<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_1923240</id>
	<title>Sci-Fi Writer Peter Watts Convicted of Assault</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269114720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>SJrX writes <i>"CBC news is reporting  that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Watts">Peter Watts</a> has indeed been <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/19/watts-convicted.html">convicted of Assaulting border guards</a>, (<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/12/12/0037206/Sci-Fi-Author-Peter-Watts-Beaten-Charged-During-Border-Crossing">discussed here</a>). He will be sentenced April 26th."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>SJrX writes " CBC news is reporting that Peter Watts has indeed been convicted of Assaulting border guards , ( discussed here ) .
He will be sentenced April 26th .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SJrX writes "CBC news is reporting  that Peter Watts has indeed been convicted of Assaulting border guards, (discussed here).
He will be sentenced April 26th.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552862</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Hubbell</author>
	<datestamp>1269085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just going to come out and say it for everyone else.  You and the rest of jurors are useless fucking assholes and one of the main reasons I hope to god I never have to face a jury of my 'peers'  I don't even need to explain why your explanation makes this case even more fucked up because it should be clear as day to anyone who read your post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to come out and say it for everyone else .
You and the rest of jurors are useless fucking assholes and one of the main reasons I hope to god I never have to face a jury of my 'peers ' I do n't even need to explain why your explanation makes this case even more fucked up because it should be clear as day to anyone who read your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to come out and say it for everyone else.
You and the rest of jurors are useless fucking assholes and one of the main reasons I hope to god I never have to face a jury of my 'peers'  I don't even need to explain why your explanation makes this case even more fucked up because it should be clear as day to anyone who read your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552338</id>
	<title>Having experienced US justice...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1269081360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I obviously grew up and spent most of my life in the US. Michigan is where I hail from. Being from a "poorer" stock than most middle-of-the-road Americans, I saw and experienced a completely different side of the justice system - starting with the police. I have, MANY times, been in a situation where I was assaulted by police, abused, jailed - for literally nothing. I also know from family experience - both my grandfathers were Detroit policemen, several of my uncles were police, marshalls and Feds - that there was at that time (from the 70's) and onwards a "fascist" and "paramilitary" mentality within the multitude of "law enforcement" agencies. Whether or not Mr. Watts is innocent or guilty, no one seems to want to point to the fact that millions (yes, millions) of people on a day to day basis are abused by law enforcement, given unfair trials with uncaring legal support, and have no means by which to be compensated. There are many that are within the penal system that should not be there at all - jailed for menial crimes and/or charges and these people have really no means by which to fight back. As far as the respectability of "the officers on duty", I would start with questioning their personal attitudes. I'm more than well familiar with that particular "border crossing" as well as the "border crossing" in Detroit - for the tunnel and the bridge. Neither of these places is hostile - it's Canada for God's sake - so there's definitely more to the picture than meets the eye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I obviously grew up and spent most of my life in the US .
Michigan is where I hail from .
Being from a " poorer " stock than most middle-of-the-road Americans , I saw and experienced a completely different side of the justice system - starting with the police .
I have , MANY times , been in a situation where I was assaulted by police , abused , jailed - for literally nothing .
I also know from family experience - both my grandfathers were Detroit policemen , several of my uncles were police , marshalls and Feds - that there was at that time ( from the 70 's ) and onwards a " fascist " and " paramilitary " mentality within the multitude of " law enforcement " agencies .
Whether or not Mr. Watts is innocent or guilty , no one seems to want to point to the fact that millions ( yes , millions ) of people on a day to day basis are abused by law enforcement , given unfair trials with uncaring legal support , and have no means by which to be compensated .
There are many that are within the penal system that should not be there at all - jailed for menial crimes and/or charges and these people have really no means by which to fight back .
As far as the respectability of " the officers on duty " , I would start with questioning their personal attitudes .
I 'm more than well familiar with that particular " border crossing " as well as the " border crossing " in Detroit - for the tunnel and the bridge .
Neither of these places is hostile - it 's Canada for God 's sake - so there 's definitely more to the picture than meets the eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I obviously grew up and spent most of my life in the US.
Michigan is where I hail from.
Being from a "poorer" stock than most middle-of-the-road Americans, I saw and experienced a completely different side of the justice system - starting with the police.
I have, MANY times, been in a situation where I was assaulted by police, abused, jailed - for literally nothing.
I also know from family experience - both my grandfathers were Detroit policemen, several of my uncles were police, marshalls and Feds - that there was at that time (from the 70's) and onwards a "fascist" and "paramilitary" mentality within the multitude of "law enforcement" agencies.
Whether or not Mr. Watts is innocent or guilty, no one seems to want to point to the fact that millions (yes, millions) of people on a day to day basis are abused by law enforcement, given unfair trials with uncaring legal support, and have no means by which to be compensated.
There are many that are within the penal system that should not be there at all - jailed for menial crimes and/or charges and these people have really no means by which to fight back.
As far as the respectability of "the officers on duty", I would start with questioning their personal attitudes.
I'm more than well familiar with that particular "border crossing" as well as the "border crossing" in Detroit - for the tunnel and the bridge.
Neither of these places is hostile - it's Canada for God's sake - so there's definitely more to the picture than meets the eye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</id>
	<title>the facts of the case</title>
	<author>elbow\_spur</author>
	<datestamp>1269079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The following points were established during the trial. <a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186" title="rifters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186</a> [rifters.com]

<ul>
<li> 1. The incident occured as Watts was exiting the US.  He was stopped by US border patrol for a random "exit inspection"</li>
<li>  2. Watts initially got out of the car and requested an explanation. At that point, one of the border patrol officers told him to get back in the car. He did so</li>
<li> 3. An officer named Beaudry rushed over to the scene, got into the car with Watts, struck him in the face and told him to get out.</li>
<li> 4. Watts exited the car and Beaudry ordered him to get to the ground.</li>
<li> 5.  Watts did not comply, but rather demanded an explanation.</li>
<li> 6.  Beaudry pepper-spayed watts and threatened him with a baton.  At that point Watts lay down, was handcuffed, and placed under arrest.</li>
</ul><p>

At no point did Watts engage in a physical confrontation with the CBP officers.  Upon cross-examination the "choking" accusation and the "aggressive stance" accusations were shown to have been fabricated.
<br>
The conviction stemmed solely from point #5

Here are a couple of post-trial juror statements.  One was posted on Watts own site.  The other was posted as a comment to the Port Huron report on the verdict; see
<br>
<a href="http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed" title="thetimesherald.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed</a> [thetimesherald.com]


<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As a member of the jury that convicted Mr. Watts today, I have a few comments to make. The jury&rsquo;s task was not to decide who we liked better. The job of the jury was to decide whether Mr. Watts &ldquo;obstructed/resisted&rdquo; 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&rsquo;s not a bad man by any stretch of the imagination. The customs agents escalted 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&rsquo;t make a right, so we had to follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge.

<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Peter,
<br>
<br>
I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and &ldquo;libertarian&rdquo; (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question &ldquo;Was the law broken?&rdquo;. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The following points were established during the trial .
http : //www.rifters.com/crawl/ ? p = 1186 [ rifters.com ] 1 .
The incident occured as Watts was exiting the US .
He was stopped by US border patrol for a random " exit inspection " 2 .
Watts initially got out of the car and requested an explanation .
At that point , one of the border patrol officers told him to get back in the car .
He did so 3 .
An officer named Beaudry rushed over to the scene , got into the car with Watts , struck him in the face and told him to get out .
4. Watts exited the car and Beaudry ordered him to get to the ground .
5. Watts did not comply , but rather demanded an explanation .
6. Beaudry pepper-spayed watts and threatened him with a baton .
At that point Watts lay down , was handcuffed , and placed under arrest .
At no point did Watts engage in a physical confrontation with the CBP officers .
Upon cross-examination the " choking " accusation and the " aggressive stance " accusations were shown to have been fabricated .
The conviction stemmed solely from point # 5 Here are a couple of post-trial juror statements .
One was posted on Watts own site .
The other was posted as a comment to the Port Huron report on the verdict ; see http : //www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial ? plckFindCommentKey = CommentKey : e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed [ thetimesherald.com ] 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 escalted 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 .
Peter , I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know .
As a non-conformist and    libertarian    ( who has had some experiences not unlike yours ) I was not comfortable with my vote , but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors .
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently .
In the end it came down to the question    Was the law broken ?    .
While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience .
I also believe most , if not all , the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency , we , unfortunately have no say in that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The following points were established during the trial.
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186 [rifters.com]


 1.
The incident occured as Watts was exiting the US.
He was stopped by US border patrol for a random "exit inspection"
  2.
Watts initially got out of the car and requested an explanation.
At that point, one of the border patrol officers told him to get back in the car.
He did so
 3.
An officer named Beaudry rushed over to the scene, got into the car with Watts, struck him in the face and told him to get out.
4. Watts exited the car and Beaudry ordered him to get to the ground.
5.  Watts did not comply, but rather demanded an explanation.
6.  Beaudry pepper-spayed watts and threatened him with a baton.
At that point Watts lay down, was handcuffed, and placed under arrest.
At no point did Watts engage in a physical confrontation with the CBP officers.
Upon cross-examination the "choking" accusation and the "aggressive stance" accusations were shown to have been fabricated.
The conviction stemmed solely from point #5

Here are a couple of post-trial juror statements.
One was posted on Watts own site.
The other was posted as a comment to the Port Huron report on the verdict; see

http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20100319/NEWS01/3190308/Jury-remains-out-in-Watts-trial?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e3d49247-c265-47a6-9721-5713e32cc7ed [thetimesherald.com]






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 escalted 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.
Peter,


