Peter Watts beaten and arrested at US Border

[Lord of Oop North]

We're expecting that their training box should include a couple of de-escalation stages between "issue an instruction" and "slap the cuffs on" - and that those stages should involve things like rational speech, clear and calm explanation, a second chance to comply, and above all some common fucking courtesy to the public that pays their wages and whom they are supposed to serve.

In both the United States and Canada, this is already part of their training. Do you honestly think that their training would neglect to include this? That would be ludicrous.

Most people with the predisposition to shoot a cop at a traffic stop will probably have the gun on their person, tucked into a belt, or in their pocket. It's more difficult to access this while seated in a car, and very difficult to aim at someone behind you, where the cop will be (imagine sitting in a chair and firing over your left shoulder accurately.)

A most excellent point, Tormund. Thank you.

[felice]

I mean, why would Watts even complain? They were just searching.

Did he complain? As far as I'm aware, all he did was ask what was going on, not object to it. Presumably he's made this border crossing many times before without being subjected to this kind of search.

Another post on Watts' blog denies that he choked anyone. I was assuming the choking thing was true, actually. If Watts is telling the truth, that was a pretty stupid lie by the police since there should be cameras there.

Possibly his hand may have gone somewhere near one of the cops' necks by chance in an involuntary reaction to getting a face full of pepper spray, or something like that. The idea that he actually deliberately attempted to choke a cop is just ludicrous.

[Shryke]

Did he complain? As far as I'm aware, all he did was ask what was going on, not object to it. Presumably he's made this border crossing many times before without being subjected to this kind of search.

We don't know exactly what he did. He claims one thing, but people always claim they were perfect angels in situations like this.

We DO know that he got out of the car, which is what started this whole thing apparently.

[Richard]

Actual police and studies and experts and shit?

...do not come into it, Shryke - this is basic civics. If a modern nation cannot operate its law enforcement services without assuming that climbing out of your car to ask a question is a threat, then that nation does not deserve to be classified as civilised. At a raw minimum, it has some serious repairs to carry out on its social systems.

That said - my personal experience of American society has been that there is in fact a very high level of general surface courtesy in operation, and clearly stated expectations of high standards from public servants, not least those operating border controls. So go figure.

Having gone figure myself, what I'm going to assume is that the training is in place at a systemic level, that it was not applied in this case, and that these particular officers are scum. 'nuff said?

[slim da reaper]

...do not come into it, Shryke - this is basic civics. If a modern nation cannot operate its law enforcement services without assuming that climbing out of your car to ask a question is a threat, then that nation does not deserve to be classified as civilised. At a raw minimum, it has some serious repairs to carry out on its social systems.

That said - my personal experience of American society has been that there is in fact a very high level of general surface courtesy in operation, and clearly stated expectations of high standards from public servants, not least those operating border controls. So go figure.

Having gone figure myself, what I'm going to assume is that the training is in place at a systemic level, that it was not applied in this case, and that these particular officers are scum. 'nuff said?

Training wont get you civilised behaviour, individuals provide that. (I haven't read this thread, it's just a general comment.) My experience of the police depends on the situation, a couple of bad ones one good. Seems like a revenge culture is going on, like blood fueding of old, police treat badly some of the general public or are treated badly, and this makes some people vengeful and they pass it on to others.

[Shryke]

...do not come into it, Shryke - this is basic civics. If a modern nation cannot operate its law enforcement services without assuming that climbing out of your car to ask a question is a threat, then that nation does not deserve to be classified as civilised. At a raw minimum, it has some serious repairs to carry out on its social systems.

That said - my personal experience of American society has been that there is in fact a very high level of general surface courtesy in operation, and clearly stated expectations of high standards from public servants, not least those operating border controls. So go figure.

Having gone figure myself, what I'm going to assume is that the training is in place at a systemic level, that it was not applied in this case, and that these particular officers are scum. 'nuff said?

