Peter Watts beaten and arrested at US Border

[mormont]

Again, I am not saying that cops should be allowed to beat the shit out of someone who is attacking them; I am saying that they should not be forced to try to calmly talk to their attacker before defending themselves.

Pardon me if I misunderstand, but in fact you clearly appeared to be saying that calmly talking to an attacker prolongs a fight, as here.

Blocking, grabbing a hand, or calmly trying to talk to a person swinging at you are all actions which will prolong a fight.

I disagreed with this on the basis that as far as I am aware, it conflicts with training given to my security staff, which suggests that it is possible to talk someone down even after they have swung a punch and that indeed this course of action is advisable and preferred.

And do you want me to find some kind of documented evidence that proves calmly talking to the person physically attacking you is a quicker way to end a fight than the use of pepper spray? I'm not gonna waste my time on that, because the answer seems pretty self-evident to me.

It 'seems self-evident' to you, therefore you're not going to bother backing it up or countering the relevant evidence I cited? There's a term for that kind of reasoning.

[Guest Ro_]

You have a security staff? Isn't that a bit excessive for a guidance councilor? Or are they your security staff in the sense you require protection?

[Filippa Eilhart]

Your words were "use violence". Perhaps we have different definitions of the word violent, but taking someone down by use of force is violent, even if it is justified. So let's get this strait: Do you believe it's ok for the police to use force to subdue a person who is physically resisting arrest?

If by "using force" you mean holding someone's limbs, then yes. If you mean hitting/spraying, then no.

[mormont]

You have a security staff? Isn't that a bit excessive for a guidance councilor? Or are they your security staff in the sense you require protection?

Ro - I do a lot of jobs in this place these days. ;) One is the guidance thing, another is HR manager (which is why I'm responsible for training of the security staff and investigating complaints against them), and another is banning people from the building when necessary (e.g. for assaults on staff).

I really don't need protection, though having my own bodyguard would be handy. They could drive me home and stuff. :P

[slim da reaper]

Ro - I do a lot of jobs in this place these days. ;) One is the guidance thing, another is HR manager (which is why I'm responsible for training of the security staff and investigating complaints against them), and another is banning people from the building when necessary (e.g. for assaults on staff).

I really don't need protection, though having my own bodyguard would be handy. They could drive me home and stuff. :P

What does this training entail? As far as I know to get the SIA license you fill out a multiple choice test and send in an application form, no training is actually required. The license is the means of keeping out the psychos or the means to keep them out by revoking their license.

I agree with your conflict management techniques btw, its a rare time when anyone needs to start throwing punches, kicks, that's an escalation of the conflict, of last resort and we don't know where that will end, basically the situation is out of anyone's control when that happens.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DCC,

its a rare time when anyone needs to start throwing punches, kicks, that's an escalation of the conflict,

Yes.

But, now I'm going to speak for Myshkin. I don't think that's what he was advocating. I believe he was saying that after the non-officer starts throwing punches it's difficult, amid ongoing fisticuffs, to calmly talk to that individual.

[The Iceman of the North]

Not allowing someone desperate to pee the ability to pee freely, is simply wrong, and in my humble opinion, unamerican, dang it!

This line of the discussion made me think of the Danish police handling of the demonstrators this weekend at the Copenhagen meeting. On Saturday they arrested nearly 1,000 demonstrators, stripping their hands, most of these were left sitting on the street for a few hours before being taken to a detention camp. If anyone had to go while sitting on the ground, they were left with no alternative than to pee in their pants.

[slim da reaper]

DCC,

Yes.

But, now I'm going to speak for Myshkin. I don't think that's what he was advocating. I believe he was saying that after the non-officer starts throwing punches it's difficult, amid ongoing fisticuffs, to calmly talk to that individual.

I agree in that situation talking calmly can aggrevate, spur on an individual, it requires immobilisation by wrist and arm locks.

[mormont]

What does this training entail? As far as I know to get the SIA license you fill out a multiple choice test and send in an application form, no training is actually required. The license is the means of keeping out the psychos or the means to keep them out by revoking their license.

When you say 'fill out a multiple choice test', I assume you mean:

To qualify for an SIA licence to operate in any of the front line licensable activities listed on page 8, you

must be aged 18 or over. You will also need to pass an identity check, a criminal record check, and have

achieved the appropriate SIA approved training qualification.