I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know.
As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”.
While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience.
I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553198</id>
	<title>Re:the problem...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1269087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he never actually got out of the car until told so, but it could be that he opened the door to get out, making the guard react by beating watts, while watts was still in the car.</p><p>after that watts was ordered out of the car, complied, was ordered to the ground, wondered why, and ended up being maced.</p><p>btw, is asking about whats going on, being a confrontational asshole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he never actually got out of the car until told so , but it could be that he opened the door to get out , making the guard react by beating watts , while watts was still in the car.after that watts was ordered out of the car , complied , was ordered to the ground , wondered why , and ended up being maced.btw , is asking about whats going on , being a confrontational asshole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he never actually got out of the car until told so, but it could be that he opened the door to get out, making the guard react by beating watts, while watts was still in the car.after that watts was ordered out of the car, complied, was ordered to the ground, wondered why, and ended up being maced.btw, is asking about whats going on, being a confrontational asshole?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555266</id>
	<title>Re:Would make a great headline</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1269108840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This headline would be under Current events, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This headline would be under Current events , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This headline would be under Current events, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554140</id>
	<title>Re:so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>lowlypeon</author>
	<datestamp>1269095160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should not be permitted, failure comply with instructions by a border guard should remain illegal.</p><p>But a felony conviction and a 2-3 year sentence for that?   It should be a misdemeanor, sentenced to time served or community service, and if the tape shows the border guard assaulting him without good cause the guard should be in court as well.</p><p>If the original claim, that he attempted to strangle an officer had held water, sure, that's a felony.   But it didn't.   Nothing in what he did amounts to a felony offense in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should not be permitted , failure comply with instructions by a border guard should remain illegal.But a felony conviction and a 2-3 year sentence for that ?
It should be a misdemeanor , sentenced to time served or community service , and if the tape shows the border guard assaulting him without good cause the guard should be in court as well.If the original claim , that he attempted to strangle an officer had held water , sure , that 's a felony .
But it did n't .
Nothing in what he did amounts to a felony offense in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should not be permitted, failure comply with instructions by a border guard should remain illegal.But a felony conviction and a 2-3 year sentence for that?
It should be a misdemeanor, sentenced to time served or community service, and if the tape shows the border guard assaulting him without good cause the guard should be in court as well.If the original claim, that he attempted to strangle an officer had held water, sure, that's a felony.
But it didn't.
Nothing in what he did amounts to a felony offense in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688</id>
	<title>Re:the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269084120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job. and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.</p></div><p>You have every right to ask what the problem is when an officer tells you to do something.  What you DON'T have a right to do is wait for an explanation before complying.  Delayed compliance is non-compliance.</p><p>In the first case, he should have never gotten out of his car.  Boarder patrol stops are fairly routine, generally the only reason a person will get out of their car in such a case is to be confrontational.  That's going to set the patrol officers on edge immediately.  Also, apparently Canadian police use the exact same procedure (keep the person in the car while they assess the situation), so saying "I didn't understand" is bullshit.  He was being a confrontational asshole for some reason, and it bit him hard.</p><p>Cops don't fuck around - it's their life on the line, so if they have to decide whether you are a punk packing heat or just an asshole, they are going to assume you are packing heat and you'd better do exactly what they say in a timely fashion or expect to get some rough handling.  If, after you've already set them on edge by getting out of the car in what would generally be considered a confrontational move, they tell you to get back in the car, and instead of moving you just stand there and ask "why?" you can expect things to go down hill fast.  Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way, don't be an ass.</p><p>The Jurors did say that the border guards over-reacted, but that does not change the fact that Watts was non-compliant until they got the cuffs out to arrest him.  Like I said, this is potentially life or death for these guys, they don't have the luxury of being all polite and kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job .
and that part of the law is so vague , that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.You have every right to ask what the problem is when an officer tells you to do something .
What you DO N'T have a right to do is wait for an explanation before complying .
Delayed compliance is non-compliance.In the first case , he should have never gotten out of his car .
Boarder patrol stops are fairly routine , generally the only reason a person will get out of their car in such a case is to be confrontational .
That 's going to set the patrol officers on edge immediately .
Also , apparently Canadian police use the exact same procedure ( keep the person in the car while they assess the situation ) , so saying " I did n't understand " is bullshit .
He was being a confrontational asshole for some reason , and it bit him hard.Cops do n't fuck around - it 's their life on the line , so if they have to decide whether you are a punk packing heat or just an asshole , they are going to assume you are packing heat and you 'd better do exactly what they say in a timely fashion or expect to get some rough handling .
If , after you 've already set them on edge by getting out of the car in what would generally be considered a confrontational move , they tell you to get back in the car , and instead of moving you just stand there and ask " why ?
" you can expect things to go down hill fast .
Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way , do n't be an ass.The Jurors did say that the border guards over-reacted , but that does not change the fact that Watts was non-compliant until they got the cuffs out to arrest him .
Like I said , this is potentially life or death for these guys , they do n't have the luxury of being all polite and kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job.
and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.You have every right to ask what the problem is when an officer tells you to do something.
What you DON'T have a right to do is wait for an explanation before complying.
Delayed compliance is non-compliance.In the first case, he should have never gotten out of his car.
Boarder patrol stops are fairly routine, generally the only reason a person will get out of their car in such a case is to be confrontational.
That's going to set the patrol officers on edge immediately.
Also, apparently Canadian police use the exact same procedure (keep the person in the car while they assess the situation), so saying "I didn't understand" is bullshit.
He was being a confrontational asshole for some reason, and it bit him hard.Cops don't fuck around - it's their life on the line, so if they have to decide whether you are a punk packing heat or just an asshole, they are going to assume you are packing heat and you'd better do exactly what they say in a timely fashion or expect to get some rough handling.
If, after you've already set them on edge by getting out of the car in what would generally be considered a confrontational move, they tell you to get back in the car, and instead of moving you just stand there and ask "why?
" you can expect things to go down hill fast.
Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way, don't be an ass.The Jurors did say that the border guards over-reacted, but that does not change the fact that Watts was non-compliant until they got the cuffs out to arrest him.
Like I said, this is potentially life or death for these guys, they don't have the luxury of being all polite and kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552560</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1269083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peter is lucky he isn't deaf.  That could have ended a LOT worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter is lucky he is n't deaf .
That could have ended a LOT worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter is lucky he isn't deaf.
That could have ended a LOT worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554440</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a ridiculous cop-out. <b>You fail at the entire process.</b> You're supposed to do what is <em>right</em>. In this case that was clearly refusal to convict.<br> <br>My hope is that one day you're in <em>his</em> shoes, and while it's clearly obvious to everyone why you did what you did, you are convicted on a technicality and later assraped in prison.<br> <br>Your mama should have bought you dresses. Then you could have just given up on the whole "man" thing -- because you suck at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a ridiculous cop-out .
You fail at the entire process .
You 're supposed to do what is right .
In this case that was clearly refusal to convict .
My hope is that one day you 're in his shoes , and while it 's clearly obvious to everyone why you did what you did , you are convicted on a technicality and later assraped in prison .
Your mama should have bought you dresses .
Then you could have just given up on the whole " man " thing -- because you suck at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a ridiculous cop-out.
You fail at the entire process.
You're supposed to do what is right.
In this case that was clearly refusal to convict.
My hope is that one day you're in his shoes, and while it's clearly obvious to everyone why you did what you did, you are convicted on a technicality and later assraped in prison.
Your mama should have bought you dresses.
Then you could have just given up on the whole "man" thing -- because you suck at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1269079140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident. In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident .
In interviews afterwards , they said the border guards acted like assholes , but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident.
In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556884</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The jury's task was to decide if it was just to convict that man or not. You pretend to be 'tool of the law', right? Law is written with an honest &amp; just law enforcement in theory. Lawyers' job is to skew the logic &amp; arguments so they can present specific sides of events. Your job is to make the decision, BASED on the rules &amp; the facts/evidence/whatever is said in the court. Now if the law enforcers acted like jerks, that MIGHT have affected the cooperation of Watts, so it's not a DRY 'He did not comply' fact. So the above amounts into a load of bullshit as an excuse of the type "I did my job as I should, I'm sorry". Yeah, right, bravo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The jury 's task was to decide if it was just to convict that man or not .
You pretend to be 'tool of the law ' , right ?
Law is written with an honest &amp; just law enforcement in theory .
Lawyers ' job is to skew the logic &amp; arguments so they can present specific sides of events .
Your job is to make the decision , BASED on the rules &amp; the facts/evidence/whatever is said in the court .
Now if the law enforcers acted like jerks , that MIGHT have affected the cooperation of Watts , so it 's not a DRY 'He did not comply ' fact .
So the above amounts into a load of bullshit as an excuse of the type " I did my job as I should , I 'm sorry " .
Yeah , right , bravo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The jury's task was to decide if it was just to convict that man or not.
You pretend to be 'tool of the law', right?
Law is written with an honest &amp; just law enforcement in theory.
Lawyers' job is to skew the logic &amp; arguments so they can present specific sides of events.
Your job is to make the decision, BASED on the rules &amp; the facts/evidence/whatever is said in the court.
Now if the law enforcers acted like jerks, that MIGHT have affected the cooperation of Watts, so it's not a DRY 'He did not comply' fact.
So the above amounts into a load of bullshit as an excuse of the type "I did my job as I should, I'm sorry".
Yeah, right, bravo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554094</id>
	<title>Re:so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Failure to comply with a lawful order should give the police the right to forcibly carry out the lawful order. That's all that's needed.  If you want to be harsher than that, let it constitute probable cause to carry out a search. There is absolutely no need to make passive noncompliance alone a criminal offence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Failure to comply with a lawful order should give the police the right to forcibly carry out the lawful order .
That 's all that 's needed .
If you want to be harsher than that , let it constitute probable cause to carry out a search .
There is absolutely no need to make passive noncompliance alone a criminal offence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Failure to comply with a lawful order should give the police the right to forcibly carry out the lawful order.
That's all that's needed.
If you want to be harsher than that, let it constitute probable cause to carry out a search.
There is absolutely no need to make passive noncompliance alone a criminal offence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565512</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen.  Anyone who want to make snide remarks over the use the "sheeple" cliche should really take a good look at this case and the comment of this juror.  The only thing that separates this juror from complete ovinity is that at least he had a guilty conscience, and he responded to the disquiet of his conscience by baring his crapulent soul in this forum.  The rest of those jurors are fully vested members of the sheepulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
Anyone who want to make snide remarks over the use the " sheeple " cliche should really take a good look at this case and the comment of this juror .
The only thing that separates this juror from complete ovinity is that at least he had a guilty conscience , and he responded to the disquiet of his conscience by baring his crapulent soul in this forum .
The rest of those jurors are fully vested members of the sheepulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
Anyone who want to make snide remarks over the use the "sheeple" cliche should really take a good look at this case and the comment of this juror.
The only thing that separates this juror from complete ovinity is that at least he had a guilty conscience, and he responded to the disquiet of his conscience by baring his crapulent soul in this forum.
The rest of those jurors are fully vested members of the sheepulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553086</id>
	<title>NWA had it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are criminals with power-hard-ons, with badges. Most of them commit crimes every day in performance of their duties. They routinely eschew protecting the populace in favor of harassment and wanton exercise of power and brutality. F them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are criminals with power-hard-ons , with badges .
Most of them commit crimes every day in performance of their duties .
They routinely eschew protecting the populace in favor of harassment and wanton exercise of power and brutality .
F them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are criminals with power-hard-ons, with badges.
Most of them commit crimes every day in performance of their duties.
They routinely eschew protecting the populace in favor of harassment and wanton exercise of power and brutality.
F them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554024</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1269094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.</p></div><p>Oddly, not all laws are just.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , a grand jury found reason enough to charge , and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.Oddly , not all laws are just .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.Oddly, not all laws are just.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</id>
	<title>Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269118740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts. If what the officers said is true then he is guilty and if Watts said is true then the officers assaulted him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts .
If what the officers said is true then he is guilty and if Watts said is true then the officers assaulted him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.
If what the officers said is true then he is guilty and if Watts said is true then the officers assaulted him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554038</id>
	<title>NOT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT!</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1269094440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus Christ, it's bad enough when the mainstream press repeats crap like this, but I would have thought Slashdot posters were capable of reading plain English.</p><p>He was convicted of failing to follow direction quickly enough for the border guards. The accusations of assault were found to be baseless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus Christ , it 's bad enough when the mainstream press repeats crap like this , but I would have thought Slashdot posters were capable of reading plain English.He was convicted of failing to follow direction quickly enough for the border guards .
The accusations of assault were found to be baseless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus Christ, it's bad enough when the mainstream press repeats crap like this, but I would have thought Slashdot posters were capable of reading plain English.He was convicted of failing to follow direction quickly enough for the border guards.
The accusations of assault were found to be baseless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552024</id>
	<title>Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1269079020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So surely there's an appeal possible around a plea of self-defence, and indeed remarkable constraint in not putting the border guard's head through his car window?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So surely there 's an appeal possible around a plea of self-defence , and indeed remarkable constraint in not putting the border guard 's head through his car window ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So surely there's an appeal possible around a plea of self-defence, and indeed remarkable constraint in not putting the border guard's head through his car window?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552734</id>
	<title>Re:Travesty</title>
	<author>jimrthy</author>
	<datestamp>1269084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The travesty is that so few people know about and understand the power (and responsibility) of jury nullification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The travesty is that so few people know about and understand the power ( and responsibility ) of jury nullification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The travesty is that so few people know about and understand the power (and responsibility) of jury nullification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552830</id>
	<title>Re:don't f**k with the police!</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1269085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to know why the reading comprehension of the moderators is so bad, because it clearly states that he was NOT charged with assault. He was charged with resisting a lawful order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to know why the reading comprehension of the moderators is so bad , because it clearly states that he was NOT charged with assault .
He was charged with resisting a lawful order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to know why the reading comprehension of the moderators is so bad, because it clearly states that he was NOT charged with assault.
He was charged with resisting a lawful order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556664</id>
	<title>Re:the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269176280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA</p></div><p>No, Watts was screwed the second he <i>got out of his car after being stopped</i>. This isn't hard to understand. Once you pull up to the checkpoint, you are in their control. You don't do <i>anything</i> until they tell you to do so, and only a complete fucking moron gets OUT of his car instead of waiting for the screening. If he was having a medical emergency, then they probably would have treated him a little better, and I'm not saying they did everything right either. But had he followed instructions, pulled into the other line and WAITED FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS this wouldn't have ever been an issue.</p><p>Incidentally, I had something much like this happen to me last summer. The exception being when they told me I had to go to the other line I asked "Hey, I really need to take a piss, can I park &amp; do that?" They said "Sure, just park right there in line, there's the restrooms, a soda machine, some grass to let your dog out to shit upon, and an ashtray for your butts if you smoke. Just make sure you leave it unlocked and stay close enough that you can come back when it's your turn". Why was I pulled for screening? Well, I left some fruit in my trunk which I meant to drop off earlier, and the dogs smelled it.</p><p>Stories like his happen once in a rare while, yet mine happen all day long. It's a lot less likely to happen if you don't think you're some kind of hot shit, and it helps if you assume that the rules DO apply to you as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so in essence , watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USANo , Watts was screwed the second he got out of his car after being stopped .
This is n't hard to understand .
Once you pull up to the checkpoint , you are in their control .
You do n't do anything until they tell you to do so , and only a complete fucking moron gets OUT of his car instead of waiting for the screening .
If he was having a medical emergency , then they probably would have treated him a little better , and I 'm not saying they did everything right either .
But had he followed instructions , pulled into the other line and WAITED FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS this would n't have ever been an issue.Incidentally , I had something much like this happen to me last summer .
The exception being when they told me I had to go to the other line I asked " Hey , I really need to take a piss , can I park &amp; do that ?
" They said " Sure , just park right there in line , there 's the restrooms , a soda machine , some grass to let your dog out to shit upon , and an ashtray for your butts if you smoke .
Just make sure you leave it unlocked and stay close enough that you can come back when it 's your turn " .
Why was I pulled for screening ?
Well , I left some fruit in my trunk which I meant to drop off earlier , and the dogs smelled it.Stories like his happen once in a rare while , yet mine happen all day long .
It 's a lot less likely to happen if you do n't think you 're some kind of hot shit , and it helps if you assume that the rules DO apply to you as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USANo, Watts was screwed the second he got out of his car after being stopped.
This isn't hard to understand.
Once you pull up to the checkpoint, you are in their control.
You don't do anything until they tell you to do so, and only a complete fucking moron gets OUT of his car instead of waiting for the screening.
If he was having a medical emergency, then they probably would have treated him a little better, and I'm not saying they did everything right either.
But had he followed instructions, pulled into the other line and WAITED FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS this wouldn't have ever been an issue.Incidentally, I had something much like this happen to me last summer.
The exception being when they told me I had to go to the other line I asked "Hey, I really need to take a piss, can I park &amp; do that?
" They said "Sure, just park right there in line, there's the restrooms, a soda machine, some grass to let your dog out to shit upon, and an ashtray for your butts if you smoke.
Just make sure you leave it unlocked and stay close enough that you can come back when it's your turn".
Why was I pulled for screening?
Well, I left some fruit in my trunk which I meant to drop off earlier, and the dogs smelled it.Stories like his happen once in a rare while, yet mine happen all day long.
It's a lot less likely to happen if you don't think you're some kind of hot shit, and it helps if you assume that the rules DO apply to you as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction <a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186" title="rifters.com">on his blog</a> [rifters.com].</p><p><i>It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.</i></p><p>In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it.  Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog [ rifters.com ] .It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court , but now he makes no comment on it .
Maybe the video was n't as helpful to him as he first said it would be ( or maybe there was n't any after all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog [rifters.com].It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it.
Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556446</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>dsmithhfx</author>
	<datestamp>1269172620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The DHS is Bin Laden's greatest achievement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DHS is Bin Laden 's greatest achievement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DHS is Bin Laden's greatest achievement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552200</id>
	<title>mod Ydown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269080340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Of America (GNAA) During 7his file fear the reaper simple solution</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of America ( GNAA ) During 7his file fear the reaper simple solution [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of America (GNAA) During 7his file fear the reaper simple solution [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552860</id>
	<title>Really ticked off. . .</title>
	<author>Zobeid</author>
	<datestamp>1269085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've read about this incident, and about the trial, I'm outraged.  It really burns me up.</p><p>First up, I find myself wondering what was wrong with the jurors.  Whenever jurors come out of a trial wringing their hands with anguish and making all kinds of sorrowful excuses for their own verdict, and start crying about how they "had to" convict someone who they didn't really think did anything wrong, I find myself wanting to tear my own hair out in frustration.  Are they nuts?  How did our society come to this point?  When the jury is called upon for a verdict, they are responsible.  They've got no business putting the blame on the judge's instructions, or on some minute technicality.  They are supposed to think for themselves at least a little bit.  This is why we have jury trials.</p><p>Secondly, I find myself wondering about the prosecutor.  Somebody made the decision to press this case and bring it to trial with this evidence and these arguments.  He clearly wasn't doing the public any service.  His community should be told about this.  His neighbors should be told about it.  Let him face their opprobrium, and then see if he's eager to pull this sort of stunt again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've read about this incident , and about the trial , I 'm outraged .
It really burns me up.First up , I find myself wondering what was wrong with the jurors .
Whenever jurors come out of a trial wringing their hands with anguish and making all kinds of sorrowful excuses for their own verdict , and start crying about how they " had to " convict someone who they did n't really think did anything wrong , I find myself wanting to tear my own hair out in frustration .
Are they nuts ?
How did our society come to this point ?
When the jury is called upon for a verdict , they are responsible .
They 've got no business putting the blame on the judge 's instructions , or on some minute technicality .
They are supposed to think for themselves at least a little bit .
This is why we have jury trials.Secondly , I find myself wondering about the prosecutor .
Somebody made the decision to press this case and bring it to trial with this evidence and these arguments .
He clearly was n't doing the public any service .
His community should be told about this .
His neighbors should be told about it .
