This might involve using different routings on Canadian internal flights, f'rex: the Vancouver to Montreal route passes over Michigan due to the kink in the border. It's not a total problem for me, I only avoid the US and, should it come to it, I am prepared to go to Florida for my father's funeral. I've also been to NC twice for work reasons.
]]>*Legally they have some, practically enforcing them seems difficult when the word "security" is used.
**Ask Peter Watts, among others.
]]>What about the Nuremurg precedent of illegal orders? Or is that ever-so-conveniently ignored, what a suprise?
]]>In Watts' case, the order was to drop face-first into a freezing puddle of water.
The press has frequently characterized the charge against me as “assaulting a federal officer”. The alleged (and discredited) “choking” episode has been repeated ad nauseum. Here at the Sarnia Best Western I don’t have the actual statute in front of me but it includes a lengthy grab-bag of actions, things like “assault”, “resist”, “impede”, “threaten”, “obstruct” — hell, “contradict” might be in there for all I know. And under “obstruct” is “failure to comply with a lawful order”, and it’s explicitly stated that violence on the part of the perp is not necessary for a conviction. Basically, everything from asking “Why?” right up to chain-saw attack falls under the same charge. And it’s all a felony.
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.
I do not know what the jury said amongst themselves. But a question they sent out to the court yesterday afternoon — “Is failure to comply sufficient for conviction?” — strongly suggests that this was the lynchpin event. (Certainly Defense had demolished every other, and the Prosecution had conceded as much.) If that is the case, I cannot begrudge the jury their verdict. Their job is not to rewrite laws, or ignore stupid ones; their job is to decide whether a given act violates the law as written. And when you strip away all the other bullshit — the verbal jousting, the conflicting testimony, the inconsistent reports — the law doesn’t proscribe noncompliance “unless you’re dazed and confused from being hit in the face”. It simply proscribes noncompliance, period. And we all agree that in those few seconds between Beaudry’s command and the unleashing of his pepper spray, I just stood there asking what the problem was.
Whether that’s actual noncompliance or simply slow compliance is, I suspect, what the jury had to decide. That’s what they did, and while I think they made the wrong decision I’m obviously not the most impartial attendee at this party. I still maintain I did nothing wrong; but as far as I can tell the trial was fair, and I will abide by its outcome
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186
*Located in Toronto, our most populous city, against the wishes and advice of local government. Suspicious people believe that Harper, who was notoriously small-minded, was punishing the city for not voting for his party. Shutting down the central business district for most of a week would seem to be a punishment.
]]>It's one reason, f'rinstance that "the Crown" ( i.e. very small-minded prosecutors ) have never AFAIK appealed to a higher court against an acquittal for Cannabis-use for medical purposes ... They are afraid that they would then lose that appeal, too ... which then sets a precedent. Whereas, if they leave it, they can still go around harassing middle-aged people with severe back pain the bastards.
Agree re USSA going further down that road - really trending towards a "police state", especially if you are not pink (etc) ....
]]>Basically border agents can search you, seize goods, imprison you, whatever they like, and you can't do anything about it. The recruitment of numerous low wage thugs in recent years as part of the security theatre has not improved matters in this respect. Inbound passengers are invariably tired, grumpy and hostile, which is not conducive to good relationships with rentacops.
]]>Naturally, being a Good Samaritan I picked it up and took it home so no careless members of the book-reading public would spoil themselves before the official street date.
(Sorry if this impacts your first-week sales, but I'm weak-willed...)
]]>Like this maybe?
]]>I didn't see any typos other than a few stray (easily ignored) apostrophes, and some sentences which seemed oddly worded but on rereading parsed fine. Some colons where i thought semicolons would've been more correct but what do i know?
]]>