Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:27 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandala View Post
Sounds like murder to me.
Stopping an attempted armed robbery is murder now? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised that it's a viewpoint here. Anything to show some equivalency between US diplomats and the criminal foreign diplomats I mentioned up-thread.

I don't read where the other motorcyclist attempted to give himself up, merely that he ran away. Or as I think Davis viewed it, "retreating to a better firing position." Anchor shooting them was poor form then, though conceivably OK these days, if he felt it was a bombing attack against him, and not a mere robbery.

It's a bad example of diplomatic immunity anyway, as Davis was held by the authorities, and released only after paying the relevant penalty.
  #52  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:36 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
You see no connection at all? Really? Or you just really need to get what I'm saying offa your little "discussion" board here. Straight Dope? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
It would be murder here, would it not? Depending of course upon one's race and socioeconomic status.

This is a warning for failure to follow a moderator's instructions. The previous instruction remains in effect. I recommend you do not continue to violate the rules of this board.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 10-07-2019 at 01:37 PM.
  #53  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:44 PM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandala View Post
The US does not waive diplomatic immunity even in cases of cold-blooded murder, so it is extremely unlikely this incident will be prosecuted. After all, it was apparently only an accident.
Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act.
  #54  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:16 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,605
She should face the penalty. After all it is only $87.50 per person killed.
  #55  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:28 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act.
Well, that, or an outcome of fatigue and living in a country where they drive on a different side of the road than you spent the last few decades driving on. That sort of wrong-side driving happens sometimes to Brits driving in drive-on-the-right countries, too. I don't know the exact circumstances of this accident so I can't say if that was a factor or not in this particular case.

Nor does it excuse anything. It's still wrong. The difference is in the motivation: carelessness, not deliberate malice. I think most of us would argue there should still be penalties, but we might allow some mitigation of the penalties assessed, particularly if the guilty party were cooperative with the legal process.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a case where no matter how much the guilty party wants to cooperate other factors (international diplomacy and powerful governments) would prevent that.

Even so - it never hurts to ask for immunity of this sort to be waived. For all we know the woman is doing that even as we speak. Or maybe not - we have no way to know.
  #56  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:42 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
I'm sure the reason it doesn't work that way is that it would be easy for a foreign government to hold sufficient leverage over a person to make them waive and travel back. The prosecuting government could say, e.g., go home, then waive and come back or we will lock up/execute all of your friends here.
A fair, and depressing, point to make.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #57  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:25 PM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,364
There really should be some mechanism whereby the UK can apply for judicial extradition in the same way that any other US citizen can be extradited,.

It would then be for the UK to provide evidence that would satisfy the US courts that this would be appropriate.

We don't know the full facts of the case, why did she do a runner having already been interviewed? I wonder if there is any possibility that she was drunk driving or under the influence of drugs because it seems one heck of an oversight on her part to forgetfully drive on the wrong side of the road - methinks there is more to this than meets the eye and that's why she has gone on the run.

The alternative is for her to be brought before US courts and prosecuted there, we already do this for certain crimes across international jurisdictions - such as for crimes against humanity.
  #58  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:30 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
This getting any airplay in the US? Because it's even knocked Brexit off the national news here. Chief Constable of Police demands suspect's return to the UK (BBC Link)



Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road. The victim came over the brow of a hill and so had no opportunity to avoid her car.

So, she has claimed diplomatic immunity and scuttled off home, which of course she can. But should the US do something? Send her back? Prosecute her at home? Give compensation to the victim's family? Stick two fingers up to them?

For reference, sentencing guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving (and I'm no lawyer), are:
Its weird cause everyone has been calling her the diplomatic wife. She has some connection with the state department, but hubby is a contractor on an airforce base.
__________________
What would Bugs Bunny say
  #59  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:41 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan View Post
Its weird cause everyone has been calling her the diplomatic wife. She has some connection with the state department, but hubby is a contractor on an airforce base.
RAF Croughton is a major comms hub. A "contractor" at a location like that - well who knows what their real job is.
  #60  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:50 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Accident? Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence. You can't just drive on the wrong side of the road and go 'oops' when you kill someone because of it. Dangerous driving is not an accident, it's a deliberate or reckless act.
A negative consequence of recklessness or negligence is an accident. I suppose it could have been a deliberate act, in which case it wasn't an accident, but that seems pretty unlikely.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-08-2019 at 01:53 AM.
  #61  
Old 10-08-2019, 01:53 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Divided by a common language indeed. 'Helping Police with their enquires', doesn't literally mean she's there spoon-feeding them important information. It's Police PR code for 'been hauled in for questioning'. She could have sat in a Police interview in total silence for all we know.
Maybe, but I've now seen several interviews with representatives of the family, and they didn't seem to want her to sit in a police interview while refusing to answer questions, they clearly wanted her to answer questions to give them closure. One of them even floated the idea of a meeting between the woman and the family. And that may well be helpful to them, but diplomatic immunity isn't really what's stopping that from happening.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-08-2019 at 01:56 AM.
  #62  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:07 AM
Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 455
Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her.