(SIA 'Get Licensed' leaflet)

The training is definitely required and precedes the test - the test is to, well, test you on the training. ;) The exact contents of the training vary according to the work you do (door supervision, manned guarding, CCTV operation, etc.) and the training provider, but all must at least meet the SIA standards for that area. For door supervision, that is 30 hours of training, usually over four days. (A close protection license is 150 hours.)

If you've been given the test without first undergoing the training, your training provider should be reported. The exception is non-front line licenses, for which no training is required (only a criminal record check): or where staff hold an exemption due to another relevant formal qualification.

[Werthead]

Also, the only account we have so far that Watts was "beaten" is Watts' own account. And he's not exactly unbiased. As I said earlier, it may have been a perfectly acceptable use of force, even if Watts felt like it was a beat down. I'll wait for more evidence from a less biased source before I make up my mind on that. What I do feel comfortable making my mind up on is that the police seem to have had reason to use force against Watts, because even in Watts' own account he admits to resisting when they tried to detain him. Now I want to be clear, this is not a license for cops to beat him up, but I still don't know that Watts was beat up. And it also shows that Watts was not the complete angel he seem to think he was.

As Watts has said, the situation is that he backed away from the police when they tried to grab him and they responded by punching him in the face, pepper-spraying him and then kicking him whilst he was on the ground and incapacitated. He was quite specific about this.

This is also the core point that the thread has been derailed away from. Yes, Watts was unwise to get out of the vehicle and confront the police. However, whilst this was unwise it in no way justified a physical assault of the nature he reports receiving, particularly the police instigating a fistfight which seems extraordinarily incompetent behaviour (grabbing him and restraining his arms behind his back would be more logical, even pepper-spraying him first and then cuffing him when he's down).

Your assertion seems to be that we should assume that Watts is lying in all aspects of his report, curiously ignoring the fact that the burden of proof it is up to the accuser (the police in this case) rather than the defendant.

At the moment, between the facts presented by Watts and the police, it is the police version that has had discrepencies and holes in it, so I see no reason to see why their version of events should be automatically believed, especially given the significant number of other commentators on his blog, on BoingBoing and elsewhere who have said that the US border guards at that specific crossing are so bellicose and aggressive that they go thirty miles or more out of their way to the next border crossing to avoid having to deal with them.

[Guest Raidne]

As Watts has said, the situation is that he backed away from the police when they tried to grab him and they responded by punching him in the face, pepper-spraying him and then kicking him whilst he was on the ground and incapacitated. He was quite specific about this.

This is also the core point that the thread has been derailed away from. Yes, Watts was unwise to get out of the vehicle and confront the police. However, whilst this was unwise it in no way justified a physical assault of the nature he reports receiving, particularly the police instigating a fistfight which seems extraordinarily incompetent behaviour (grabbing him and restraining his arms behind his back would be more logical, even pepper-spraying him first and then cuffing him when he's down).

This is all true. While I don't think Watts behaved in a fashion that was consistent with his best interests, to put it mildly, I also think the officers were the party ultimately in the wrong. But I also think that from a practical perspective, he earned himself a loser in court because he acted in a fashion that begged for some kind of incapacitation, and the court is probably not willing to get into the business of determining the appropriate level of force for all occasions. Not everyone who files these claims is a respected writer - we'd have to extend the same courtesy to drug kingpins, human traffickers, etc. If the level of force was really excessive brutality, then maybe it'll work out, but it'll depend on the degree of his injuries or any tapes, because otherwise it's his word against theirs.

Your assertion seems to be that we should assume that Watts is lying in all aspects of his report, curiously ignoring the fact that the burden of proof it is up to the accuser (the police in this case) rather than the defendant.

I know you're not asking me, but I actually believe everything Watts is saying, I just wish he'd acted like a responsible person at a border crossing, which would have avoided all this resulting drama, at a not insignificant cost to the taxpayer.

I mean, does he say why he got out of the car?

especially given the significant number of other commentators on his blog, on BoingBoing and elsewhere who have said that the US border guards at that specific crossing are so bellicose and aggressive that they go thirty miles or more out of their way to the next border crossing to avoid having to deal with them.

