Ginblossom

As we only have subjective accounts of what happened, perhaps there is some video footage to view. Meanwhile, I'm happy to oblige when requested to do so for law enforcement.

crg

ROFL. I was just reading this guy's blog. Allegedly... he received a conditional discharge in 1991 in Canada for obstructing a police officer during a traffic stop (while on a bicycle). Allegedly, the police asked for his ID, he demanded that the cop explain his legal requirement to present ID. Allegedly, the cop asked again and again demanded an explanation. The cop arrested him and he was found guilty.

So, is Canada a police state now too? Or do they all need to hire cops that will put up with childish tantrums?

meauxna

I always remembered from visits to Canada, that you're required to carry ID there and that you could be asked to show it.
Who knows, I was a teenager at that time.

scrubbedexpat099

They had ID then?

meauxna

Stone 'cards' we had to carry in our animal skins' pockets.

Lissbovavd

As a conservative libertarian and a great supporter of the eminent Congressman Dr Ron Paul of Texas, I´m the very antithesis of a socialist.
I do, however, find some of the responses on this thread rather disconcerting in the sense that a surprising number of comments seem to be unquestionably accepting the official version of the concerned CBP officers.

Again:
None of us were witnessing the incident, but quite a few of you give the impression of having done precisely that, judging by a number of responses.
Those posters automatically presume that Dr Watts, a Canadian national, was at fault and that the CBP agents did nothing wrong whatsoever.

Why is this, I keep wondering.
An anti-Canadian sentiment?
An urge to automatically side with "Authority"?


This is not the USA that the Founding Fathers intended.
A country where any questioning of "Authority" whatsoever is regarded as a felony is an abhorrent phenomenon for any law-abiding citizen and would have been regarded as just that some 200+
years ago in the American struggle against the British colonial rule.

tonrob

So are you trying to say that the bloke wasn't being a complete prat and looking for trouble? Oh - how would you know? - you weren't there.


Back to going round in circles...

crg

Many of us have discussed thousands of border crossing experiences with a wide cross section of people on this forum. Many of them have asked questions of the border guards and had testy exchanges. In the six years I have participated don't recall any of them that were in a scuffle and pepper sprayed for merely asking a question. Many of us are somewhat incredulous when we heard that claim.

With that said, I didn't cast judgment. We didn't even discuss the matter on this forum until the trial was over. I was aware of the incident and was following the trial but didn't think it was relevant to what we discuss here.

I didn't see this as cause for concern, a harbinger of things to come, or a breakdown of the fabric that makes up America. We see it as an anomaly that doesn't make sense considering what we know about border crossings.

The JURY found him guilty. He was also found guilty in CANADA for a similar incident. Why do you immediately believe a FICTION writer?

Do you want so badly to believe that this person was totally innocent and a victim of bad cops that you will disregard the careful deliberation of 12 jurors following a 4 day trial? A court of law is how truth is decided in this country. They have spoken.

This entire thread should be moved to the trailer park.

scrubbedexpat099

He was judged and found guilty by his peers.

I read bits of his blog, certainly came across as a prat.

ian-mstm

I've always found the phrase "jury of peers" to be somewhat misleading. If the accused was charged with armed robbery, wouldn't a true jury of his peers consist of people also charged with armed robbery?

Ian

discoviking

Maybe. Many people in the US views Canada kind of the same way Norway views Sweden, as the little brother we pretend we can't stand. But we would miss them if they didn't show up for family gatherings.

S Folinsky

I, too, have found it weird. But it should be noted that the phrase is from Magna Carta -- I seem to recall that the phrase meant that a Lord could only be tried in the House of Lords by his peers.

In other words, the phrase is archaic. Define the social politcal group as "the people" and you will see if an individual person, one of the people, commits a crime, then a jury of other persons can try you.

This discussion can get very technical. Perhaps it should be noted that the name of the criminal PLAINTIFF can vary. From what I see, in the UK, it is the CROWN. The Judges and the prosecutors work for Elizabeth. However, the jury does not.

In the US, most places will name the government as the prosecutor -- e.g. United States v. Smith, Commonwealth v Jones, State v Doe. Out west, there is what I think is a libertarian habit -- in California it was People v Simpson. In a weird sort of way, Marcia Clark worked for me.

Marocco

This was still the case until 1948. The last such trial took place in 1935.

S Folinsky

Hmm, had no idea that it still took place in the 20th Century.

fatbrit

For a good work of fiction around this subject, try Clouds of Witness by Dorothy L. Sayers from your local library. Far better than writer than dear Agatha.