Last edited by Baboonanza; 10-08-2019 at 05:10 AM.
  #63  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:02 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,691
It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?
  #64  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:09 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboonanza View Post
Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her.
What if she did not have a choice about leaving? About the only thing a country can do with someone with diplomatic immunity who breaks the law is expel the person.

And... if the attitude it now "throw the book at her" regardless of anything else I would think that would guarantee that not only would she try to waive immunity (if she has any choice about it at all) but will never set foot in the UK ever again.

Last edited by Broomstick; 10-08-2019 at 06:10 AM.
  #65  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:11 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?
That literally is the system in place.

Quote:
Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?
Immunity applies to all actions by diplomats. There’s been cases of diplomats literally engaging in murder and not being prosecuted (like the Libyan who shot a London cop from the window of his embassy in the early 1980s). A diplomat is someone that the receiving country approves to be in their country and enjoy immunity. Countries can’t just send diplomats into a country to enjoy immunity without the approval of the receiving country.
  #66  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:14 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?
For a quite primer on diplomatic immunity, from ancient history to the treaty setting up the modern system with a detour into abuses and problems check out this wiki

I think part of the problem is that there are people/cultures in this world who see nothing wrong with exploiting others, abusing employees/servants, sexually molesting those with less power, and/or are amoral people who, with no threat of penalty over their heads, can't behave themselves in a civilized manner. If the country issuing the diplomatic credentials reins them in that helps reduce the abuses, but if the issuing nation doesn't, well, it's very ugly.

Last edited by Broomstick; 10-08-2019 at 06:17 AM.
  #67  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:25 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboonanza View Post
Honestly I think she would have got off reasonably lightly had she stayed in the country and shown adequate contrition on the basis that while it is dangerous driving it's obviously a mistake anyone could make. Now if they can get her back they should throw the book at her.
I think you're underplaying the crime of Dangerous Driving. We have lesser driving offences, such as 'Careless or Inconsiderate Driving', because of course people have momentary lapses in concentration. But there's no getting away from the fact that driving is a responsibility, and driving for several hundred yards on the wrong side of the road falls short of the standard we expect of all drivers, as stipulated by the Crown Prosecution Srvice:

Quote:
The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous – section 2A of the RTA 1988.
Whether that act is caused by maliciousness, or falling far short of the concentration levels we expect of someone driving a dangerous weapon, is neither here nor there.

Last edited by SanVito; 10-08-2019 at 06:25 AM.
  #68  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:59 AM
Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
What if she did not have a choice about leaving? About the only thing a country can do with someone with diplomatic immunity who breaks the law is expel the person.
That's conjecture, there is no evidence that she was forced to leave by the UK authorities though I would expect any lawyer would probably have told her to leave ASAP.

Quote:
And... if the attitude it now "throw the book at her" regardless of anything else I would think that would guarantee that not only would she try to waive immunity (if she has any choice about it at all) but will never set foot in the UK ever again.
Perhaps, but she did essentially flee the country after a crime. If she comes back willingly I would expect that to be considered but why should the courts treat her any differently from another criminal who flees prosecution (beside the political implications)?.
  #69  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:31 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
One problem with this whole situation is that none of us actually know all the details. There does seem to be rising anger at this woman (who, yes, does bear some guilt as far as I can tell) that really should be directed at a system, that is, diplomatic immunity and its potential abuses. "Throwing the book at" this woman due to anger at that system is not going to change that system.
  #70  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:40 AM
Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
One problem with this whole situation is that none of us actually know all the details. There does seem to be rising anger at this woman (who, yes, does bear some guilt as far as I can tell) that really should be directed at a system, that is, diplomatic immunity and its potential abuses. "Throwing the book at" this woman due to anger at that system is not going to change that system.
That's a valid point. I would say that just because a system can be abused doesn't mean it has to be abused.

If the woman had stayed in the country to make herself available to the police she likely would still have escaped prosecution and there wouldn't be this outcry. That would have been a more debatable 'abuse' that could be put aside by most people as just the way things are sometimes. Leaving the country is a lot more provocative.

Last edited by Baboonanza; 10-08-2019 at 08:40 AM.
  #71  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:07 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baboonanza View Post
If the woman had stayed in the country to make herself available to the police she likely would still have escaped prosecution and there wouldn't be this outcry.
She would have escaped prosecution no matter what; she had diplomatic immunity at the time of the crime. There's literally nothing the police can do unless the US government waives it. She could have stayed and answered more questions, but she was never going to be charged.
  #72  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:44 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting?
  #73  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:56 AM
Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting?
As you say, we don't have all the facts. If she was ordered back I think it was the wrong decision yes but obviously I can't blame her for following orders.

It's important that this didn't happen in Russia or another nation inimicable to the US, it happened in the UK, a close ally, and should have been handled in a more sensitive manner.

Having said all that, if I was in her position I might have buggered off too. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
  #74  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:01 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
Driving on the wrong side of the road is classed as 'Dangerous driving', a serious criminal offence.
And yet y'all have been doing it for decades.
  #75  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:25 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,784
Harry Dunn death: Anne Sacoolas's husband 'not registered as diplomat'

But...