This is truth. It is very well-known that they are total jerks there. I mean, I really thought that one guy was really going to impound my car and leave me in the middle of Detroit with no transportation for no reason at all.

[slim da reaper]

The training is definitely required and precedes the test - the test is to, well, test you on the training. ;)

If you've been given the test without first undergoing the training, your training provider should be reported. The exception is non-front line licenses, for which no training is required (only a criminal record check): or where staff hold an exemption due to another relevant formal qualification.

Yeah the training is required of course, like attendance to classes at college or University to qualify for a qualification..., attend to the book shop, friends and the pub more like haha, the SIA thing the people who were taking the course at the time put it across that it was all a bit of a joke, that's all :)

[Wastrel]

Short version of thread: America is scary. People seem to have no rights, and are taught that "you can't question the authority" (to quote from earlier in this thread). It's policed by psychopaths who use extreme violence at the slightest provocation, and people are taught to accept this.

Personally, I'm glad I live in a vaguely free country (even here the police are too uncontrolled, but not on the scale of the US). I'm also glad we don't have borders in the American sense - and, like everyone I know, the US borders are the main reason why I'll never go to America. I'm reliably informed by those with experience that the US border controls are, for foreigners, worse than the Iron Curtain (in terms of brutality, although they're certainly more efficient). I know one guy, as un-aggressive as you could ask, who was strip-searched, cavity-searched, beaten, and detained for nine hours in solitary confinement with no toilet, no communication from the guards, and no right to contact a lawyer - which nobody was surprised by, as he's Asian. In the same vein, we've got a government minister who's Asian, who's therefore been abused repeatedly by US border guards - even when travelling to America under the personal invitation of Homeland Security, in order to deliver a speech about how Homeland Security could avoid racism. So naturally they spotted his skin colour, picked him out of a line, and verbally abused him for an hour before he could enter the country. If that's how they treat ministers of friendly powers who have been invited personally by the US government... well, it's no surprise that ordinary people are frightened.

[Paddy]

Well, that post contributed greatly to the thread.

Thanks for that, Wastrel. I'm glad you got that off your chest.

:unsure:

[pika]

Short version of thread: America is scary. People seem to have no rights, and are taught that "you can't question the authority" (to quote from earlier in this thread). It's policed by psychopaths who use extreme violence at the slightest provocation, and people are taught to accept this.

Personally, I'm glad I live in a vaguely free country (even here the police are too uncontrolled, but not on the scale of the US). I'm also glad we don't have borders in the American sense - and, like everyone I know, the US borders are the main reason why I'll never go to America. I'm reliably informed by those with experience that the US border controls are, for foreigners, worse than the Iron Curtain (in terms of brutality, although they're certainly more efficient). I know one guy, as un-aggressive as you could ask, who was strip-searched, cavity-searched, beaten, and detained for nine hours in solitary confinement with no toilet, no communication from the guards, and no right to contact a lawyer - which nobody was surprised by, as he's Asian. In the same vein, we've got a government minister who's Asian, who's therefore been abused repeatedly by US border guards - even when travelling to America under the personal invitation of Homeland Security, in order to deliver a speech about how Homeland Security could avoid racism. So naturally they spotted his skin colour, picked him out of a line, and verbally abused him for an hour before he could enter the country. If that's how they treat ministers of friendly powers who have been invited personally by the US government... well, it's no surprise that ordinary people are frightened.

You make the US sound like the DPRK.

I was far more frightened by the MET guys walking around with MP5's strapped to their chests in London than I am by cops here. After all, the London cops shoot at Brazilians for no reason.. That was on the news.. so Clearly it must happen all the time.

[Wastrel]

I agree with you - it does happen all the time (only not Brazilians, usually, so there's less fuss). When it comes to guns, the police in general, and in particular the Met, have terrifyingly low standards for what merits deadly force, and it is entirely impossible to successfully prosecute any of them - even just getting them temporarily suspended on full pay is rare.

However, in Britain the police don't have or need guns - so in most cases if the police have guns things have already got out of hand (which is one reason they're so trigger-happy - once the gun squad are deployed, they already 'know' that something serious is going on, so they're expecting trouble).

