers, and not just bad eggs either, then it's natural to conclude you think all police are corrupt.

To answer your pizza delivery driver are subject to more risk, the mental abuse normal people who happen to be police officers is extremely high, these normal people are appreciated and I hope they don't get sucked into the hate loop.

[felice]

Sounds to me like the situation re: assault, as we might commonly use the term, is far from clear.

Looks very clear to me: Watts stood motionless, and the cops assaulted him. Anyone who thinks macing someone is reasonable force to use against a person standing motionless should immediately be locked up as an unacceptable danger to society.

[mormont]

Looks very clear to me: Watts stood motionless, and the cops assaulted him. Anyone who thinks macing someone is reasonable force to use against a person standing motionless should immediately be locked up as an unacceptable danger to society.

I was referring to the allegation that Watts 'choked' the officer and so whether the conviction included assault. The choking is referred to above, but it's unclear whether it formed part of Watts' conviction. It seems unlikely, though: the above doesn't seem to be a direct quote, but if the furthest the prosecutor was prepared to go was to say that the officer felt that he was being choked, that would suggest that this particular claim was not substantiated. On the other hand, it doesn't appear to be contested that the officer struck Watts in the struggle - the issue is whether it was in self-defence.

[Tempra]

That's just the name of the charge. The statute (here) lumps together assaulting, battering, wounding, resisting, obstructing, opposing, and endangering an officer, where "obstructing" means "knowingly failing to comply with a lawful command".

Actually, "'Obstruct' includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command."

That doesn't tell us whether whether Watts used force, but Obstruct does not mean only failing to comply with a lawful command.

Also, i would hesitate for people to make many/any inferences based on the prosecutors words. The prosecutor has to prove only that Watts "failed to comply with a lawful command." He doesn't not need to prove that force was used. The prosecutor is not willingly going to accept a higher burden and may choose his words carefully to ensure a conviction

[Guest Raidne]

So, is Watts going to appeal? Anyone know?

I'll withhold judgment on the outcome until I hear the sentence.

What it looks like to me is that the jury convicted Watts on the basis of obstruction/failure to cooperate, but it's hard to tell without having heard the evidence.

Wert, since this is still at the trial phase there really isn't a record to speak of beyond a transcript of the trial. While I think that record would be publicly available, I think it would be through a FOIA request or some other similar request. It's probably not available for free on the internet, like the appellate decision will be if Watts appeals.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

I imagine the choice to appeal will depend upon the sentence. Further, as I'm sure you well know, appealing jury verdicts is a really long row to hoe.

[Guest Raidne]

Raidne,

I imagine the choice to appeal will depend upon the sentence. Further, as I'm sure you well know, appealing jury verdicts is a really long row to hoe.

Why would that be? Doesn't anyone convicted of a felony have one appeal of right?

Also, I don't care as much about any change the outcome as much as I do about access to the facts, or at least, it's hard for me to judge what I think about the former without the latter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

Why would that be? Doesn't anyone convicted of a felony have one appeal of right?

Also, I don't care as much about any change the outcome as much as I do about access to the facts, or at least, it's hard for me to judge what I think about the former without the latter.

Anyone dealing with any final order has one appeal of right. I was talking about changing the outcome. The standard for reversing Jury Verdicts, in SC at least, is "no evidence". The Appelant has to show there is no evidence supporting the verdict which means if there is a scintila of evidence supporting the verdict it will be upheld hence a very long row to hoe to reverse a Jury verdict.

[mormont]

Actually, "'Obstruct' includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command."

That doesn't tell us whether whether Watts used force, but Obstruct does not mean only failing to comply with a lawful command.

Also, i would hesitate for people to make many/any inferences based on the prosecutors words. The prosecutor has to prove only that Watts "failed to comply with a lawful command." He doesn't not need to prove that force was used. The prosecutor is not willingly going to accept a higher burden and may choose his words carefully to ensure a conviction.

'Doesn't not need'? :huh:

I think the phrase from the prosecutor bolded above (Mary is usually a girl's name, by the way) can only be read as extremely equivocal. As I say, the status of the claim that Watts choked the officer appears to be rather unclear, as a result.

[Tempra]

'Doesn't not need'? :huh:

I think the phrase from the prosecutor bolded above (Mary is usually a girl's name, by the way) can only be read as extremely equivocal. As I say, the status of the claim that Watts choked the officer appears to be rather unclear, as a result.

Does not, excuse me.

We do not have the actual quote of the prosecutor. Instead, we have the reporter's characterization of the prosecutor's characterization of what the officer testified to. A bit shaky to say the least. Even if we take the statement as true, not much can be gleaned from it because of what I said before.

[mormont]

Yes, that's what I said - that the issue of the alleged choking was unclear. However, you appear to be reading that uncertainty the opposite way from me. Funny, huh? ;)

You also appear to be saying failure to comply isn't enough to qualify as obstruction, but the quote you provide says the opposite, that a knowing failure to comply is indeed obstruction.

[Tempra]

Yes, that's what I said - that the issue of the alleged choking was unclear. However, you appear to be reading that uncertainty the opposite way from me. Funny, huh? ;)

I do not think the statement is that useful. I would not discredit the officer's claim that he was choked based on a twice removed interpretation of what the officer said.

You also appear to be saying failure to comply isn't enough to qualify as obstruction, but the quote you provide says the opposite, that a knowing failure to comply is indeed obstruction.

Not at all. The person who I quoted said that "'obstructing' means 'knowingly failing to comply with a lawful command.'" I flushed out the meaning of Obstruction which also includes the use or threat of use of physical force.

If he was found guilty of obstruction, he 1) knowingly failed to obey a lawful command, or 2) used physical interference or force, or 3) threatened the use of physical interference or force, or 4) committed all of the above.