Wow, what a load of bullshit. Come down off your cross and start thinking.

Getting out of your car divides the Cops attention, makes you more mobile and makes it more difficult to control the situation. And the cop needs to control the situation for his own and everyone elses safety. That's why you stay in the car unless he asks you to get out.

It's that simple. This is not the Holocaust, stop over-reacting. This is simply being asked to not get out of your car when stopped unless asked to. It's standard procedure. It is not an infringement on your rights.

Yeesh.

[mormont]

This is not the Holocaust, stop over-reacting.

Good advice, Shryke: perhaps you should take it. The remainder of your post is not only an over-reaction, it's unnecessarily rude.

This is a topic on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. I expect everyone to respect that. If they can't, the mods will step in. Consider that a general warning, please.

[Insert Edit]

stop over-reacting. This is simply being asked to not get out of your car when stopped unless asked to. It's standard procedure. It is not an infringement on your rights.

Yeesh.

I think common sense doesn't necessarily apply though - because there ARE different rules for interacting with authority figures depending on where you are. Or even if authority figures aren't involved. My ex wife is a good Calgary girl. Able to drive with a coffee in one hand, the other hand giving another driver the 1 finger salute out the window.

When we lived in Texas, I got worried about her. She couldn't understand why she should modify her behavior, that she'd spent 30 years learning. I told her about a story I'd had the misfortune to edit, where I had the raw audio from a 9-1-1 call to police. Guy flips someone the bird, gets chased. Things escalate. He phones the police, and leaves his cell phone connected. Ends up being driven off the road, and shot to death in his car. 'How do you like it now!' <blamm> Over and over again. All caught on his cell phone.

So yeah, there IS a difference in how you behave, even if you take police or border guards out of the equation.

[kairparavel]

...do not come into it, Shryke - this is basic civics. If a modern nation cannot operate its law enforcement services without assuming that climbing out of your car to ask a question is a threat, then that nation does not deserve to be classified as civilised. At a raw minimum, it has some serious repairs to carry out on its social systems.

I take issue with this statement for a few reasons.

First off, let's take the general 'law enforcement' aspect out of the equation. These are not city police officers or county sheriffs, they are customs and border patrol agents. I won't say what they do is any more important then that of local law enforcement. I'll simply say it's a different kind of important. They are tasked with making sure that people and the items they bring are legally entering the country. That's a pretty big deal, especially to most people living in the US (or any country for that matter) and in this post 9-11 world, everyone is extra scrutinized.

Now, as far as the ability to get out of your car being the mark of a civilized nation, well, that irks me. We aren't talking about someone getting out of their car at a mall or their driveway. We are talking about major thoroughfares (highways) leading to ports of entry. You_are_at_an_international_border. The rules are different. Unless you have something to declare and pay duty on, or have visa paperwork to get processed and the like, there is no reason to get out of your car, period. And if you do, you cross past the gatekeeper, if you will, and move up to the canopy where there are designated parking spaces. This is standard operating procedure. So yes, getting out of your vehicle unprompted is considered an aggressive act for various reasons. You are distracting your handling agent, and others around the area, thereby preventing them for doing their job properly. This is among other things, time consuming. This border crossing at Port Huron is the second busiest commercial crossing in Ontario and the fourth busiest for vehicles, period. That's lot of vehicles, many if not most of them transport vehicles. And because there's no reason to get out of your car, as there is nowhere to safely stand because you_are_in_lane_of_traffic, a refusal to return to your vehicle can be viewed as an escalation of aggression. When you get out of your vehicle and ask why_______? the officer's main concern is getting you back in your vehicle so they can regain control of the situation. Any words coming out of your mouth until you do what you are asked, then told, fall on deaf ears. Why? Because the officer is focused on what you are doing, and not what you are saying.