In America, it sounds as though police with guns are a common thing, rather than a never-seen-in-your-life thing, and also as though they expect people they talk to to have guns and act accordingly. It's hard to see how this could not be frightening.

[pika]

I agree with you - it does happen all the time (only not Brazilians, usually, so there's less fuss). When it comes to guns, the police in general, and in particular the Met, have terrifyingly low standards for what merits deadly force, and it is entirely impossible to successfully prosecute any of them - even just getting them temporarily suspended on full pay is rare.

However, in Britain the police don't have or need guns - so in most cases if the police have guns things have already got out of hand (which is one reason they're so trigger-happy - once the gun squad are deployed, they already 'know' that something serious is going on, so they're expecting trouble).

In America, it sounds as though police with guns are a common thing, rather than a never-seen-in-your-life thing, and also as though they expect people they talk to to have guns and act accordingly. It's hard to see how this could not be frightening.

Every Officer has a gun, Sometimes they have three or four..in the vehicle. But the guns don't scare me, never have.. its the nuts who wield them who scare me. Though I'd rather be shot than sliced by a Chav with a 50p box cutter any day. But if I understand correctly, the only thing which constitutes use of deadly force in the US, is if the suspect pulls a weapon or a perceived weapon, hence the rare incidences of some poor bloke pulling out his cellphone to call his lawyer and getting drilled. Its rare, but its happened I'm sure, same with the fabled kid with a ray gun which looked real enough horror story. Thats why toy guns are all neon yellow and orange now.. But the US is nearly 6 times the size population wise of the UK, so these instances will of course be magnified..

I'd suggest though when talking about the TSA's at the airport.. don't take it personally.. they hate everyone. I've never been through an airport that I didn't get flagged for questions.. once I waited so long I missed my flight.

[Security Squish]

This is truth. It is very well-known that they are total jerks there. I mean, I really thought that one guy was really going to impound my car and leave me in the middle of Detroit with no transportation for no reason at all.

Hey! Some of my good friends do border patrol in Michigan. At least they are nicer than lawyers who eat up tax payer funds and then leave the state to peddle their parasitic trade elsewhere. ;) See that's not nice.

[Werthead]

I'm also glad we don't have borders in the American sense

Well, we do, actually, although just the one and not on the same landmass as 95% of the British population.

This does beg the question: why on Earth are these border posts with Canada so heavily fortified when Canada and the USA are extremely close allies with strongly integrated common defence and economic ties and haven't had any major political confrontations for decades or military ones for almost two centuries, when the border between Norther Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, recently used for paramilitary and terrorism activities that killed thousands, might as well not exist just ten years after the suspensions of hostilities? When I was in a car with someone in the Republic we apparently briefly crossed into the North and didn't even notice it (aside from my phone briefly switching from an Irish to a British provider and back again).

9/11 is a spurious reason, as the 9/11 hijackers (some of whom did enter the country from Canada, IIRC) all visited the country legally on correct visas and valid passports and driving licenses. I understand smuggling might be a concern, but given that 99% of the USA and Canada's 5,000-mile-long border is totally unguarded, wouldn't it make more sense for smugglers to cross over in some big woodland miles from anywhere on the edge of Montana or something? Are there stats for how much actual illegal material is seized every year on the border? And do those figures include stuff taken over by accident without paying the right taxes rather than just purely criminal materials? That would be interesting to see.

[Shryke]

THe Canada/US Border ISN'T heavily fortified. Seriously, some of you people have some fucked up views of this.

The Canada/US border looks like a Toll Booth. You drive up, chat with the guy for a minute or 2 and drive off. Usually. Sometimes you'll get pulled over and they'll poke around, but that's about it. It's no big deal. Airline security is more of a hassle.

Yes, security has tightened up since 9/11 (you now actually need a passport to cross. Before it just required a driver's license). There's the occasional jack-ass border agent, just like with any other job, but shut your mouth, be polite, and nothing will come of it. (Unless you are brown of course)

Mr. Watts ran into a problem because he got out of his car and complained. The minute you leave your car, you've escalated the situation from "Usual, run-of-the-mill inspection" to "Ok, hold on, what's this guy about to try and do?".

The police may have used excessive force, we don't know right now. But Mr. Watts' actions are what turned this from "routine" to "not routine".