Let him face their opprobrium , and then see if he 's eager to pull this sort of stunt again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've read about this incident, and about the trial, I'm outraged.
It really burns me up.First up, I find myself wondering what was wrong with the jurors.
Whenever jurors come out of a trial wringing their hands with anguish and making all kinds of sorrowful excuses for their own verdict, and start crying about how they "had to" convict someone who they didn't really think did anything wrong, I find myself wanting to tear my own hair out in frustration.
Are they nuts?
How did our society come to this point?
When the jury is called upon for a verdict, they are responsible.
They've got no business putting the blame on the judge's instructions, or on some minute technicality.
They are supposed to think for themselves at least a little bit.
This is why we have jury trials.Secondly, I find myself wondering about the prosecutor.
Somebody made the decision to press this case and bring it to trial with this evidence and these arguments.
He clearly wasn't doing the public any service.
His community should be told about this.
His neighbors should be told about it.
Let him face their opprobrium, and then see if he's eager to pull this sort of stunt again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553090</id>
	<title>Re:Insightful?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269086640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s not hate. It&rsquo;s a fact.</p><p>You should be ashamed for protecting those criminals with a badge, just out of some pointless over-the-top national pride. If you hadn&rsquo;t proven with your comment, that you are American, I&rsquo;d sad you&rsquo;re French. There&rsquo;s no big difference in national pride + arrogance anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s not hate .
It    s a fact.You should be ashamed for protecting those criminals with a badge , just out of some pointless over-the-top national pride .
If you hadn    t proven with your comment , that you are American , I    d sad you    re French .
There    s no big difference in national pride + arrogance anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s not hate.
It’s a fact.You should be ashamed for protecting those criminals with a badge, just out of some pointless over-the-top national pride.
If you hadn’t proven with your comment, that you are American, I’d sad you’re French.
There’s no big difference in national pride + arrogance anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552326</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>shogun</author>
	<datestamp>1269081300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident.  In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.</p></div><p>I assume Jury Nullification wasn't explained to them however.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident .
In interviews afterwards , they said the border guards acted like assholes , but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.I assume Jury Nullification was n't explained to them however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident.
In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.I assume Jury Nullification wasn't explained to them however.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551636</id>
	<title>But Obama's president!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought unicorns were supposed to dance out everyone's asses now that Bushitler is gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought unicorns were supposed to dance out everyone 's asses now that Bushitler is gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought unicorns were supposed to dance out everyone's asses now that Bushitler is gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552266</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1269080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are pathetic.</p><p>Truly.  "We couldn't do anything".  "It wasn't our fault".</p><p>No, you're right.  It wasn't your fault that the DA structured the case so that the man WOULD be convicted.  They didn't bring up any of those pesky unprovable charges, so they got a "letter of the law" technicality.</p><p>I'm just curious - did the thought of simply voting "not guilty" not cross your mind.  How about jury nullification?  How about simply being a dick to the DAs who were defending the border guards?</p><p>Was following the letter of the precious law worth a potential 2-year jail sentence for a man who is not bad "by any stretch of the imagination"?</p><p>Nice job.  Go home and tell your kids what a hero you were for "following the law".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are pathetic.Truly .
" We could n't do anything " .
" It was n't our fault " .No , you 're right .
It was n't your fault that the DA structured the case so that the man WOULD be convicted .
They did n't bring up any of those pesky unprovable charges , so they got a " letter of the law " technicality.I 'm just curious - did the thought of simply voting " not guilty " not cross your mind .
How about jury nullification ?
How about simply being a dick to the DAs who were defending the border guards ? Was following the letter of the precious law worth a potential 2-year jail sentence for a man who is not bad " by any stretch of the imagination " ? Nice job .
Go home and tell your kids what a hero you were for " following the law " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are pathetic.Truly.
"We couldn't do anything".
"It wasn't our fault".No, you're right.
It wasn't your fault that the DA structured the case so that the man WOULD be convicted.
They didn't bring up any of those pesky unprovable charges, so they got a "letter of the law" technicality.I'm just curious - did the thought of simply voting "not guilty" not cross your mind.
How about jury nullification?
How about simply being a dick to the DAs who were defending the border guards?Was following the letter of the precious law worth a potential 2-year jail sentence for a man who is not bad "by any stretch of the imagination"?Nice job.
Go home and tell your kids what a hero you were for "following the law".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551602</id>
	<title>yey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Suspect appeared angry. We then sprayed him. Because of the tumultous situation we cannot guarantee that this was the exact sequence of events.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Suspect appeared angry .
We then sprayed him .
Because of the tumultous situation we can not guarantee that this was the exact sequence of events .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Suspect appeared angry.
We then sprayed him.
Because of the tumultous situation we cannot guarantee that this was the exact sequence of events.
'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553032</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know. As a non-conformist and &ldquo;libertarian&rdquo; (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors. I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently. In the end it came down to the question &ldquo;Was the law broken?&rdquo;. While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience. I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.</p> </div><p>I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it. Here's is my response.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I was not comfortable with my vote</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.</p></div><p>Actually, you do. Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.</p></div><p>I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice. Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.</p></div><p>Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray. It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.<br>That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours?<br>On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing. What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"</p><p>In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know .
As a non-conformist and    libertarian    ( who has had some experiences not unlike yours ) I was not comfortable with my vote , but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors .
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently .
In the end it came down to the question    Was the law broken ?    .
While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience .
I also believe most , if not all , the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency , we , unfortunately have no say in that matter .
I 'm not sure if you 're quoting ( I 've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now ) , or if you 're actually saying it .
Here 's is my response.I was not comfortable with my voteI also believe most , if not all , the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency , we , unfortunately have no say in that matter.Actually , you do .
Or , rather , you did , until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case ( by doing what you admit that you thought was right ) by refusing to convict.but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.I 'm glad to see that you put your oath ( aka some words that you said ) ahead of justice .
Quoth Einstein " Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it .
" I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders , 2 punches in the face and pepper spray .
It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you could n't figure it out over a period of several hours ? On a related note , you do n't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing .
What you 've just said is " we could n't find a reason to justify doing the right thing , so we did the wrong thing " In conclusion , you 're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly , and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe your description of the trial and deliberations is more accurate than you could know.
As a non-conformist and “libertarian” (who has had some experiences not unlike yours) I was not comfortable with my vote, but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.
I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.
In the end it came down to the question “Was the law broken?”.
While I would much rather have a beer and discussion with you than Officer B. I never the less felt obligated to vote my conscience.
I also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.
I'm not sure if you're quoting (I've seen that exact block of text in 3 places now), or if you're actually saying it.
Here's is my response.I was not comfortable with my voteI also believe most, if not all, the jurors sincerely hope that you are handled with a great degree of leniency, we, unfortunately have no say in that matter.Actually, you do.
Or, rather, you did, until you threw it away by not putting the khybosh on the case (by doing what you admit that you thought was right) by refusing to convict.but felt deep inside that it was consistent with the oath we took as jurors.I'm glad to see that you put your oath (aka some words that you said) ahead of justice.
Quoth Einstein "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
"I believe nearly all the jurors searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently.Peter Watts was confused and disorientated by conflicting orders, 2 punches in the face and pepper spray.
It is not certain that he was physically or mentally capable of immediately processing and obeying he instruction when given.That took me around 20 seconds to think of - what the hell were you doing that 12 of you couldn't figure it out over a period of several hours?On a related note, you don't NEED to find a reason why you should do the right thing.
What you've just said is "we couldn't find a reason to justify doing the right thing, so we did the wrong thing"In conclusion, you're a fool who utterly failed to discharge his duty as a juror properly, and has significantly harmed an innocent man as a result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551692</id>
	<title>Re:Quite understandable</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1269076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already don't want to ever enter the US - I even have reservations about flying over it on my way to Cuba.  Canadian here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already do n't want to ever enter the US - I even have reservations about flying over it on my way to Cuba .
Canadian here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already don't want to ever enter the US - I even have reservations about flying over it on my way to Cuba.
Canadian here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552432</id>
	<title>Jury Nullification</title>
	<author>UberDude</author>
	<datestamp>1269082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL...</p><p>You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit, if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances. You're not forced to follow the directions of the judge, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a jury at all. If I was Peter Watts' lawyer, reading your message, I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning, on grounds of misdirection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL...You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit , if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances .
You 're not forced to follow the directions of the judge , otherwise there would n't be any point in having a jury at all .
If I was Peter Watts ' lawyer , reading your message , I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning , on grounds of misdirection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL...You would have been entirely within your rights to acquit, if you felt that it was unjust to convict him under the circumstances.
You're not forced to follow the directions of the judge, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in having a jury at all.
If I was Peter Watts' lawyer, reading your message, I would be filing an appeal on Monday morning, on grounds of misdirection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31564446</id>
	<title>Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1269290520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could see, especially after being smashed in the head a few times by a law enforcement officer that is much larger than I (oh, BTW, I'm like 57kg), the the aforementioned officer would be slightly ticked off due to the fact that I did NOT lie down directly on the ground and comply with his wishes. Similar thing happened to me in Texas when I was pulled over for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON, strip searched on the side of the road, had nearly everything in my 1992 Honda CRXsi stripped out and thrown on the side of the road (including pagers, laptops, network tools and equipment), smacked in the face full on several times, and the officer got slightly angry that when he told me to stand, I didn't, and when he told me to lie down, I couldn't (I was already on the ground twisted into a fetal position). Yes, that would make the officer very angry. The other officer lost a button from his uniform when he was ripping off my Pierre Cardin three piece suit - so maybe that might have been the impetus for the bad reaction. Still not sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see , especially after being smashed in the head a few times by a law enforcement officer that is much larger than I ( oh , BTW , I 'm like 57kg ) , the the aforementioned officer would be slightly ticked off due to the fact that I did NOT lie down directly on the ground and comply with his wishes .
Similar thing happened to me in Texas when I was pulled over for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON , strip searched on the side of the road , had nearly everything in my 1992 Honda CRXsi stripped out and thrown on the side of the road ( including pagers , laptops , network tools and equipment ) , smacked in the face full on several times , and the officer got slightly angry that when he told me to stand , I did n't , and when he told me to lie down , I could n't ( I was already on the ground twisted into a fetal position ) .
Yes , that would make the officer very angry .
The other officer lost a button from his uniform when he was ripping off my Pierre Cardin three piece suit - so maybe that might have been the impetus for the bad reaction .
Still not sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see, especially after being smashed in the head a few times by a law enforcement officer that is much larger than I (oh, BTW, I'm like 57kg), the the aforementioned officer would be slightly ticked off due to the fact that I did NOT lie down directly on the ground and comply with his wishes.
Similar thing happened to me in Texas when I was pulled over for GOD KNOWS WHAT REASON, strip searched on the side of the road, had nearly everything in my 1992 Honda CRXsi stripped out and thrown on the side of the road (including pagers, laptops, network tools and equipment), smacked in the face full on several times, and the officer got slightly angry that when he told me to stand, I didn't, and when he told me to lie down, I couldn't (I was already on the ground twisted into a fetal position).
Yes, that would make the officer very angry.
The other officer lost a button from his uniform when he was ripping off my Pierre Cardin three piece suit - so maybe that might have been the impetus for the bad reaction.
Still not sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552940</id>
	<title>"Assaulting border guards?"</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269085860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean the same border guards who beat the crap out of everyone that they can pick out of the mass?<br>Those that kick your ass if you are not extra nice to them, and then convict YOU for assault.<br>Those that put drugs in your car and then punish you for it, just for fun, or to fill some quota, etc?</p><p>Those guard types?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the same border guards who beat the crap out of everyone that they can pick out of the mass ? Those that kick your ass if you are not extra nice to them , and then convict YOU for assault.Those that put drugs in your car and then punish you for it , just for fun , or to fill some quota , etc ? Those guard types ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the same border guards who beat the crap out of everyone that they can pick out of the mass?Those that kick your ass if you are not extra nice to them, and then convict YOU for assault.Those that put drugs in your car and then punish you for it, just for fun, or to fill some quota, etc?Those guard types?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551780</id>
	<title>Re:Quite understandable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269077100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.</p><p>Don't worry. Soon nobody will want to go to America.</p></div><p>Because you are an idiot...you have no idea what you are talking about!  Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded or they need our money...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American border guards are self-important scum-bags , guarding the gates of the dying empire.Do n't worry .
Soon nobody will want to go to America.Because you are an idiot...you have no idea what you are talking about !
Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded or they need our money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.Don't worry.
Soon nobody will want to go to America.Because you are an idiot...you have no idea what you are talking about!
Everyone hates AMerica until their ass gets invaded or they need our money...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552012</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident.  In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident .
In interviews afterwards , they said the border guards acted like assholes , but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jurors watched complete video of the entire incident.
In interviews afterwards, they said the border guards acted like assholes, but Watts was guilty of the law as explained to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31561256</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.</i></p><p>A member of the criminal jury commented on their reasoning on one of the newspaper articles.  Essentially, the way the law is written you must comply with any instruction issued *immediately*.  Watts didn't do this, instead asking why the instruction had been issued.  The jury therefore felt the law had been violated, and it's kind-of hard to blame them on this one.  The problem is that the law is totally stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , a grand jury found reason enough to charge , and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.A member of the criminal jury commented on their reasoning on one of the newspaper articles .
Essentially , the way the law is written you must comply with any instruction issued * immediately * .
Watts did n't do this , instead asking why the instruction had been issued .
The jury therefore felt the law had been violated , and it 's kind-of hard to blame them on this one .
The problem is that the law is totally stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.A member of the criminal jury commented on their reasoning on one of the newspaper articles.
Essentially, the way the law is written you must comply with any instruction issued *immediately*.
Watts didn't do this, instead asking why the instruction had been issued.
The jury therefore felt the law had been violated, and it's kind-of hard to blame them on this one.
The problem is that the law is totally stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1269075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. And since we can almost certainly guarantee there is video, the question is will this appear in court or is the camera "damaged?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
And since we can almost certainly guarantee there is video , the question is will this appear in court or is the camera " damaged ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
And since we can almost certainly guarantee there is video, the question is will this appear in court or is the camera "damaged?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</id>
	<title>so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From all the comments, it appears that Watts was convicted not for assault, but for non-compliance with instructions from a border guard.  The jury convicted him for that because, technically, he really was guilty of that, even though it may have been understandable.</p><p>So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law.  But how do you want to change the law?  Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From all the comments , it appears that Watts was convicted not for assault , but for non-compliance with instructions from a border guard .
The jury convicted him for that because , technically , he really was guilty of that , even though it may have been understandable.So , if you do n't like this verdict , you need to change the law .
But how do you want to change the law ?
Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From all the comments, it appears that Watts was convicted not for assault, but for non-compliance with instructions from a border guard.
The jury convicted him for that because, technically, he really was guilty of that, even though it may have been understandable.So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law.
But how do you want to change the law?
Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070</id>
	<title>Would make a great headline</title>
	<author>ishmalius</author>
	<datestamp>1269079260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Watts arrested for resistance"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Watts arrested for resistance "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Watts arrested for resistance"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552428</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>MurphyZero</author>
	<datestamp>1269082140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 6 points do establish that the border patrol agents gave conflicting orders (2 and 3+4).  From that, the fact that Watts asked for an explanation.  The officer that was ordering him to the ground was conflicting the order from the first officer.  An explanation would be appropriate as officer #2 is asking him to violate an order from officer #1.  From such, asking for an explanation is an aid to the officers not a non-compliance, in fact it was Beaudry that resisted the actions of the first officer.  As a juror, I would have found as such and therefore Watts was not guilty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 6 points do establish that the border patrol agents gave conflicting orders ( 2 and 3 + 4 ) .
From that , the fact that Watts asked for an explanation .
The officer that was ordering him to the ground was conflicting the order from the first officer .
An explanation would be appropriate as officer # 2 is asking him to violate an order from officer # 1 .
From such , asking for an explanation is an aid to the officers not a non-compliance , in fact it was Beaudry that resisted the actions of the first officer .
As a juror , I would have found as such and therefore Watts was not guilty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 6 points do establish that the border patrol agents gave conflicting orders (2 and 3+4).
From that, the fact that Watts asked for an explanation.
The officer that was ordering him to the ground was conflicting the order from the first officer.
An explanation would be appropriate as officer #2 is asking him to violate an order from officer #1.
From such, asking for an explanation is an aid to the officers not a non-compliance, in fact it was Beaudry that resisted the actions of the first officer.
As a juror, I would have found as such and therefore Watts was not guilty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31570632</id>
	<title>Meh. Just another reason...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1269279180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to go to the States for any reason.I avoid the US of A because there hasn't been a lot going on there that I agree with over the last many years.</p><p>I have met many Americans that come to Canada, or are abroad, or years ago when I used to visit the eastern seaboard and can easily say that they have all be good people. However, as a group, you seem to like to elect crazy people, do crazy things, and make crazy decisions. So while 1-on-1 I feel nothing but rainbows and butterflies, as a nation you make me nervous. I can vacation elsewhere where it isn't so oppressive (though places like Mexico also isn't really high on my list anymore either for obvious reasons).</p><p>If you as a nation want to act like that, you can do so by yourself. My money is probably better spent locally anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to go to the States for any reason.I avoid the US of A because there has n't been a lot going on there that I agree with over the last many years.I have met many Americans that come to Canada , or are abroad , or years ago when I used to visit the eastern seaboard and can easily say that they have all be good people .
However , as a group , you seem to like to elect crazy people , do crazy things , and make crazy decisions .
So while 1-on-1 I feel nothing but rainbows and butterflies , as a nation you make me nervous .
I can vacation elsewhere where it is n't so oppressive ( though places like Mexico also is n't really high on my list anymore either for obvious reasons ) .If you as a nation want to act like that , you can do so by yourself .
My money is probably better spent locally anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to go to the States for any reason.I avoid the US of A because there hasn't been a lot going on there that I agree with over the last many years.I have met many Americans that come to Canada, or are abroad, or years ago when I used to visit the eastern seaboard and can easily say that they have all be good people.
However, as a group, you seem to like to elect crazy people, do crazy things, and make crazy decisions.
So while 1-on-1 I feel nothing but rainbows and butterflies, as a nation you make me nervous.
I can vacation elsewhere where it isn't so oppressive (though places like Mexico also isn't really high on my list anymore either for obvious reasons).If you as a nation want to act like that, you can do so by yourself.
My money is probably better spent locally anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551956</id>
	<title>Re:Quite understandable</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1269078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the funniest part is that watts was about to leave, not enter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the funniest part is that watts was about to leave , not enter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the funniest part is that watts was about to leave, not enter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552366</id>
	<title>With the way juries and persecutors are</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a cop socks you in the face for no reason, and decides to bring you up on charges for "resisting a police officer", you'll be convicted on the grounds that your face impeded the free movement of the cop's fist.  (and no, I'm not exaggerating).</p><p>Any juror who won't essentially agree to convict will be dismissed during voir dire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a cop socks you in the face for no reason , and decides to bring you up on charges for " resisting a police officer " , you 'll be convicted on the grounds that your face impeded the free movement of the cop 's fist .
( and no , I 'm not exaggerating ) .Any juror who wo n't essentially agree to convict will be dismissed during voir dire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a cop socks you in the face for no reason, and decides to bring you up on charges for "resisting a police officer", you'll be convicted on the grounds that your face impeded the free movement of the cop's fist.
(and no, I'm not exaggerating).Any juror who won't essentially agree to convict will be dismissed during voir dire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552992</id>
	<title>More information available</title>
	<author>elbow\_spur</author>
	<datestamp>1269086220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A recent posting on Watts' blog has clarified a number of issues

