Comments | uplinktruck: Peter Watts: Post Verdict Thoughts and Observations

uplinktruck

Peter Watts: Post Verdict Thoughts and Observations

Apr 04, 2010 17:25

Kennedy Space Center, FL - Peter Watt's was found guilty of assaulting US Customs and Border Protection officer Andrew Beaudry. He will be sentenced on April 26. There are a few loose ends that need tying up so let's get started.

The Port Huron paper was the only news organization that actually showed up in person to listen watch and report the ( Read more... )

cory doctorow, law enforcement, court, follow up, dhs, peter watts

Comments 18

tarkrai April 4 2010, 22:35:28 UTC

A delicate subject, very evenly handled.

Thank you.

tlatoani April 4 2010, 23:50:56 UTC

Seconded. Looks like a very balanced treatment. Thanks!

uplinktruck April 5 2010, 02:33:40 UTC

That is appreciated.

One or two or more things anonymous April 5 2010, 01:51:27 UTC

First, I see you say that the "US Government had no choice..." But it was Michigan state who brought the charges an he was tried and convicted under their law. (The Federal version is worded a bit differently ( ... )

Re: One or two or more things uplinktruck April 5 2010, 02:45:43 UTC

You are right he was charged with state crimes, however the complainant in the matter was a federal officer. That brings us to the part about "Assault-Police Officer."

The US Attorney declined to prosecute the matter, instead passing it off to state officials to do his light work for him. But when it is all said and done, the United States through their agents (In this case the US Customs and Border Patrol officers) is the party bringing the charges.

It was good meeting you too. Best of luck to you with the move and the future.

more info please anonymous April 5 2010, 03:28:39 UTC

Hi,

according to Peter Watts the trial lasted 4 or 5 days.

How long were you present at the trial? Did you observe the
cross-examination of the CBP officers?

Watts says that

Beaudry claims he charged in because he saw the handcuffs in
Behrendt’s hand while Behrendt herself said “I never got to the
point of trying to handcuff him”

You say

He was guilty the minute he declined Officer Behrendt's offer to
handcuff him

This is confusing. According to Watts, the video showed that he was
out of the car for about 20 seconds. Did Behrendt tell him to get
back in the car? Was there testimony to the effect that Watts
resisted being handcuffed? Watts also says

The Prosecution cited several moments within the melee which she ( ... )

Re: more info please uplinktruck April 5 2010, 09:54:14 UTC

Lots of questions, let us begin.
How long were you present at the trial? Did you observe the cross-examination of the CBP officers?

- and -

Did Behrendt tell him to get back in the car? Was there testimony to the effect that Watts resisted being handcuffed?
As stated above, I saw the first full day which included jury selection, jury instructions and the full examination of officer Behrendt. I caught a couple hours on the second day the included the prosecution's examination of Officer Platko ( ... )

(The comment has been removed)

uplinktruck April 5 2010, 23:24:54 UTC

I'm really worried about him drawing time on this one as well. That previous offense is going to weigh very heavily against him ( ... )

ndgmtlcd April 6 2010, 03:10:36 UTC

Peter Watts is now in Canada. If a US court sentences him to any amount of time in prison in the US then he will be staying away from the US for the rest of his life. The chances of the US getting him extradited from Canbada are close to zero ( ... )

uplinktruck April 6 2010, 12:14:51 UTC

Hmmm... Do you have a source on what might happen if he fails to appear for his sentencing or, if he draws some time, fails to surrender to the Michigan penal system ( ... )

Thread 6

this bit isn't true anonymous April 7 2010, 22:42:46 UTC

'Peter's claim there is no record of a conviction involving him anywhere in Canada is defective. If there were no record, the US prosecutor wouldn't know about it. By Canadian law, he may be able to legitimately claim he has no record to the private sector. But the law enforcement side still has a record of it. Deferred or not, it is still a conviction as far as future infractions go'

That's completely wrong. Under Canadian law someone receiving a conditional discharge has not been convicted of a crime. This isn't semantics, it's law. (it works more or less the same way in many US states under deferred adjudication rules, diversion programs, etc.)

Someone violating the conditions specified will quite possibly have to go to court again. THEN they might or might not be convicted.

The fact that law enforcement still has records of what happened is irrelevant.

'This makes sense. Without this kind of a system very few people would get a second offense. Just lots and lots of first ones. '
Hardly. The law isn't quite that stupid. Keep in ( ... )

Re: this bit isn't true uplinktruck April 8 2010, 02:58:18 UTC

"That's completely wrong. Under Canadian law someone receiving a conditional discharge has not been convicted of a crime. This isn't semantics, it's law."

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. The last sentence which you so kindly quoted, read, "Deferred or not, it is still a conviction as far as future infractions go."

You are right that in 1991 he was not technically convicted. But lets take a look at what we know happened and what probably happened.

He was arrested for something along the lines of not working and playing well with a police officer. He went to court. There he arrived at an arrangement with a judge where he paid a fine (penance?) to the Salvation Army. More then likely he was told that he had could have no more infractions for a certain length of time. If he successfully kept his nose clean for that length the entire matter would be dropped. And it was.

You are right. That is not a conviction. But it would be really hard to get any closer to a conviction without pleading guilty.

That is semantics.
"The ( ... )

Re: this bit isn't true anonymous April 8 2010, 04:56:53 UTC

'You are right. That is not a conviction. But it would be really hard to get any closer to a conviction without pleading guilty.

That is semantics. '

Hardly. Keep in mind, the reason this came up was because there's an enhanced sentence for repeat offenders. That enhancement will not be relevant because there was no conviction. I wouldn't dismiss that as semantics.

I disagree with Watts on one issue. I don't really blame the prosecutor for bringing it up. That Canadian case was so old that the prosecutor had no way of determining how the case was disposed without bringing it up in court, because of that case's age.

'You could not be farther from the truth. That previous run-in with a police officer is the most relevant thing in these proceedings right now. If Mr. Watts' attorney is unsuccessful in pulling a rabbit out of his hat and excluding the 1991 matter, it might mean the difference between another deferred prosecution (US legal speak for the Canadian conditional discharge), probation or time behind bars. '
It won't require any ( ... )

Re: this bit isn't true uplinktruck April 8 2010, 14:37:22 UTC

No, the obvious thing is that you still don't get it. I cannot speak to Canada. But I can speak to many of the States. Most deferred prosecutions involve making a guilty plea in writing. That is part of taking responsibility for the crime. That guilty plea is held in abeyance until the conditions of the deferment are met. Then the case it dropped ( ... )