Via Kathryn Cramer on Twitter I found this article about the Peter Watts border assault case. The raw data is that Peter will face trial in the US in March and, if found guilty, could face up to 2 years in prison. However, his lawyer sounds very positive. In particular I note that the prosecution has stated that it will not be using any video evidence. This is significant, because earlier on the border protection people had been very bullish about how the video would prove Peter’s guilt. My guess is that they’ve looked at it and found that all it shows is a gang of uniformed bullies beating up an unarmed and bewildered author.
7 thoughts on “Latest News on Peter Watts Case”
Comments are closed.
[cynical mode on] – Let us hope that the reason isn’t because the video doesn’t exist (anymore)
There’s something about “unarmed author attacks police armed with guns, batons and pepper spray” that doesn’t quite ring true. How they’ll keep a straight face when testifying I don’t know.
For probably being at worst a little rude to a border guard, he’ll be at best out of pocket to the cost of a small house. And he quite likely did really nothing wrong at all, and may well end up in jail if they persist.
I’m not holding my breath waiting for apologies from the Anonymous Cowards who claim to have “seen the video” and who claim that it shows without a doubt all sorts of nefarious things.
Presumably, Peter’s lawyer will get an opportunity to view the tape (unless, as Will moots, it’s been “lost”).
The video, if it exists, was the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request that was, as I recall, initially rejected becuase it was the potential evidence. It puts the government in an odd position: if they intend to use it as evidence (and thus keep it away from the FOIA request), then Peter’s lawyer will be allowed to see it as part of the disclosure process. If they decide not to use the video, then the reason for rejecting the FOIA request goes away and they have no legal reason for not releasing it. That’s a good reason for the video to mysteriously disappear, I expect.
I hope that my cynicism is misplaced.
I dunno, is it going to be a jury trial? If there’s just a judge hearing the case, then I agree, you can be pretty sure the prosecution is going to be laughed out of court.
If there’s a jury, then as damning as it looks to not introduce the video evidence, the main effect is to reduce the trial to a competition to see whose lawyer has the best command of language and narrative.
Westprog says “For probably being at worst a little rude to a border guard, he’ll be at best out of pocket to the cost of a small house.”
And the most dismaying part of the whole affair, at least to me as an outside observer, is the number of rabid commenters who declared that, first, failing to follow the orders of the guard instantly (even assuming that that’s all he did) constitutes unpardonable offense, and that, having committed this unpardonable offense, they further declare that he deserves everything he might get, up to and including years in prison.
“Insufficient cringing” is one term that’s been used to describe this so-called crime; “driving while brained” is another.