<a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193" title="rifters.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193</a> [rifters.com]

Questions regarding the video tape, the exact timeline, the allegation of a  previous police record (he has none) are addressed in the post.

The following excerpt deserves to be highlighted IMO

<br>
<br>
2. The Coverage
<br>

The Times-Herald reporter sat in the courtroom throughout the case. She knows there was no assault. She knows the choking incident never occurred. She knows that the only violence was committed by the border guards. These facts are no longer in dispute.  And yet, the Times-Herald continues to report that I was found guilty of &ldquo;assault&rdquo;, and continues to repeat Beaudry&rsquo;s allegation that I &ldquo;choked&rdquo; him without mentioning that an independent witness utterly discredited his testimony. Unfortunately, while the story has been picked up by numerous other newspapers, most of them simply seem to have cut-and-pasted the Times-Herald reportage. I find this discouraging. As does at least one juror, who opined:<blockquote><div><p>&ldquo;The Times Herald continues to print that Mr. Watts was found guilty of assault. HE WAS NOT!!! He was found guilty of obstructing/resisting, and that was due to the time that transpired between him being ordered to do something and him actually complying with the order. We were forced to decide what was a reasonable amount of time for him to comply with an order. Mr. Watts, in my opinion, was treated unfairly by Customs and Border Protection. But, unfortunately, they were not on trial.&rdquo;</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A recent posting on Watts ' blog has clarified a number of issues http : //www.rifters.com/crawl/ ? p = 1193 [ rifters.com ] Questions regarding the video tape , the exact timeline , the allegation of a previous police record ( he has none ) are addressed in the post .
The following excerpt deserves to be highlighted IMO 2 .
The Coverage The Times-Herald reporter sat in the courtroom throughout the case .
She knows there was no assault .
She knows the choking incident never occurred .
She knows that the only violence was committed by the border guards .
These facts are no longer in dispute .
And yet , the Times-Herald continues to report that I was found guilty of    assault    , and continues to repeat Beaudry    s allegation that I    choked    him without mentioning that an independent witness utterly discredited his testimony .
Unfortunately , while the story has been picked up by numerous other newspapers , most of them simply seem to have cut-and-pasted the Times-Herald reportage .
I find this discouraging .
As does at least one juror , who opined :    The Times Herald continues to print that Mr. Watts was found guilty of assault .
HE WAS NOT ! ! !
He was found guilty of obstructing/resisting , and that was due to the time that transpired between him being ordered to do something and him actually complying with the order .
We were forced to decide what was a reasonable amount of time for him to comply with an order .
Mr. Watts , in my opinion , was treated unfairly by Customs and Border Protection .
But , unfortunately , they were not on trial.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>A recent posting on Watts' blog has clarified a number of issues

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193 [rifters.com]

Questions regarding the video tape, the exact timeline, the allegation of a  previous police record (he has none) are addressed in the post.
The following excerpt deserves to be highlighted IMO



2.
The Coverage


The Times-Herald reporter sat in the courtroom throughout the case.
She knows there was no assault.
She knows the choking incident never occurred.
She knows that the only violence was committed by the border guards.
These facts are no longer in dispute.
And yet, the Times-Herald continues to report that I was found guilty of “assault”, and continues to repeat Beaudry’s allegation that I “choked” him without mentioning that an independent witness utterly discredited his testimony.
Unfortunately, while the story has been picked up by numerous other newspapers, most of them simply seem to have cut-and-pasted the Times-Herald reportage.
I find this discouraging.
As does at least one juror, who opined:“The Times Herald continues to print that Mr. Watts was found guilty of assault.
HE WAS NOT!!!
He was found guilty of obstructing/resisting, and that was due to the time that transpired between him being ordered to do something and him actually complying with the order.
We were forced to decide what was a reasonable amount of time for him to comply with an order.
Mr. Watts, in my opinion, was treated unfairly by Customs and Border Protection.
But, unfortunately, they were not on trial.”