I can't speak to any other crossings in any other country. I just know my many experiences crossing between Ontario and New York. The whole thing is orderly AND civilized until people stop following the rules. And as I mentioned previously, new rules were implemented by US CBP in the past few months at land POE because there had been a rash of people getting out of their vehicles, running off or simply attempting to drive through without permission (permission being complete legal entry). Getting out of your vehicle requires an agent escort. So naturally, they prompt you when it's time to get out. Not the other way around.

None of this speaks to outgoing searches, of course, as I've never experienced one. But really, I can't imagine it being any different.

[Filippa Eilhart]

I suppose I don't understand the importance of the "international border". Things just don't work this way anymore here.

Although I used to cross the border with Germany and the Czech Republic relatively often. Everyone's luggage was searched for alcohol and cigarettes but I don't recall anyone being considered a terrorist threat. Or should that be communist threat?

[kairparavel]

I suppose I don't understand the importance of the "international border". Things just don't work this way anymore here.

Although I used to cross the border with Germany and the Czech Republic relatively often. Everyone's luggage was searched for alcohol and cigarettes but I don't recall anyone being considered a terrorist threat. Or should that be communist threat?

I think, and I can only think on this and not actually know, is this:

The EU is creating a sense of open borders, yes? We're all citizens of the EU, etc etc regardless of the individual nations? Common currency. And I think common passports are next, no? I might be wrong on that.

Things in post 9-11 America/North America are different. There used to be that, we're all in this together because we share the same land mass feel before the terrorist attacks. That's all gone away. So the importance in defining 'my country, my rules,' has grown considerably. As well as far more consideration on who is getting in, and why they want in.

This link might help explain what I can't.

http://www.cbc.ca/ca...rs-licence.html

[john]

Getting out of your car divides the Cops attention, makes you more mobile and makes it more difficult to control the situation. And the cop needs to control the situation for his own and everyone elses safety. That's why you stay in the car unless he asks you to get out.

Yeah, this makes perfect sense. It's also pretty stupid. Other people's safety isn't realy worth taking a beatdown for. Cops should suck it up and take a few bullets now and again.

You know effective policing is always about policing, nothing else. Not safety or freedom or any of that crap. Policing is an end in itself.

[Myshkin]

Three points that are not being disputed by either side:

1) Watts got out of his car

2) Watts ignored a lawful order to get back in his car

3) Watts struggled when agents attempted to detain him

Number three is the big one. Let's get this strait: Watts was not taken down and arrested for asking why, he was not taken down and arrested for getting out of his car, he was taken down and arrested for struggling with the agents when they attempted to detain him. As has been said many times in this thread, if he had a problem with anything going on during this search he should have taken it up through the proper channels. Even having your 4th amendment rights violated does not give you the right to ignore lawful orders or resist arrest. If the search was unlawful then I sincerely hope that those conducting it are punished severely, but that still does not change the facts of what Watts did. These are two separate incidents, and those using the unlawful search angle to justify Watts behavior are trying to do nothing more than muddy the waters.

[Filippa Eilhart]

I would struggle if someone tried to detain me, if only because the sheer shock of it would make me stop thinking at all :P

[Myshkin]

I would struggle if someone tried to detain me, if only because the sheer shock of it would make me stop thinking at all :P

And this may very well be what happened. Unfortunately it's not an excuse.

[ThinkerX]

The responses thus far in this thread tell me that the bulk of the posters here will have no trouble accepting the situation when a permanent nationwide police state is imposed in the US. Most of them probably will not notice...until *they* are the ones dragged off in the middle of the night to some gulag.

[Lord of Oop North]

Cops should suck it up and take a few bullets now and again.

Not cool, dude.

[Arthmail]

The responses thus far in this thread tell me that the bulk of the posters here will have no trouble accepting the situation when a permanent nationwide police state is imposed in the US. Most of them probably will not notice...until *they* are the ones dragged off in the middle of the night to some gulag.

Exagerate much?

Here is a piece from the US Department of Justice.

