Original post: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=932
Latest: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193
Peter Watts had his trial for supposedly assaulting a guard at the US/Canada border. The trial admits that the salient points that:
- his car was searched without explanation on leaving the US
- he got out to ask why
- he didn't at any point offer any violence (he may have tried to push away one of the guards who was hitting him) but didn't promptly comply with some of the orders, mostly after being punched in the face
- despite Watt's account being substantiated, the jury reluctantly concluded that not complying promptly did fall under the aegis of the law, which includes obstructing or failing to obey, with no specification on what are reasonable situations, so he was convicted for this federal crime
The comments have several people who say something like "well, duh, when suffering under a totalitarian regime, you shouldn't talk back, you should swallow abuse meekly so you don't get hit", and seem blind to the obvious rejoinder that Peter was (presumably) not blind to the fact that if you're abused under a totalitarian regime, then it may be wiser (or at least less painful) to submit, but that he'd laboured under the apprehension that the US border patrol wasn't and wasn't supposed to be a bunch of totalitarian thugs.
I mean, come on, I know many countries are a lot, lot worse, and not causing trouble is always wise, and law enforcement officials are naturally trained to be cautious of anyone deviating from standard behaviour in any way, just in case they're dangerous, but "beating up innocent north american civilians for saying 'excuse me, can I help you'" is, you know, not a good thing!
Latest: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193
Peter Watts had his trial for supposedly assaulting a guard at the US/Canada border. The trial admits that the salient points that:
- his car was searched without explanation on leaving the US
- he got out to ask why
- he didn't at any point offer any violence (he may have tried to push away one of the guards who was hitting him) but didn't promptly comply with some of the orders, mostly after being punched in the face
- despite Watt's account being substantiated, the jury reluctantly concluded that not complying promptly did fall under the aegis of the law, which includes obstructing or failing to obey, with no specification on what are reasonable situations, so he was convicted for this federal crime
The comments have several people who say something like "well, duh, when suffering under a totalitarian regime, you shouldn't talk back, you should swallow abuse meekly so you don't get hit", and seem blind to the obvious rejoinder that Peter was (presumably) not blind to the fact that if you're abused under a totalitarian regime, then it may be wiser (or at least less painful) to submit, but that he'd laboured under the apprehension that the US border patrol wasn't and wasn't supposed to be a bunch of totalitarian thugs.
I mean, come on, I know many countries are a lot, lot worse, and not causing trouble is always wise, and law enforcement officials are naturally trained to be cautious of anyone deviating from standard behaviour in any way, just in case they're dangerous, but "beating up innocent north american civilians for saying 'excuse me, can I help you'" is, you know, not a good thing!