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551712</id>
	<title>Soon nobody will want to go to America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chinese debt collectors. They will want to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chinese debt collectors .
They will want to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chinese debt collectors.
They will want to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565574</id>
	<title>Re:NOT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT!</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269264600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are so many pedants fussing over the exact and specific charge he was convicted of.  HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, YET WAS CONVICTED OF A FELONY.  You fucking moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are so many pedants fussing over the exact and specific charge he was convicted of .
HE DID N'T DO ANYTHING WRONG , YET WAS CONVICTED OF A FELONY .
You fucking moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are so many pedants fussing over the exact and specific charge he was convicted of.
HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG, YET WAS CONVICTED OF A FELONY.
You fucking moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555056</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1269105600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why we have jury nullification and why the correct answer to "Do you believe in jury nullfication?" is "no, I do not".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we have jury nullification and why the correct answer to " Do you believe in jury nullfication ?
" is " no , I do not " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we have jury nullification and why the correct answer to "Do you believe in jury nullfication?
" is "no, I do not".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556240</id>
	<title>Moral of the Story</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1269169380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't visit the US</p><p>Stay home (and try to pick a country who doesn't extradite - granted the list grows smaller, but still)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't visit the USStay home ( and try to pick a country who does n't extradite - granted the list grows smaller , but still )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't visit the USStay home (and try to pick a country who doesn't extradite - granted the list grows smaller, but still)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554856</id>
	<title>Re:so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law. But how do you want to change the law? Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?</p></div><p>That's what I thought juries were for. You can't really expect laws to be written that will take into account every circumstance possible. So a law could be reasonable and functional, like don't resist border guards, but have unforeseen circumstances in which non-compliance is reasonable, for instance if they just punched you in the face for no reason or something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if you do n't like this verdict , you need to change the law .
But how do you want to change the law ?
Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard ? That 's what I thought juries were for .
You ca n't really expect laws to be written that will take into account every circumstance possible .
So a law could be reasonable and functional , like do n't resist border guards , but have unforeseen circumstances in which non-compliance is reasonable , for instance if they just punched you in the face for no reason or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if you don't like this verdict, you need to change the law.
But how do you want to change the law?
Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?That's what I thought juries were for.
You can't really expect laws to be written that will take into account every circumstance possible.
So a law could be reasonable and functional, like don't resist border guards, but have unforeseen circumstances in which non-compliance is reasonable, for instance if they just punched you in the face for no reason or something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556614</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1269175560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't you hear about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org">jury nullification</a> [wikipedia.org].<p>
Well, it is understandable that the judge won't tell you about this (although, as a jury it <em>is</em> your right to both judge the accused and whether the law accusing him is just), it amazes me that a Slashdot reader could not be aware of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't you hear about jury nullification [ wikipedia.org ] .
Well , it is understandable that the judge wo n't tell you about this ( although , as a jury it is your right to both judge the accused and whether the law accusing him is just ) , it amazes me that a Slashdot reader could not be aware of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't you hear about jury nullification [wikipedia.org].
Well, it is understandable that the judge won't tell you about this (although, as a jury it is your right to both judge the accused and whether the law accusing him is just), it amazes me that a Slashdot reader could not be aware of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553900</id>
	<title>Someone is gonna snap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a violent person. However I think it's about time the general public stood up and did something to force law enforcement officers to treat us with respect. It's obvious that our government will not do anything to protect us from assholes with badges treating everyone they encounter however they want. Every officer is not a dick, but a fairly large segment of them are.</p><p>I used to drive a car that was at the time popular with "people of color" and got pulled over all the time. I was regularly handcuffed and put in the patrol car while my car was searched. I never recieved a ticket because I follow the traffic laws. I was never arrested because I never did anything wrong. There were no drugs since I dont do drugs. I dont drink and drive. I dont carry guns around in my car. I was treated like a wanted felon because of the car I drove. I was pulled out of my car through the window on more than one occasion. I was never beaten by the police but was handled pretty damn roughly. I had bruises and scrapes and an almost dislocated shoulder once. I traded that vehicle in and bought a full size truck. I've never been pulled over in the 10 years since and I dont drive any differently now than I did then.</p><p>The laws that are there to protect the public from jerkoff police/border guards whatever doesnt do any damn good. Asking why is a valid question. If someone tells a person to lie on the ground there has to be a better reason than "because Im a police officer and I said so". There has to be some threat and not one manufactured in the officers mind. I dont advocate violence but I would not be suprised nor hurt when asshole officers woke up dead. There is no excuse to treat anyone the way they do.</p><p>Maybe there isnt enough motivation for them to treat us like citizens who have rights. They feel like they dont have to treat us like anything but common scum because there are no repercussions unless they go apeshit and beat the hell out of someone. Even then half the time they get a slap on the wrist. It's too easy for them to say they felt threatened or the subject took an aggresive stance. Someone some day will get sick enough of it that they will do something drastic about it. All I had to do was buy a new vehicle and all my problems went away. Someone else may have a different way to handle being mentally/verbally/physically abused by someone just because they have a badge.</p><p>I know several (read a couple dozen) people in law enforcement. They have all told me that unless its someone important (politician or famous person) and they dont beat them without cause (which they can manufacture if need be) they can basically do whatever the fuck they want to do.</p><p>There are too many laws/statutes giving too much room for "the officers judgement". That means that they can do what they want and say that someone was resisting or taking an aggresive stance. So no matter what if the officer says you resisted the laws say that its his judgement call if you did or not.</p><p>We either have to weed out the bad ones and punish them for their actions or some guy will get a rifle with a scope and solve the problem his/her self. I hate to say it but some of them are gonna deserve what they get. The past 100 years should show that the government and laws to protect us from our "protectors" sure as hell dont work and somethings got to give. I repeat for the FBI monitors that pick up keywords it wont be me, I dont even own a gun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a violent person .
However I think it 's about time the general public stood up and did something to force law enforcement officers to treat us with respect .
It 's obvious that our government will not do anything to protect us from assholes with badges treating everyone they encounter however they want .
Every officer is not a dick , but a fairly large segment of them are.I used to drive a car that was at the time popular with " people of color " and got pulled over all the time .
I was regularly handcuffed and put in the patrol car while my car was searched .
I never recieved a ticket because I follow the traffic laws .
I was never arrested because I never did anything wrong .
There were no drugs since I dont do drugs .
I dont drink and drive .
I dont carry guns around in my car .
I was treated like a wanted felon because of the car I drove .
I was pulled out of my car through the window on more than one occasion .
I was never beaten by the police but was handled pretty damn roughly .
I had bruises and scrapes and an almost dislocated shoulder once .
I traded that vehicle in and bought a full size truck .
I 've never been pulled over in the 10 years since and I dont drive any differently now than I did then.The laws that are there to protect the public from jerkoff police/border guards whatever doesnt do any damn good .
Asking why is a valid question .
If someone tells a person to lie on the ground there has to be a better reason than " because Im a police officer and I said so " .
There has to be some threat and not one manufactured in the officers mind .
I dont advocate violence but I would not be suprised nor hurt when asshole officers woke up dead .
There is no excuse to treat anyone the way they do.Maybe there isnt enough motivation for them to treat us like citizens who have rights .
They feel like they dont have to treat us like anything but common scum because there are no repercussions unless they go apeshit and beat the hell out of someone .
Even then half the time they get a slap on the wrist .
It 's too easy for them to say they felt threatened or the subject took an aggresive stance .
Someone some day will get sick enough of it that they will do something drastic about it .
All I had to do was buy a new vehicle and all my problems went away .
Someone else may have a different way to handle being mentally/verbally/physically abused by someone just because they have a badge.I know several ( read a couple dozen ) people in law enforcement .
They have all told me that unless its someone important ( politician or famous person ) and they dont beat them without cause ( which they can manufacture if need be ) they can basically do whatever the fuck they want to do.There are too many laws/statutes giving too much room for " the officers judgement " .
That means that they can do what they want and say that someone was resisting or taking an aggresive stance .
So no matter what if the officer says you resisted the laws say that its his judgement call if you did or not.We either have to weed out the bad ones and punish them for their actions or some guy will get a rifle with a scope and solve the problem his/her self .
I hate to say it but some of them are gon na deserve what they get .
The past 100 years should show that the government and laws to protect us from our " protectors " sure as hell dont work and somethings got to give .
I repeat for the FBI monitors that pick up keywords it wont be me , I dont even own a gun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a violent person.
However I think it's about time the general public stood up and did something to force law enforcement officers to treat us with respect.
It's obvious that our government will not do anything to protect us from assholes with badges treating everyone they encounter however they want.
Every officer is not a dick, but a fairly large segment of them are.I used to drive a car that was at the time popular with "people of color" and got pulled over all the time.
I was regularly handcuffed and put in the patrol car while my car was searched.
I never recieved a ticket because I follow the traffic laws.
I was never arrested because I never did anything wrong.
There were no drugs since I dont do drugs.
I dont drink and drive.
I dont carry guns around in my car.
I was treated like a wanted felon because of the car I drove.
I was pulled out of my car through the window on more than one occasion.
I was never beaten by the police but was handled pretty damn roughly.
I had bruises and scrapes and an almost dislocated shoulder once.
I traded that vehicle in and bought a full size truck.
I've never been pulled over in the 10 years since and I dont drive any differently now than I did then.The laws that are there to protect the public from jerkoff police/border guards whatever doesnt do any damn good.
Asking why is a valid question.
If someone tells a person to lie on the ground there has to be a better reason than "because Im a police officer and I said so".
There has to be some threat and not one manufactured in the officers mind.
I dont advocate violence but I would not be suprised nor hurt when asshole officers woke up dead.
There is no excuse to treat anyone the way they do.Maybe there isnt enough motivation for them to treat us like citizens who have rights.
They feel like they dont have to treat us like anything but common scum because there are no repercussions unless they go apeshit and beat the hell out of someone.
Even then half the time they get a slap on the wrist.
It's too easy for them to say they felt threatened or the subject took an aggresive stance.
Someone some day will get sick enough of it that they will do something drastic about it.
All I had to do was buy a new vehicle and all my problems went away.
Someone else may have a different way to handle being mentally/verbally/physically abused by someone just because they have a badge.I know several (read a couple dozen) people in law enforcement.
They have all told me that unless its someone important (politician or famous person) and they dont beat them without cause (which they can manufacture if need be) they can basically do whatever the fuck they want to do.There are too many laws/statutes giving too much room for "the officers judgement".
That means that they can do what they want and say that someone was resisting or taking an aggresive stance.
So no matter what if the officer says you resisted the laws say that its his judgement call if you did or not.We either have to weed out the bad ones and punish them for their actions or some guy will get a rifle with a scope and solve the problem his/her self.
I hate to say it but some of them are gonna deserve what they get.
The past 100 years should show that the government and laws to protect us from our "protectors" sure as hell dont work and somethings got to give.
I repeat for the FBI monitors that pick up keywords it wont be me, I dont even own a gun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556020</id>
	<title>You, sir, are an asshole.</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1269166020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Juror "Elbow Spur",</p><p>Today, you potentially ruined a man's life even though he did nothing wrong and hurt nobody. You are an asshole. A grade-A, goose-stepping, "just following orders" asshole. It's because of people like you who facilitate tyranny and hide behind flimsy excuses that our world sucks as much as it does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Juror " Elbow Spur " ,Today , you potentially ruined a man 's life even though he did nothing wrong and hurt nobody .
You are an asshole .
A grade-A , goose-stepping , " just following orders " asshole .
It 's because of people like you who facilitate tyranny and hide behind flimsy excuses that our world sucks as much as it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Juror "Elbow Spur",Today, you potentially ruined a man's life even though he did nothing wrong and hurt nobody.
You are an asshole.
A grade-A, goose-stepping, "just following orders" asshole.
It's because of people like you who facilitate tyranny and hide behind flimsy excuses that our world sucks as much as it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557500</id>
	<title>What happens when a guard assaults someone?</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1269186180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that the prosecution doesn't contest that the border guard got into Peter's car and punched him in the face.<br>Nobody seems to be arguing that there was any need for the guard to do this in order to perform their job.</p><p>Does this mean the border guard will be investigated for assault and sacked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the prosecution does n't contest that the border guard got into Peter 's car and punched him in the face.Nobody seems to be arguing that there was any need for the guard to do this in order to perform their job.Does this mean the border guard will be investigated for assault and sacked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the prosecution doesn't contest that the border guard got into Peter's car and punched him in the face.Nobody seems to be arguing that there was any need for the guard to do this in order to perform their job.Does this mean the border guard will be investigated for assault and sacked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551988</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>dolbywan\_kenobi</author>
	<datestamp>1269078840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a criminal defense attorney. My experience is that whenever it's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime, the accused loses. In most jurisdictions in the US, judges and juries tend to believe the cops. Unless the case was tried by a jury in a large metro area with significant minority population ( and the jury is reflective of that), chances are a guilty verdict will result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a criminal defense attorney .
My experience is that whenever it 's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime , the accused loses .
In most jurisdictions in the US , judges and juries tend to believe the cops .
Unless the case was tried by a jury in a large metro area with significant minority population ( and the jury is reflective of that ) , chances are a guilty verdict will result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a criminal defense attorney.
My experience is that whenever it's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime, the accused loses.
In most jurisdictions in the US, judges and juries tend to believe the cops.
Unless the case was tried by a jury in a large metro area with significant minority population ( and the jury is reflective of that), chances are a guilty verdict will result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551632</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The wikipedia article linked to in the summary implies there was a video of the incident.</p><p>"A local newspaper, the Port Huron Times-Herald, submitted a FOIA request to US Customs and Border Protection to be given the video recording of the incident. On January 14, 2010, the paper reported that the agency denied the request because "it is an ongoing investigation."[15]"</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Watts#Border\_incident</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The wikipedia article linked to in the summary implies there was a video of the incident .
" A local newspaper , the Port Huron Times-Herald , submitted a FOIA request to US Customs and Border Protection to be given the video recording of the incident .
On January 14 , 2010 , the paper reported that the agency denied the request because " it is an ongoing investigation .
" [ 15 ] " http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter \ _Watts # Border \ _incident</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The wikipedia article linked to in the summary implies there was a video of the incident.
"A local newspaper, the Port Huron Times-Herald, submitted a FOIA request to US Customs and Border Protection to be given the video recording of the incident.
On January 14, 2010, the paper reported that the agency denied the request because "it is an ongoing investigation.
"[15]"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Watts#Border\_incident</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552786</id>
	<title>Re:Quite understandable</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1269084780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your country has a national debt of over a trillion dollars, and started too invasions of other countries this past decade in wars that have coincidentally cost just over said trillion dollars. On top of that, the Chinese own a very large part of the US national debt, and if they decide to collect, your country will be in severe difficulties.</p><p>Possibly, getting less involved in ruinous foreign wars would help solve the problems of debt and being hated. Personally, I think you're a stupid bastard. Not because you're American - there are stupid bastards in most parts of this world, but because you're simply digging up an old cliche that lost its validity after the Vietnam war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your country has a national debt of over a trillion dollars , and started too invasions of other countries this past decade in wars that have coincidentally cost just over said trillion dollars .
On top of that , the Chinese own a very large part of the US national debt , and if they decide to collect , your country will be in severe difficulties.Possibly , getting less involved in ruinous foreign wars would help solve the problems of debt and being hated .
Personally , I think you 're a stupid bastard .
Not because you 're American - there are stupid bastards in most parts of this world , but because you 're simply digging up an old cliche that lost its validity after the Vietnam war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your country has a national debt of over a trillion dollars, and started too invasions of other countries this past decade in wars that have coincidentally cost just over said trillion dollars.
On top of that, the Chinese own a very large part of the US national debt, and if they decide to collect, your country will be in severe difficulties.Possibly, getting less involved in ruinous foreign wars would help solve the problems of debt and being hated.
Personally, I think you're a stupid bastard.
Not because you're American - there are stupid bastards in most parts of this world, but because you're simply digging up an old cliche that lost its validity after the Vietnam war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553484</id>
	<title>Jury nullification</title>
	<author>witherstaff</author>
	<datestamp>1269089460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad the jurors had never heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org">Jury Nullification</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the jurors had never heard of Jury Nullification [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the jurors had never heard of Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816</id>
	<title>"Convicted of assault" is very misleading</title>
	<author>Hortensia Patel</author>
	<datestamp>1269077340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Watts' <a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186" title="rifters.com">own blog</a> [rifters.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>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.</p></div></blockquote><p>Making Light <a href="http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/012260.html" title="nielsenhayden.com">put it more caustically</a> [nielsenhayden.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Peter Watts has been found guilty of being assaulted by a border guard. The actual charge was obstructing a border officer. The other charges were refuted in court, but there remained the fact that Watts, having just been punched twice in the head, did not immediately drop to the ground when ordered to do so, instead asking what the problem was. Apparently, this is a felony.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Watts ' own blog [ rifters.com ] : Here at the Sarnia Best Western I do n'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.Making Light put it more caustically [ nielsenhayden.com ] : Peter Watts has been found guilty of being assaulted by a border guard .
The actual charge was obstructing a border officer .
The other charges were refuted in court , but there remained the fact that Watts , having just been punched twice in the head , did not immediately drop to the ground when ordered to do so , instead asking what the problem was .
Apparently , this is a felony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Watts' own blog [rifters.com]: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.Making Light put it more caustically [nielsenhayden.com]:Peter Watts has been found guilty of being assaulted by a border guard.
The actual charge was obstructing a border officer.
The other charges were refuted in court, but there remained the fact that Watts, having just been punched twice in the head, did not immediately drop to the ground when ordered to do so, instead asking what the problem was.
Apparently, this is a felony.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551870</id>
	<title>My Obligatory Anarcho-Capitalist Rant...</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1269077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a rational society, border guards would be convicted of an assault on him!</p><p>The "border" between Vermont and Qu&#233;bec is no different than the border between your property and your neighbor's, except that your ownership of your land is based on the Natural Right to property that stems from the fact that specific human action brought that land into the human economy, and you either are the person who took that action (the original homesteader) or you've acquired that land through a chain of (hopefully) voluntary exchanges.  The government's claim over land is not based on empirical economic facts (evolutionary pragmatism being the only axiom of free market capitalism), the government's claims come from nothing more than the barrel of a gun!</p><p>And shame on that jury for being 12 nitpicked butt-kissers who've never heard of the right (and their obligation) to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jury Nullification</a> [wikipedia.org].  They're not there as legal scholars or cheerleaders for the judge, they're there as the final check and balance on the legal system that supersedes the authority of law itself!  I hope each of those jurors gets pulled over and arrested for <i>untermenschen ohne papieren</i> due to a bizarre case of bureaucratic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/*FAIL*/.  No man has the right to detain another outside the detainer's property and without evidence that the detainee might have initiated aggression.  And this government doesn't have any more a right to stop people on the "borders" (which it doesn't actually own) than the Nazi thugs had the right to do the same on the streets of Berlin!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a rational society , border guards would be convicted of an assault on him ! The " border " between Vermont and Qu   bec is no different than the border between your property and your neighbor 's , except that your ownership of your land is based on the Natural Right to property that stems from the fact that specific human action brought that land into the human economy , and you either are the person who took that action ( the original homesteader ) or you 've acquired that land through a chain of ( hopefully ) voluntary exchanges .
The government 's claim over land is not based on empirical economic facts ( evolutionary pragmatism being the only axiom of free market capitalism ) , the government 's claims come from nothing more than the barrel of a gun ! And shame on that jury for being 12 nitpicked butt-kissers who 've never heard of the right ( and their obligation ) to Jury Nullification [ wikipedia.org ] .
They 're not there as legal scholars or cheerleaders for the judge , they 're there as the final check and balance on the legal system that supersedes the authority of law itself !
I hope each of those jurors gets pulled over and arrested for untermenschen ohne papieren due to a bizarre case of bureaucratic / * FAIL * / .
No man has the right to detain another outside the detainer 's property and without evidence that the detainee might have initiated aggression .
And this government does n't have any more a right to stop people on the " borders " ( which it does n't actually own ) than the Nazi thugs had the right to do the same on the streets of Berlin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a rational society, border guards would be convicted of an assault on him!The "border" between Vermont and Québec is no different than the border between your property and your neighbor's, except that your ownership of your land is based on the Natural Right to property that stems from the fact that specific human action brought that land into the human economy, and you either are the person who took that action (the original homesteader) or you've acquired that land through a chain of (hopefully) voluntary exchanges.
The government's claim over land is not based on empirical economic facts (evolutionary pragmatism being the only axiom of free market capitalism), the government's claims come from nothing more than the barrel of a gun!And shame on that jury for being 12 nitpicked butt-kissers who've never heard of the right (and their obligation) to Jury Nullification [wikipedia.org].
They're not there as legal scholars or cheerleaders for the judge, they're there as the final check and balance on the legal system that supersedes the authority of law itself!
I hope each of those jurors gets pulled over and arrested for untermenschen ohne papieren due to a bizarre case of bureaucratic /*FAIL*/.
No man has the right to detain another outside the detainer's property and without evidence that the detainee might have initiated aggression.
And this government doesn't have any more a right to stop people on the "borders" (which it doesn't actually own) than the Nazi thugs had the right to do the same on the streets of Berlin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553460</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269089340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait until the day karma comes and bites you in the ass for an even more trivial matter, and then you get the death penalty. Lot's of tears from me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait until the day karma comes and bites you in the ass for an even more trivial matter , and then you get the death penalty .
Lot 's of tears from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait until the day karma comes and bites you in the ass for an even more trivial matter, and then you get the death penalty.
Lot's of tears from me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551898</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Mike Buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1269077940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it'd be great if the article linked to items relevant to the conviction (you know, the primary focus of the article) instead of the preliminary stories that have already been reported many times on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. How about a link to the CBS story reporting the conviction? Isn't that the frickin' title of your story? FAIL SJrX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 'd be great if the article linked to items relevant to the conviction ( you know , the primary focus of the article ) instead of the preliminary stories that have already been reported many times on / .
How about a link to the CBS story reporting the conviction ?
Is n't that the frickin ' title of your story ?
FAIL SJrX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it'd be great if the article linked to items relevant to the conviction (you know, the primary focus of the article) instead of the preliminary stories that have already been reported many times on /.
How about a link to the CBS story reporting the conviction?
Isn't that the frickin' title of your story?
FAIL SJrX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554408</id>