"The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has stated that "…in diffusing situations, apprehending alleged criminals, and protecting themselves and others, officers are legally entitled to use appropriate means, including force." In dozens of studies of police use of force there is no single, accepted definition among the researchers, analysts, or the police. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in its study, Police Use of Force in America 2001, defined use of force as "The amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." The IACP also identified five components of force: physical, chemical, electronic, impact, and firearm. To some people, though, the mere presence of a police officer can be intimidating and seen as use of force."

Now, there is a definite difference in how Canadian and American cops go about their business. But there is Use of Force rules, as well as models for determing threat and de-escalating incidents. I think, even as a fellow that is actively seeking to find employment with the police, it is a citizens right to ask and recieve an answer for why they are being detained or searched. Now of course, asking why you are being searched on the border might be somewhat obtuse, but the right to ask is still there. Of course, part of police training involves trying to diffuse a situation by commanding it, removing whatever ego or percieved power that a citizen has in order to control the variables.

A knife is deadly within 21 feet, because it can take that long for an officer to unholster his chunk (his service pistol), and fire, while the assailant can close within that time. There was an incident a couple of months ago in Ontario, Canada, were two cops were stabbed and shot and killed a man for doing so. Two trained officers, both potentially dead at a random traffic stop.

Of course, the police have to use caution, but they can't treat every person they talk to as a potential criminal and act accordingly. There are RULES for this sort of thing. I have my doubts that Watts, a middle aged science fiction writing doctor, presented a serious threat. What he did do was question their actions. If they responded appropriately, ie, told him it was a random check stop and not to worry about it, and he didnt' do that, then perhaps some force could be used. Some.

But there can be over applications of force, as seen in the RCMP tasering of a Polish fellow here in Canada that threatened four or five officers with the deadliest of all weapons. A stappler. They ALL tasered him, resulting in his death.

I have seen a proper take down, and it involves the proper application of force. Enough to subdue an individual, but at no point does it involve putting the boots to him. Nor does it involve sending him home in a snowstorm with just a t-shirt.

Basically, there is too little information here to go by. If Watts was being a douche, and i can't say one way or the other but his association with that asshat Doctorow makes me wonder, then detainment and arrest were probably in order. On the other hand, questioning an officer for clarification is a far cry from disobeying a lawful order. If excessive force was used, then there needs to be reprimands.

And as soon as an incident happened, those tapes should have been pulled and put in storage, not erased. If they have been, it points to guilt on the behalf of the border guards. Whatever some might think, border guards are little different than police. Perhaps less educated and trained, to be honest, but little different. There are different rules, but at the end of the day they are an extension of the law, which oddly enough, does have rules that apply to it as well.

[Myshkin]

The responses thus far in this thread tell me that the bulk of the posters here will have no trouble accepting the situation when a permanent nationwide police state is imposed in the US. Most of them probably will not notice...until *they* are the ones dragged off in the middle of the night to some gulag.

Yeah, because the US is so much like the Stalin's USSR. Because obeying a lawful order designed for safety is akin to giving up our civil rights. I'm sick of people extrapolating from this one incident that the US is now, or soon will be, a fascist police state. Especially considering the facts of this one incident.

Take a moment to consider. Why does the border patrol stop and search cars? Mainly they are looking for drugs and/or weapons. Now take another moment to consider. Imagine you are a border agent, and you have just found a large amount of cocaine in the car you are searching. Unfortunately you have allowed the owner of said car to wander around freely, and now have no idea where he is. Perhaps he is waiting patiently for you to arrest him, perhaps he has taken off, or perhaps he now stands directly behind you. Do you now understand why the police might, just might, want you to stay where they ask you to stay? And why when you refuse to do so they might, just might, have reason to detain you?

[Guy Kilmore]

To those that replied to my earlier hypothetical I wish to thank them for being patient and explaining to me that the driver side is not universally on the left side of the car. I did not know that, I guess one learns something new every day.