[ExI] Watts

[Damien Broderick]

On 3/22/2010 1:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

>> On 3/21/2010 4:43 PM, Keith Henson wrote:

>>> I don't know Peter, perhaps some of you do.  It seemed to
>>> me to be considerably in excess of a rational discussion.  If this is
>>> normal for Peter, then don't worry about it.  If it is not, I would
>>> strongly suggest an MRI brain scan.  This and getting into a row with
>>> border guards (if it is unusual behavior for him) suggests the
>>> possibility of organic brain problems.

>> Oh for god's sake. How would you respond to someone making such comments
>> about a person taken down and imprisoned for "threatening
>> Scientologists"? You're literally the last person I'd expect to make
>> such a fatuous remark.

> I had a friend many years ago who underwent a personality change.  All
> of his friends withdrew from him.  It was the first sign of a brain
> tumor that killed him.

Sorry to hear that, but it's entirely beside in the point in discussing 
Peter Watts' arguments against coarse attempts to apply of EP, and 
especially his trial. "Getting into a row with border guards?" Is that 
like "threatening with a cruise missile"? In fact, yes, apparently it's 
exactly like that; both were bullshit charges:

 From the Times-Herald site:

"As a member of the jury that convicted Mr. Watts today, I have a few 
comments to make. The jury's task was not to decide who we liked better. 
The job of the jury was to decide whether Mr. Watts 
"obstructed/resisted" the custom officials. Assault was not one of the 
charges. What it boiled down to was Mr. Watts did not follow the 
instructions of the customs agents. Period. He was not violent, he was 
not intimidating, he was not stopping them from searching his car. He 
did, however, refuse to follow the commands by his non compliance. He's 
not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents 
escalated the situation with sarcasm and miscommunication. 
Unfortunately, we were not asked to convict those agents with a crime, 
although, in my opinion, they did commit offenses against Mr. Watts. Two 
wrongs don't make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set 
forth to us by the judge."

Reading a little more shows that not complying means he failed to throw 
himself on the ground within 20 seconds after being assaulted. Again, 
from Watts' report on his blog ( http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186 ):

<What constitutes “failure to comply with a lawful command” is open to 
interpretation. The Prosecution cited several moments within the melee 
which she claimed constituted “resisting”, but by her own admission I 
wasn’t charged with any of those things. I was charged only with 
resisting Beaudry, the guard I’d “choked”. My passenger of that day put 
the lie to that claim in short order, and the Prosecution wasn’t able to 
shake that. The Defense pointed out that I wasn’t charged with anything 
regarding anyone else, and the Prosecution had to concede that too. So 
what it came down to, ultimately, was those moments after  I was 
repeatedly struck in the face by Beaudry (an event not in dispute, 
incidentally). After Beaudry had finished whaling on me in the car, and 
stepped outside, and ordered me out of the vehicle; after  I’d complied 
with that, and was standing motionless beside the car, and Beaudry told 
me to get on the ground — I just stood there, saying “What is the 
problem?”, just before Beaudry maced me.

And that, said the Prosecutor in her final remarks — that, right there, 
was failure to comply. That was enough to convict.>

Suggesting that a "brain tumor" explains this is shameful.

Damien Broderick