	<title>America to The Rest of The World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't want tourists.</p><p>We don't want Trade.</p><p>Rest of The World to America<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:=</p><p>We hear you Loud and Clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't want tourists.We do n't want Trade.Rest of The World to America : = We hear you Loud and Clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't want tourists.We don't want Trade.Rest of The World to America :=We hear you Loud and Clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552054</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1269079200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His blog entry seems to suggest that the question the jury considered was whether his failure to comply with a command was sufficient to warrant his conviction.  In other words, the issue wasn't who slugged whom first, because it was conceded that the border guard hit him in the face first.  The issue was after that, he failed to comply with the border guard's order promptly and that was what he was convicted for, not for assaulting the border guard, which was disproven in court.</p><p>If his account is honest, it seems like something of a travesty of our legal system.  If you are punched in the face by a border guard, how can YOU be the one who committed an assault?  I still doubt slightly whether his account leaves something out of what went on in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His blog entry seems to suggest that the question the jury considered was whether his failure to comply with a command was sufficient to warrant his conviction .
In other words , the issue was n't who slugged whom first , because it was conceded that the border guard hit him in the face first .
The issue was after that , he failed to comply with the border guard 's order promptly and that was what he was convicted for , not for assaulting the border guard , which was disproven in court.If his account is honest , it seems like something of a travesty of our legal system .
If you are punched in the face by a border guard , how can YOU be the one who committed an assault ?
I still doubt slightly whether his account leaves something out of what went on in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His blog entry seems to suggest that the question the jury considered was whether his failure to comply with a command was sufficient to warrant his conviction.
In other words, the issue wasn't who slugged whom first, because it was conceded that the border guard hit him in the face first.
The issue was after that, he failed to comply with the border guard's order promptly and that was what he was convicted for, not for assaulting the border guard, which was disproven in court.If his account is honest, it seems like something of a travesty of our legal system.
If you are punched in the face by a border guard, how can YOU be the one who committed an assault?
I still doubt slightly whether his account leaves something out of what went on in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1269077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , a grand jury found reason enough to charge , and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, a grand jury found reason enough to charge, and a second criminal jury found reason enough to convict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551864</id>
	<title>WTF did he expect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269077700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: "Jones said that the officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, they tried to handcuff him. He said a scuffle ensued in which Watts choked one of the officers, and an officer used pepper spray to subdue him." Gee, I don't really see how this is a big deal. He was pissed off that they searched his car - what else did he expect at a border crossing? Did he try to contact someone in the Canadian government because something wasn't right? No! Sounds like he was being an asshole for getting searched - duh! Being pissed off in front of border guards anywhere in the world draws attention and you leave yourself open for whatever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " Jones said that the officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle , and when he refused , they tried to handcuff him .
He said a scuffle ensued in which Watts choked one of the officers , and an officer used pepper spray to subdue him .
" Gee , I do n't really see how this is a big deal .
He was pissed off that they searched his car - what else did he expect at a border crossing ?
Did he try to contact someone in the Canadian government because something was n't right ?
No ! Sounds like he was being an asshole for getting searched - duh !
Being pissed off in front of border guards anywhere in the world draws attention and you leave yourself open for whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "Jones said that the officers ordered Watts back into the vehicle, and when he refused, they tried to handcuff him.
He said a scuffle ensued in which Watts choked one of the officers, and an officer used pepper spray to subdue him.
" Gee, I don't really see how this is a big deal.
He was pissed off that they searched his car - what else did he expect at a border crossing?
Did he try to contact someone in the Canadian government because something wasn't right?
No! Sounds like he was being an asshole for getting searched - duh!
Being pissed off in front of border guards anywhere in the world draws attention and you leave yourself open for whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551640</id>
	<title>First draft...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1269076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He will be sentenced April 26th</p></div><p>The sentence will be sent to his editor May 5.<br>They'll have it proofread and the final edit will be done June 7.<br>Armed truck drivers will deliver the sentence to Barnes &amp; Noble, Amazon, and Borders locations on an undisclosed date.<br>The sentence will go on sale August 11.</p><p>Please, no spoilers before the release date.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He will be sentenced April 26thThe sentence will be sent to his editor May 5.They 'll have it proofread and the final edit will be done June 7.Armed truck drivers will deliver the sentence to Barnes &amp; Noble , Amazon , and Borders locations on an undisclosed date.The sentence will go on sale August 11.Please , no spoilers before the release date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He will be sentenced April 26thThe sentence will be sent to his editor May 5.They'll have it proofread and the final edit will be done June 7.Armed truck drivers will deliver the sentence to Barnes &amp; Noble, Amazon, and Borders locations on an undisclosed date.The sentence will go on sale August 11.Please, no spoilers before the release date.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557078</id>
	<title>Wasn't convicted of assault...</title>
	<author>knewter</author>
	<datestamp>1269181680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was convicted of obstructing/resisting, not assault.</p><p><a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193" title="rifters.com">http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193</a> [rifters.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was convicted of obstructing/resisting , not assault.http : //www.rifters.com/crawl/ ? p = 1193 [ rifters.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was convicted of obstructing/resisting, not assault.http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1193 [rifters.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556332</id>
	<title>Common law right to resit an unlawful arrest</title>
	<author>tdwebste</author>
	<datestamp>1269170700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California Criminal Law Review, Vol. 2, July 2000</p><p>Abstract:<br>The national trend, during the past forty years, has been to do away with the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest. The right has been abrogated by judicial decree as well as legislative enactment. Elimination of the right is based on several factors, including the development of modern criminal procedure, the ability of criminal defendants to seek redress via other means, and the improvement of jail conditions. In the rush to eliminate a right perceived as against contemporary public policy, the courts have paid little attention to the original justification for the rule - that an illegal arrest is an affront to the dignity and sense of justice of the arrestee - and instead have focused on the alternatives to forcible resistance that have been developed, such as civil suits and the writ of habeas corpus.</p><p>Mississippi is one of a dozen states that still permit a person to resist an unlawful arrest. Almost all of these states are located in the South. The question this geographical anomaly raises is why has the right to resist arrest survived in the South, and Mississippi in particular? This article suggests that a possible explanation may be the influence of uniquely Southern conceptions of honor and the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Historians have long acknowledged that Southern culture strongly supports the importance of personal honor and condones a "subculture of violence." This article examines the development and history of the right to resist an unlawful arrest at common law and in the United States, scholarly criticism of the common law rule, and the current status of the rule in the United States, the Southern "subculture of violence" and how that relates to cases involving resisting arrest in Mississippi. All Mississippi cases involving claims of a right to resist unlawful arrest are examined. The language of the Mississippi cases provides support for the argument that the right to resist arrest has remained entrenched in Southern law, and helps to explain why Southern states generally and Mississippi in particular have chosen to retain a common law rule which has fallen into disrepute in other regions of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California Criminal Law Review , Vol .
2 , July 2000Abstract : The national trend , during the past forty years , has been to do away with the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest .
The right has been abrogated by judicial decree as well as legislative enactment .
Elimination of the right is based on several factors , including the development of modern criminal procedure , the ability of criminal defendants to seek redress via other means , and the improvement of jail conditions .
In the rush to eliminate a right perceived as against contemporary public policy , the courts have paid little attention to the original justification for the rule - that an illegal arrest is an affront to the dignity and sense of justice of the arrestee - and instead have focused on the alternatives to forcible resistance that have been developed , such as civil suits and the writ of habeas corpus.Mississippi is one of a dozen states that still permit a person to resist an unlawful arrest .
Almost all of these states are located in the South .
The question this geographical anomaly raises is why has the right to resist arrest survived in the South , and Mississippi in particular ?
This article suggests that a possible explanation may be the influence of uniquely Southern conceptions of honor and the right to use deadly force in self-defense .
Historians have long acknowledged that Southern culture strongly supports the importance of personal honor and condones a " subculture of violence .
" This article examines the development and history of the right to resist an unlawful arrest at common law and in the United States , scholarly criticism of the common law rule , and the current status of the rule in the United States , the Southern " subculture of violence " and how that relates to cases involving resisting arrest in Mississippi .
All Mississippi cases involving claims of a right to resist unlawful arrest are examined .
The language of the Mississippi cases provides support for the argument that the right to resist arrest has remained entrenched in Southern law , and helps to explain why Southern states generally and Mississippi in particular have chosen to retain a common law rule which has fallen into disrepute in other regions of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California Criminal Law Review, Vol.
2, July 2000Abstract:The national trend, during the past forty years, has been to do away with the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest.
The right has been abrogated by judicial decree as well as legislative enactment.
Elimination of the right is based on several factors, including the development of modern criminal procedure, the ability of criminal defendants to seek redress via other means, and the improvement of jail conditions.
In the rush to eliminate a right perceived as against contemporary public policy, the courts have paid little attention to the original justification for the rule - that an illegal arrest is an affront to the dignity and sense of justice of the arrestee - and instead have focused on the alternatives to forcible resistance that have been developed, such as civil suits and the writ of habeas corpus.Mississippi is one of a dozen states that still permit a person to resist an unlawful arrest.
Almost all of these states are located in the South.
The question this geographical anomaly raises is why has the right to resist arrest survived in the South, and Mississippi in particular?
This article suggests that a possible explanation may be the influence of uniquely Southern conceptions of honor and the right to use deadly force in self-defense.
Historians have long acknowledged that Southern culture strongly supports the importance of personal honor and condones a "subculture of violence.
" This article examines the development and history of the right to resist an unlawful arrest at common law and in the United States, scholarly criticism of the common law rule, and the current status of the rule in the United States, the Southern "subculture of violence" and how that relates to cases involving resisting arrest in Mississippi.
All Mississippi cases involving claims of a right to resist unlawful arrest are examined.
The language of the Mississippi cases provides support for the argument that the right to resist arrest has remained entrenched in Southern law, and helps to explain why Southern states generally and Mississippi in particular have chosen to retain a common law rule which has fallen into disrepute in other regions of the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840</id>
	<title>the problem...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1269077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is twofold:</p><p>1. what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job. and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.</p><p>2. the jury was not there to consider the guard behavior, but about point 1.</p><p>so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA (yep, he had gotten in just fine, it was while going back to canada that the trouble started).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is twofold : 1. what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job .
and that part of the law is so vague , that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.2 .
the jury was not there to consider the guard behavior , but about point 1.so in essence , watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA ( yep , he had gotten in just fine , it was while going back to canada that the trouble started ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is twofold:1. what he was found guilty of is that of obstructing the border guard from doing his job.
and that part of the law is so vague, that simply asking what the problem is can be seen as obstruction.2.
the jury was not there to consider the guard behavior, but about point 1.so in essence, watts was screwed from the moment his car got stopped while leaving USA (yep, he had gotten in just fine, it was while going back to canada that the trouble started).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554028</id>
	<title>Re:the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you read anything about the case? He didn't get out of the car and refuse to get back in. He get out of the car, was told to get back in, got back in, then a pig ran over, jumped into his car, punched him in the face and ordered him to get out again. He got out and was ordered to get on the ground, but didn't immediately comply, instead asking for an explanation of why he'd just been punched in the face for following an officer's orders. And that apparently constitutes assault of a police officer.</p><p>The law is fucked, the pig who assaulted him should lose his job and go to jail, and the jury should be ashamed of themselves for following the letter of the obviously fucked law rather than exercising their right to acquit a clearly innocent man of a felony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you read anything about the case ?
He did n't get out of the car and refuse to get back in .
He get out of the car , was told to get back in , got back in , then a pig ran over , jumped into his car , punched him in the face and ordered him to get out again .
He got out and was ordered to get on the ground , but did n't immediately comply , instead asking for an explanation of why he 'd just been punched in the face for following an officer 's orders .
And that apparently constitutes assault of a police officer.The law is fucked , the pig who assaulted him should lose his job and go to jail , and the jury should be ashamed of themselves for following the letter of the obviously fucked law rather than exercising their right to acquit a clearly innocent man of a felony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you read anything about the case?
He didn't get out of the car and refuse to get back in.
He get out of the car, was told to get back in, got back in, then a pig ran over, jumped into his car, punched him in the face and ordered him to get out again.
He got out and was ordered to get on the ground, but didn't immediately comply, instead asking for an explanation of why he'd just been punched in the face for following an officer's orders.
And that apparently constitutes assault of a police officer.The law is fucked, the pig who assaulted him should lose his job and go to jail, and the jury should be ashamed of themselves for following the letter of the obviously fucked law rather than exercising their right to acquit a clearly innocent man of a felony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551608</id>
	<title>no worries</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269075660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay, he does his best writing in jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay , he does his best writing in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay, he does his best writing in jail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552438</id>
	<title>Re:Would make a great headline</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ohm my, you'll get in trouble when you cover current events like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohm my , you 'll get in trouble when you cover current events like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohm my, you'll get in trouble when you cover current events like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555682</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1269202500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So Beaudry assulted him for obeying the orders of the first officer and then gave a contradictory order, then when he askes for an explaination he is given another order and a dose of capsicum by the first officer. To make matters worse the two officers then conspired to lie about being attacked by Watts.
<br> <br>
If a pedantic DA saw fit to charge Watts for the crime of disobedience when he was in a state of confusion created by the officers contradictions and a punch to the head then the obvious question is; when will the same pedantic DA be charging the two officers with the multitude of apparent crimes such as assult, battery, perjury, conspiring to pervert the course of justice, etc?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Beaudry assulted him for obeying the orders of the first officer and then gave a contradictory order , then when he askes for an explaination he is given another order and a dose of capsicum by the first officer .
To make matters worse the two officers then conspired to lie about being attacked by Watts .
If a pedantic DA saw fit to charge Watts for the crime of disobedience when he was in a state of confusion created by the officers contradictions and a punch to the head then the obvious question is ; when will the same pedantic DA be charging the two officers with the multitude of apparent crimes such as assult , battery , perjury , conspiring to pervert the course of justice , etc ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Beaudry assulted him for obeying the orders of the first officer and then gave a contradictory order, then when he askes for an explaination he is given another order and a dose of capsicum by the first officer.
To make matters worse the two officers then conspired to lie about being attacked by Watts.
If a pedantic DA saw fit to charge Watts for the crime of disobedience when he was in a state of confusion created by the officers contradictions and a punch to the head then the obvious question is; when will the same pedantic DA be charging the two officers with the multitude of apparent crimes such as assult, battery, perjury, conspiring to pervert the course of justice, etc?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552414</id>
	<title>Travesty</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1269082020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case is a pathetic travesty of justice.  The border guards could have raped him, his wife, shot his kids, and as long as they had previously "instructed" him to comply, and he acted exactly as he had in reality, he STILL would be in the same position as he is today.  And, more absurdly, the jury would still have been able to use the "well, he didn't follow instructions, so, as the law was explained to us, he was guilty".  This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system.  No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer.  This is what's happening here.</p><p>This case sticks.  The border cops who knew they are untouchable, the DA who is pushed this, the judge who 'instructed' the jury, the whole bloody lot of them stink.  And the jurors who went along with it, the 'peers' who were the man's final line of defense let him down.  They are moral cowards.</p><p>This stinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is a pathetic travesty of justice .
The border guards could have raped him , his wife , shot his kids , and as long as they had previously " instructed " him to comply , and he acted exactly as he had in reality , he STILL would be in the same position as he is today .
And , more absurdly , the jury would still have been able to use the " well , he did n't follow instructions , so , as the law was explained to us , he was guilty " .
This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system .
No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer .
This is what 's happening here.This case sticks .
The border cops who knew they are untouchable , the DA who is pushed this , the judge who 'instructed ' the jury , the whole bloody lot of them stink .
And the jurors who went along with it , the 'peers ' who were the man 's final line of defense let him down .
They are moral cowards.This stinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case is a pathetic travesty of justice.
The border guards could have raped him, his wife, shot his kids, and as long as they had previously "instructed" him to comply, and he acted exactly as he had in reality, he STILL would be in the same position as he is today.
And, more absurdly, the jury would still have been able to use the "well, he didn't follow instructions, so, as the law was explained to us, he was guilty".
This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system.
No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer.
This is what's happening here.This case sticks.
The border cops who knew they are untouchable, the DA who is pushed this, the judge who 'instructed' the jury, the whole bloody lot of them stink.
And the jurors who went along with it, the 'peers' who were the man's final line of defense let him down.
They are moral cowards.This stinks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554236</id>
	<title>Re:so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the border guard has assaulted them without cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the border guard has assaulted them without cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the border guard has assaulted them without cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557044</id>
	<title>Something no one seems to point out..</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1269181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that this guy is reasonably famous and this sort of stuff happens to other people who can not simple write on their blog with a few thousand readers.</p><p>If the same thing happenend to <b>you</b>, it would be a lot worse.</p><p>The consequence? Do not enter countries in which no reasonable protection of your basic human rights exists. You know, like Birma, North Korea and the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that this guy is reasonably famous and this sort of stuff happens to other people who can not simple write on their blog with a few thousand readers.If the same thing happenend to you , it would be a lot worse.The consequence ?
Do not enter countries in which no reasonable protection of your basic human rights exists .
You know , like Birma , North Korea and the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that this guy is reasonably famous and this sort of stuff happens to other people who can not simple write on their blog with a few thousand readers.If the same thing happenend to you, it would be a lot worse.The consequence?
Do not enter countries in which no reasonable protection of your basic human rights exists.
You know, like Birma, North Korea and the USA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553050</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>searched for a legitimate reason to vote differently</i></p><p>There are three things on trial in any trial such as this.  Both offense/defense and the law itself.  You decided that the law was not on trial, fine (btw it should be).  You do not have to 'vote' what the law says.  That is why there is a jury trial.  Seriously? You convicted him?  At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged'.  You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail.  For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing'.  If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that.  Neither should you.  You *LET* them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules.  Let me be probably one of many who say it here.  You suck.  But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.</p><p>The day we are asked to 'just conform' is the day we are asked to ignore this <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1" title="usconstitution.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1</a> [usconstitution.net] and <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5" title="usconstitution.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5</a> [usconstitution.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>searched for a legitimate reason to vote differentlyThere are three things on trial in any trial such as this .
Both offense/defense and the law itself .
You decided that the law was not on trial , fine ( btw it should be ) .
You do not have to 'vote ' what the law says .
That is why there is a jury trial .
Seriously ? You convicted him ?
At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged' .
You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail .
For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing' .
If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that .
Neither should you .
You * LET * them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules .
Let me be probably one of many who say it here .
You suck .
But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.The day we are asked to 'just conform ' is the day we are asked to ignore this http : //www.usconstitution.net/const.html # Am1 [ usconstitution.net ] and http : //www.usconstitution.net/const.html # Am5 [ usconstitution.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>searched for a legitimate reason to vote differentlyThere are three things on trial in any trial such as this.
Both offense/defense and the law itself.
You decided that the law was not on trial, fine (btw it should be).
You do not have to 'vote' what the law says.
That is why there is a jury trial.
Seriously? You convicted him?
At step 5 he is asking why he is being 'charged'.
You basically sentenced this dude to 2 years of jail.
For standing up and asking 'what the fuck are you doing'.
If someone had just smashed me in the head I wouldnt exactly be all calm and ready to comply with anyone who did that.
Neither should you.
You *LET* them punish someone for not being a good citizen and following the rules.
Let me be probably one of many who say it here.
You suck.
But what do you care you got home in time to rattle of some pithy remark here on slashdot.The day we are asked to 'just conform' is the day we are asked to ignore this http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 [usconstitution.net] and http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5 [usconstitution.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553726</id>
	<title>Re:"Convicted of assault" is very misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter, the way I see it they're bringing a lot of shit on their heads by dragging him through the mud so much. If they would have just hassled and let him go, he would have "learned" his lesson, the guards would get by as usual, but now, if they keep and harassing him like this, other incidents like this would be more likely to occur.</p><p>Don't hate cops of any breed, but I love his books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter , the way I see it they 're bringing a lot of shit on their heads by dragging him through the mud so much .
If they would have just hassled and let him go , he would have " learned " his lesson , the guards would get by as usual , but now , if they keep and harassing him like this , other incidents like this would be more likely to occur.Do n't hate cops of any breed , but I love his books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter, the way I see it they're bringing a lot of shit on their heads by dragging him through the mud so much.
If they would have just hassled and let him go, he would have "learned" his lesson, the guards would get by as usual, but now, if they keep and harassing him like this, other incidents like this would be more likely to occur.Don't hate cops of any breed, but I love his books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552810</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1269084900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Every citizen eligible for jury duty should know about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury \ _nullification [ wikipedia.org ] Every citizen eligible for jury duty should know about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury\_nullification [wikipedia.org]Every citizen eligible for jury duty should know about this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551688</id>
	<title>Re:First draft...</title>
	<author>sckirklan</author>
	<datestamp>1269076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So deserving of a notable mention. Too funny:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So deserving of a notable mention .
Too funny : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So deserving of a notable mention.
Too funny:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555516</id>
	<title>This stinks.</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1269112560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This stinks..   He was apparently convicted for not collapsing into an unconscious heap of flesh when he was repeatedly punched by a sworn officer.</p><p>On a personal note:  I found myself in a similar predicament with a city cop once.... I found it useful to feign unconsciousness when struck.   I was not arrested in the end.   Though without financial resources I was unable to bring suit against the officer or the city even though there were plenty of witnesses around for me to call upon.</p><p>That I was not shot or incarcerated seems like a bonus now...  live and learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This stinks.. He was apparently convicted for not collapsing into an unconscious heap of flesh when he was repeatedly punched by a sworn officer.On a personal note : I found myself in a similar predicament with a city cop once.... I found it useful to feign unconsciousness when struck .
I was not arrested in the end .
Though without financial resources I was unable to bring suit against the officer or the city even though there were plenty of witnesses around for me to call upon.That I was not shot or incarcerated seems like a bonus now... live and learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This stinks..   He was apparently convicted for not collapsing into an unconscious heap of flesh when he was repeatedly punched by a sworn officer.On a personal note:  I found myself in a similar predicament with a city cop once.... I found it useful to feign unconsciousness when struck.
I was not arrested in the end.
Though without financial resources I was unable to bring suit against the officer or the city even though there were plenty of witnesses around for me to call upon.That I was not shot or incarcerated seems like a bonus now...  live and learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565630</id>
	<title>Can anyone explain this?</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1269264900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Waste of taxpayer money number one million three hundred and eighty seven thousand five hundred and ninety three: *Homland* Security agents interacting with people who are LEAVING THE US.

