“Exactly what false assertions have I made? Be specific.”

That you know the facts of the case. As I have mentioned before. What you know is what each side has reported, which may or may not be accurate. Again, that’s for a judge or jury to decide.

Please learn to differentiate between what you think happened, and your opinions therein, which you’re perfectly entitled to have, and what actually happened, which you don’t know, and can’t know, and look a bit foolish for continuing to maintain that you do. If you can’t actually do this, you can go ahead and move on from this thread.

Update: Actually, now that I think of it, I am sort of fed up with people on either side masticating this event; there’s nothing new being said, nor is there anything new to be said until Peter gets his court date. Also, this is a friend of mine, and I’m tired of smug jackasses who don’t know a thing about him running him down for sport on my site. So I’m closing the thread.

If there’s a tape, it’d be interesting, but I’m going to be very surprised if it’s useful at all, let alone definitive. Remember, it was an exit search. You have to wonder where the cameras would be to begin with. Is there even a regular lane for these things, or to they just motion people over to the side in no dedicated (and videotaped) space?

If the tape isn’t useful, then it’ll be Watts’s word against that of a bunch of Michigan cops, with the trial behind held in Port Huron. Peter, I’m not even your buddy, but I really do think it’s in your best interest to settle this one.

If the two opposing sides agree on a point, can’t we safely assume that it’s a fact? In this case, both sides agree on almost all of the salient points, including the most important one, the matter of resisting arrest. The only things that are really missing are:

1. Peter Watts’s justification for not returning to his vehicle, as directed

2. Why Peter Watts was outside of his vehicle to begin with.

3. What was said at the very beginning of the incident, i.e., when the cops pulled him aside, what they told him.

Those are interesting points to those of us who are focusing on this, but they don’t bear on Watts’s guilt, which he has already admitted with respect to resisting arrest. They only bear on the degree of his offense.

As for “speculation,” I’ve speculated on only one thing here, and it was a side issue. It was when I wrote, “I am sure Watts’s lawyer will be advising him to cut a deal with the D.A., given that he’s admitted the charge.” I think that’s a pretty reasonable speculation, given the underlying facts, but it is indeed a speculation. I haven’t speculated as to any of the facts of the case.

Others in this thread have, though. In particular, more than one poster has alleged that Watts was “beaten” for merely getting out of his car and asking a question, and/or for not being completely “obsequious,” when in fact both the police report and Watts’s own account make clear that the officers used force only after Watts resisted arrest.

Interestingly enough, John, you were nowhere to be seen objecting to those particular speculations. You see, speculation from your fellow Watts supporters is one thing. Speculation from someone who regards Watts and his supporters as immature, tendentious, unthinking, tribal fools fundamentally no different than the Bush-Palin crowd is quite another.

One more point: Labeling your opponent a “troll” before banning him is a tired Internet trick. If you’re going to pull the electronic plug here, I hope you’ll reach higher. I’m not a troll. I merely disagree with you. I am making points that you’ve been unable to counter, and when that happens you’ve pulled the old standby out of the kit bag, “He’s a troll.”

If there’s a trial in this case, I wonder if the police will say that Watts was “trolling” them.

“It’s simply not true that I don’t know the facts of the case.”

It simply is. What you know are what people have said about the events, publicly, which is not the same thing. These are not the same as the facts of the case. That’s up for a judge or jury to determine.

Now, please stop asserting that you know what you in fact do not know.

There are a few interesting questions left, but their main value is to determine how harshly he ought to be punished. In legal terms, I am sure Watts’s lawyer will be advising him to cut a deal with the D.A., given that he’s admitted the charge.

That’s one of the oddities in all of this. You say Watts is “innocent,” but it’s not so. He says he pulled away from the officer as that officer tried to handcuff him. That’s a form of resisting arrest, my friend. In the narrow sense, his goose is cooked, and the only question is to what temperature.

The way these things usually go is that if the defendant agrees to a reduced charge, i.e., a misdemeanor, it’ll end there. But if Watts prolongs this and forces the D.A. to get tapes and arrange witnesses and spend money, they’ll go after him on the felony rap.

Peter, my own lack of sympathy aside, you don’t want a felony rap, and I doubt the other side does either. It’ll keep you out of the U.S. forever, except (if it gets really ridiculous) to serve some time in a Michigan correctional facility. (I don’t know if it’d be jail or prison.)

I wonder if they still have the rental car. Sheesh, that’d be a bitch, wouldn’t it? He was arrested on the 8th, and now it’s the 19th. That’s 11 days of excess rental charges, and counting. Pete, I hope it was worth it, ’cause this one’s gonna cost ya.

“John, you are showing your true colors.”

Yes. I’m suggesting that everyone under the law is innocent until proven guilty, and that I don’t know the facts of the event, so I won’t bother to speculate about it.

I don’t really have a problem with that.

JJMan, again, you know nothing of the facts of the case either, and you don’t actually appear to have anything to contribute aside from an intent to troll. I don’t care what anyone else is doing on any other site, but I do generally take a dim view of trolling here.

If that’s all you plan to do, you can go ahead and move on.

Trust me, you are not alone. This happens on right-wing websites too. Try going to FreeRepublic and arguing that the U.S. has been torturing detainees. Try going to one of the sites maintained by Watts and his friends and arguing that Watts was wrong.

The same thing will eventually happen in both instances. I’m telling ya, you’ve got one hell of a lot more in common with those people than you are willing to admit.

The fact of the matter is that you don’t know the facts of the case any more than the rest of us, and what you term as “plainly visible” is not.

As you don’t in fact know the facts of the case, all the rest of your suggestions/opinion/assessment is merely your speculation founded on your own biases.

My own bias in this case is counter to yours; in either case, however, what Mr. Watts should to is get good legal counsel and then listen to it. To impugn him for doing anything but that, especially when you don’t in fact know the truth of the matter, is a bit silly.

Now, unless you have anything to say that based on anything but your own speculation, wrap it up, please.

I think we can stipulate that both of them have friends. Which, by the way, is irrelevant anyway. If either or both of them were friendless, this wouldn’t invalidate either story. All that matters here is facts and logic. The rest is tribalism, emotion, and prejudice.