<br> <br>What The Fuck???</htmltext>
<tokenext>Waste of taxpayer money number one million three hundred and eighty seven thousand five hundred and ninety three : * Homland * Security agents interacting with people who are LEAVING THE US .
What The Fuck ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waste of taxpayer money number one million three hundred and eighty seven thousand five hundred and ninety three: *Homland* Security agents interacting with people who are LEAVING THE US.
What The Fuck??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557740</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269188220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad that I am not an American.  With all the talk of "freedom" and "justice" in America, you, as a juror, won't even use your common sense when convicting an innocent citizen of a ridiculous criminal charge.  The US has already turned in a police state, plain and simple.</p><p>Look at what you had written!  See #4 - he was physically abused without cause (well, except daring to request an explanation from the police).  And what's more, the police <b>fabricated</b> charges against an innocent man that they had just physically abused <b>and</b> pepper-sprayed without cause.</p><p>And, <b>you</b>, as a juror, when given the chance to use your own common sense to give a just "not guilty" verdict, instead, you just folded like a sheep and "follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge."  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Because of <b>you</b>, an innocent fellow citizen now has a criminal record, and the wrongful police office who had physically abused and fabricated charge against an innocent citizen walks free and had a pat on his back from <b>your</b> verdict.</p><p>If the only duty of a jury is just "follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge", then I wonder what's the purpose of having a jury at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad that I am not an American .
With all the talk of " freedom " and " justice " in America , you , as a juror , wo n't even use your common sense when convicting an innocent citizen of a ridiculous criminal charge .
The US has already turned in a police state , plain and simple.Look at what you had written !
See # 4 - he was physically abused without cause ( well , except daring to request an explanation from the police ) .
And what 's more , the police fabricated charges against an innocent man that they had just physically abused and pepper-sprayed without cause.And , you , as a juror , when given the chance to use your own common sense to give a just " not guilty " verdict , instead , you just folded like a sheep and " follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge .
" You should be ashamed of yourself .
Because of you , an innocent fellow citizen now has a criminal record , and the wrongful police office who had physically abused and fabricated charge against an innocent citizen walks free and had a pat on his back from your verdict.If the only duty of a jury is just " follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge " , then I wonder what 's the purpose of having a jury at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad that I am not an American.
With all the talk of "freedom" and "justice" in America, you, as a juror, won't even use your common sense when convicting an innocent citizen of a ridiculous criminal charge.
The US has already turned in a police state, plain and simple.Look at what you had written!
See #4 - he was physically abused without cause (well, except daring to request an explanation from the police).
And what's more, the police fabricated charges against an innocent man that they had just physically abused and pepper-sprayed without cause.And, you, as a juror, when given the chance to use your own common sense to give a just "not guilty" verdict, instead, you just folded like a sheep and "follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge.
"  You should be ashamed of yourself.
Because of you, an innocent fellow citizen now has a criminal record, and the wrongful police office who had physically abused and fabricated charge against an innocent citizen walks free and had a pat on his back from your verdict.If the only duty of a jury is just "follow the instructions as set forth to us by the judge", then I wonder what's the purpose of having a jury at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552586</id>
	<title>But oddly enough conservative MPs go scott free</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1269083220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we just recently learn of two Canadian Conservative MPs acting like arse holes at airport security? Not only do they get to keep their job, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to convict them either. Heck, I will happy once we have tossed this government out of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we just recently learn of two Canadian Conservative MPs acting like arse holes at airport security ?
Not only do they get to keep their job , there does n't seem to be any attempt to convict them either .
Heck , I will happy once we have tossed this government out of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we just recently learn of two Canadian Conservative MPs acting like arse holes at airport security?
Not only do they get to keep their job, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to convict them either.
Heck, I will happy once we have tossed this government out of power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555902</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Baki</author>
	<datestamp>1269163980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stories like this confirm me to never enter the USA. I'll stay in europe and may visit Canada, but entering the USA is just too risky. There is no rule of law anymore but you are delivered to random powers.</p><p>It is amazing that US citizens have allowed and continue to allow the abolution of rule of law.<br>Of course this fits in nicely with guantanamo bay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stories like this confirm me to never enter the USA .
I 'll stay in europe and may visit Canada , but entering the USA is just too risky .
There is no rule of law anymore but you are delivered to random powers.It is amazing that US citizens have allowed and continue to allow the abolution of rule of law.Of course this fits in nicely with guantanamo bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stories like this confirm me to never enter the USA.
I'll stay in europe and may visit Canada, but entering the USA is just too risky.
There is no rule of law anymore but you are delivered to random powers.It is amazing that US citizens have allowed and continue to allow the abolution of rule of law.Of course this fits in nicely with guantanamo bay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556634</id>
	<title>Re:the problem...</title>
	<author>WNight</author>
	<datestamp>1269175860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cops don't fuck around - it's their life on the line</p></div><p>Hah! Not only is their job far safer than many others, but they're far more likely to kill or seriously injure the person they stop than vice versa. In the vast majority of cases they're the only armed parties and usually are not there alone.</p><p>This border guard for instance had NO reason to fear for his safety at all. He'd already been in the vehicle with the suspect - the very place he'd have been knifed, etc, and was now safely back out of the vehicle. If he had felt threatened he'd have backed off and waited until other heavily armed guards could arrive - in seconds.</p><p>I think you meant to say: "<i>Cops fuck around when it's only your life on the line.</i>"</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Canadian police use the exact same procedure (keep the person in the car</p></div><p>It's policy!? OMFG. Well why didn't you say so!</p><p>It's also passive aggressive. You've been stopped. You need to leave your hands visible, not make any sudden movements, and now sit and wait - often ten or more minutes. (And that's for routine traffic stuff.)</p><p>I'm sure they love the freedom that comes from you being afraid and sitting in your car - it gives them time for a snack, but it's thoroughly unreasonable to say that merely getting out of your car to go talk to them is confrontational. People have a right to question those who stop them, and can reasonably be expected to do so.</p><p>It's just another in the endless list of unknowable laws you can break and procedures you can interfere with that will be used to criminalize you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way, don't be an ass.</p></div><p>Ahh yes, because questioning orders makes you an ass.</p><p>Clearly delaying laying down by a few seconds would have cost the hostages their lives - oh wait, no hostages, no urgency, no problem.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Like I said, this is potentially life or death for these guys, they don't have the luxury</p></div><p>Again, pity the people with all the power, the protection, and the weapons. Pity them because they might break a nail while beating someone.</p><p>Customs agents certainly do not die at the hands of border crossers often enough to qualify it as a dangerous job. However enough border crossers are beaten and killed without good reason (ie, no weapons, smuggling, etc) to qualify crossing the border as a dangerous action.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get away</p></div><p>Strange definition of kind you have - merely not beating him would have sufficed.</p><p>Pft. If a drug runner decided to shoot his way out he wouldn't wait until he'd been given a stupid order and then question it, he'd just start shooting.</p><p>These are all just pointless excuses, and pointless justifications from you, for something that is at best a total fucking waste of tax money. If all you have to offer is trying to sweep things under the rug then shut the fuck up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cops do n't fuck around - it 's their life on the lineHah !
Not only is their job far safer than many others , but they 're far more likely to kill or seriously injure the person they stop than vice versa .
In the vast majority of cases they 're the only armed parties and usually are not there alone.This border guard for instance had NO reason to fear for his safety at all .
He 'd already been in the vehicle with the suspect - the very place he 'd have been knifed , etc , and was now safely back out of the vehicle .
If he had felt threatened he 'd have backed off and waited until other heavily armed guards could arrive - in seconds.I think you meant to say : " Cops fuck around when it 's only your life on the line .
" Canadian police use the exact same procedure ( keep the person in the carIt 's policy ! ?
OMFG. Well why did n't you say so ! It 's also passive aggressive .
You 've been stopped .
You need to leave your hands visible , not make any sudden movements , and now sit and wait - often ten or more minutes .
( And that 's for routine traffic stuff .
) I 'm sure they love the freedom that comes from you being afraid and sitting in your car - it gives them time for a snack , but it 's thoroughly unreasonable to say that merely getting out of your car to go talk to them is confrontational .
People have a right to question those who stop them , and can reasonably be expected to do so.It 's just another in the endless list of unknowable laws you can break and procedures you can interfere with that will be used to criminalize you.Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way , do n't be an ass.Ahh yes , because questioning orders makes you an ass.Clearly delaying laying down by a few seconds would have cost the hostages their lives - oh wait , no hostages , no urgency , no problem.Like I said , this is potentially life or death for these guys , they do n't have the luxuryAgain , pity the people with all the power , the protection , and the weapons .
Pity them because they might break a nail while beating someone.Customs agents certainly do not die at the hands of border crossers often enough to qualify it as a dangerous job .
However enough border crossers are beaten and killed without good reason ( ie , no weapons , smuggling , etc ) to qualify crossing the border as a dangerous action .
... kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get awayStrange definition of kind you have - merely not beating him would have sufficed.Pft .
If a drug runner decided to shoot his way out he would n't wait until he 'd been given a stupid order and then question it , he 'd just start shooting.These are all just pointless excuses , and pointless justifications from you , for something that is at best a total fucking waste of tax money .
If all you have to offer is trying to sweep things under the rug then shut the fuck up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cops don't fuck around - it's their life on the lineHah!
Not only is their job far safer than many others, but they're far more likely to kill or seriously injure the person they stop than vice versa.
In the vast majority of cases they're the only armed parties and usually are not there alone.This border guard for instance had NO reason to fear for his safety at all.
He'd already been in the vehicle with the suspect - the very place he'd have been knifed, etc, and was now safely back out of the vehicle.
If he had felt threatened he'd have backed off and waited until other heavily armed guards could arrive - in seconds.I think you meant to say: "Cops fuck around when it's only your life on the line.
"Canadian police use the exact same procedure (keep the person in the carIt's policy!?
OMFG. Well why didn't you say so!It's also passive aggressive.
You've been stopped.
You need to leave your hands visible, not make any sudden movements, and now sit and wait - often ten or more minutes.
(And that's for routine traffic stuff.
)I'm sure they love the freedom that comes from you being afraid and sitting in your car - it gives them time for a snack, but it's thoroughly unreasonable to say that merely getting out of your car to go talk to them is confrontational.
People have a right to question those who stop them, and can reasonably be expected to do so.It's just another in the endless list of unknowable laws you can break and procedures you can interfere with that will be used to criminalize you.Just get in the fucking car and ask why on the way, don't be an ass.Ahh yes, because questioning orders makes you an ass.Clearly delaying laying down by a few seconds would have cost the hostages their lives - oh wait, no hostages, no urgency, no problem.Like I said, this is potentially life or death for these guys, they don't have the luxuryAgain, pity the people with all the power, the protection, and the weapons.
Pity them because they might break a nail while beating someone.Customs agents certainly do not die at the hands of border crossers often enough to qualify it as a dangerous job.
However enough border crossers are beaten and killed without good reason (ie, no weapons, smuggling, etc) to qualify crossing the border as a dangerous action.
... kind to every asshole out there because one of them could be a drug-runner willing to kill a couple cops to get awayStrange definition of kind you have - merely not beating him would have sufficed.Pft.
If a drug runner decided to shoot his way out he wouldn't wait until he'd been given a stupid order and then question it, he'd just start shooting.These are all just pointless excuses, and pointless justifications from you, for something that is at best a total fucking waste of tax money.
If all you have to offer is trying to sweep things under the rug then shut the fuck up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554082</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd... the U.S. "justice" system has been fatally flawed for some time. Odd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd... the U.S. " justice " system has been fatally flawed for some time .
Odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd... the U.S. "justice" system has been fatally flawed for some time.
Odd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551926</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction <a href="http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=1186" title="rifters.com" rel="nofollow">on his blog</a> [rifters.com].</p><p> <i>It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.</i> </p><p>In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it.  <b>Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).</b> </p></div><p>The way he shut up about it, seems as if the video showed him being a total ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog [ rifters.com ] .
It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts .
In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court , but now he makes no comment on it .
Maybe the video was n't as helpful to him as he first said it would be ( or maybe there was n't any after all ) .
The way he shut up about it , seems as if the video showed him being a total ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter Watts describes in much more detail events of the trial and conviction on his blog [rifters.com].
It would be nice to know if there was some evidence besides the accounts of the officer and Watts.
In a previous blog entry Watts mentioned there was video surveillance of the incident that would be used in court, but now he makes no comment on it.
Maybe the video wasn't as helpful to him as he first said it would be (or maybe there wasn't any after all).
The way he shut up about it, seems as if the video showed him being a total ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551644</id>
	<title>don't f**k with the police!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whilst people should not be unreasonably searched leaving a country (after all, who cares?) attempting to strangle a police officer is a serious offence! (the evidence would not be in his favour; there are cameras everywhere at border patrol)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whilst people should not be unreasonably searched leaving a country ( after all , who cares ?
) attempting to strangle a police officer is a serious offence !
( the evidence would not be in his favour ; there are cameras everywhere at border patrol )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whilst people should not be unreasonably searched leaving a country (after all, who cares?
) attempting to strangle a police officer is a serious offence!
(the evidence would not be in his favour; there are cameras everywhere at border patrol)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552188</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Ryyuajnin</author>
	<datestamp>1269080160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>FYI: Assault is not attacking someone, thats battery. Assault is installing fear, the perception of possibly being attacked.

thats why you'll never hear about someone being assaulted in their sleep; attacked, maybe, but not assaulted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI : Assault is not attacking someone , thats battery .
Assault is installing fear , the perception of possibly being attacked .
thats why you 'll never hear about someone being assaulted in their sleep ; attacked , maybe , but not assaulted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI: Assault is not attacking someone, thats battery.
Assault is installing fear, the perception of possibly being attacked.
thats why you'll never hear about someone being assaulted in their sleep; attacked, maybe, but not assaulted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551760</id>
	<title>Re:yey</title>
	<author>Deus.1.01</author>
	<datestamp>1269076980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in that case are they sure it wasnt Harlan Ellison?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in that case are they sure it wasnt Harlan Ellison ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in that case are they sure it wasnt Harlan Ellison?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31590964</id>
	<title>Re:so how are you going to change the law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269346200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?</p></div><p>Hmm, perhaps after getting hit in the head a couple times, instant compliance isn't even possible much less should it be a legal requirement.  You hit me in the head a few times and then start yelling orders at me, and I'm likely to just stand there with a dumb look on my face, if I can stand at all.  I'm not sure what the jury was thinking, but from the description, he may not have had the cognizance to follow on order.</p><p>'I yelled at the infant once and he didn't comply so I maced him...."</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... paraplegic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 80 year old wheel chair bound...</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... guy with a broken spine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The jury could've determined it wasn't reasonable.  They just didn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard ? Hmm , perhaps after getting hit in the head a couple times , instant compliance is n't even possible much less should it be a legal requirement .
You hit me in the head a few times and then start yelling orders at me , and I 'm likely to just stand there with a dumb look on my face , if I can stand at all .
I 'm not sure what the jury was thinking , but from the description , he may not have had the cognizance to follow on order .
'I yelled at the infant once and he did n't comply so I maced him.... " ... paraplegic ... ... 80 year old wheel chair bound... ... guy with a broken spine ...The jury could 've determined it was n't reasonable .
They just did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Under what circumstances should someone crossing the border be permitted not to comply with instructions by a border guard?Hmm, perhaps after getting hit in the head a couple times, instant compliance isn't even possible much less should it be a legal requirement.
You hit me in the head a few times and then start yelling orders at me, and I'm likely to just stand there with a dumb look on my face, if I can stand at all.
I'm not sure what the jury was thinking, but from the description, he may not have had the cognizance to follow on order.
'I yelled at the infant once and he didn't comply so I maced him...." ... paraplegic ... ... 80 year old wheel chair bound... ... guy with a broken spine ...The jury could've determined it wasn't reasonable.
They just didn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552422</id>
	<title>Re:the facts of the case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a question that isn't intended to be loaded; I genuinely want to know what your position is. In the past, racial discrimination laws (e.g. segregation) may have made some of the morally justified actions of people of color illegal. Do you feel it is your duty to convict them if the law is thus? If not, what is fundamentally different about Mr. Watt's case? It seems to me that the jury had the opportunity to prevent further suffering of a person whose only crime followed police provocation, yet you followed the letter, and not necessarily the spirit of the law. At what point of injury do you start to consider the results of your decision as part of the decision making process?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a question that is n't intended to be loaded ; I genuinely want to know what your position is .
In the past , racial discrimination laws ( e.g .
segregation ) may have made some of the morally justified actions of people of color illegal .
Do you feel it is your duty to convict them if the law is thus ?
If not , what is fundamentally different about Mr. Watt 's case ?
It seems to me that the jury had the opportunity to prevent further suffering of a person whose only crime followed police provocation , yet you followed the letter , and not necessarily the spirit of the law .
At what point of injury do you start to consider the results of your decision as part of the decision making process ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a question that isn't intended to be loaded; I genuinely want to know what your position is.
In the past, racial discrimination laws (e.g.
segregation) may have made some of the morally justified actions of people of color illegal.
Do you feel it is your duty to convict them if the law is thus?
If not, what is fundamentally different about Mr. Watt's case?
It seems to me that the jury had the opportunity to prevent further suffering of a person whose only crime followed police provocation, yet you followed the letter, and not necessarily the spirit of the law.
At what point of injury do you start to consider the results of your decision as part of the decision making process?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</id>
	<title>Quite understandable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269075660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.</p><p>Don't worry. Soon nobody will want to go to America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American border guards are self-important scum-bags , guarding the gates of the dying empire.Do n't worry .
Soon nobody will want to go to America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American border guards are self-important scum-bags, guarding the gates of the dying empire.Don't worry.
Soon nobody will want to go to America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551750</id>
	<title>Insightful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269076920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You all should be ashamed of yourselves for modding up hateful comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551696</id>
	<title>Re:Ready 1...2...3... Rush to judgement.</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1269076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I agree. I really don't know if this is a case of they guy being an idiot or power abuse from the border guards. I need more people than these few to make my decision for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I agree .
I really do n't know if this is a case of they guy being an idiot or power abuse from the border guards .
I need more people than these few to make my decision for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I agree.
I really don't know if this is a case of they guy being an idiot or power abuse from the border guards.
I need more people than these few to make my decision for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31590964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31564446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31561256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_1923240_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31564446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31565512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552050
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553484
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555056
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31561256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552012
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31555266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31553198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31556634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31551688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31557044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_1923240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31552974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31590964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_1923240.31554140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