Quote:
US staff, including civilian staff and their dependents, at designated military bases in the UK, including RAF Croughton, are protected under the Visiting Forces Act 1952, reinforced by further legislation in 1964. They are able to claim some legal immunity in the UK.

Broadly, UK courts do not have primary jurisdiction where the offence “arose out of and in the course of the service personnel’s duties as a member of the visiting force”. At issue is the definition of the phrase “course of duty”.

The US air force as a matter of principle maintains that its service personnel remain on duty while travelling between their base station and home address. This might cover Anne Sacoolas’s intended destination.

If this was the case, the US would produce a section 11 legal certificate stating an individual had immunity from prosecution in UK courts.

However, CPS guidance on the issue of service personnel on UK roads states: “Such cases should be looked at carefully to see if this is sustainable. In appropriate cases where evidence to rebut this status is available (eg a long break in the journey/significant diversion from most direct route) consideration should be given to challenging a section 11 certificate issued by the service authority.”

The visiting force then has to produce a certificate setting out why the individual was carrying out professional duties. Normally a waiver is issued, but on the condition of a commitment that the individual will be tried in their own national court.
  #76  
Old 10-08-2019, 11:42 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
The thing is, recalling such a diplomat post-crime to the country of origin is standard operating procedure world-wide - a recall done by the diplomat's country. If she was ordered to return to the US should she have disobeyed her home country? Is that what you're expecting/wanting?
It's certainly not what I was expecting. If you read my OP, I was more interested in the US response, given this was an offence committed in the country of a strong ally.
  #77  
Old 10-08-2019, 02:52 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,180
Well... it's certainly getting airplay on TV.... hard to say what the "US response" is. I can tell you what MY response is, but I wouldn't extrapolate it to everyone else in the country.
  #78  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:53 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 86,232
Yes, it's getting some coverage over here. Prime Minister Johnson has said he'll ask President Trump directly to waive extradition: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/w...s-suspect.html

I think we should send her back. Waiving extradition would show that the US considers itself bound by the rule of law and will not always be the one demanding extradition from other countries (maybe we could trade her for Julian Assange?). The UK has respected, fair and independent courts in which she would get a fair trial. The UK is an invaluable ally of the US. Trump seems to really admire BoJo.

So of course the US will refuse extradition.
  #79  
Old 10-08-2019, 06:40 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
It just seems ridiculous that the system could be set up this way. Why would you set it up where some people are completely above the law, and thus incentivize those who want to break the law to become diplomats? Why wouldn't it be more discretionary, with the diplomat's country choosing whether or not to extradite based on the alleged crime and the evidence given?

This still gets rid of the major problems of either retaliation or horrible laws, but doesn't let the diplomat get away with these horrible acts.

Plus, how far does this extend? What counts as a diplomat?
The system is in place because world peace demands we have diplomats--actual people on the ground who can speak for their government. Civilians. But it's a really fucking dangerous job. Maybe not in the UK, but in lots of times and places, being a diplomat meant risking waking up one morning the legal representative of a nation that you was at war with the nation you are currently living in.

Diplomats need the security of extraordinary protections. I mean, seriously, if you were from a Muslim-majority country and assigned to be a diplomat in the US, would you be totally sanguine that Trump wouldn't have you or your wife or your kid arrested on bullshit charges if he was unhappy with your government? I wouldn't.
  #80  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:31 PM
mandala's Avatar
mandala is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Diamond City, Zeta Prime
Posts: 600
I think the entire system is meant to facilitate nations to spy upon each other in relatively controlled settings. If the US and the former USSR had dispensed with diplomatic immunity for each others' diplomats during the Cold War, a lot of them would have been killed or arrested, and the nations could have spiraled into war. It's a sort of pressure release mechanism. The US stations CIA Station Chiefs in countries of interest; were it not for diplomatic immunity, which country will tolerate that?

The UK has played this game too long and too well to not know that the US does not make exceptions to this policy.
__________________
I think, therefore I am... I think
  #81  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:42 PM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,798
Bricker's staff report on Diplomatic Immunity.


First and foremost, the diplomat is still covered by the laws of his home country, and may be prosecuted under those laws for any crimes he commits in the host country .... To emphasize, under no circumstances is the diplomat free from all legal constraints: even if his host country can’t get him, his home country always can.


So, USA probably won't waive immunity for her, but possibly could prosecute her themselves. I hope this is what happens, but somehow I doubt it.

Last edited by Peter Morris; 10-08-2019 at 08:42 PM.
  #82  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:10 PM
bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,705
This case might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_S...lomat_incident

Romanian diplomat kills pedestrians in Singapore, gets tried and convicted in Romania, dies in prison
  #83  
Old 10-09-2019, 05:40 AM
MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengangmo View Post
This case might be instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_S...lomat_incident

Romanian diplomat kills pedestrians in Singapore, gets tried and convicted in Romania, dies in prison
Yep.

Here is what SHOULD happen:
She should be tried (and almost certainly convicted) on two charges:
1) Negligent homicide.
2) Making a false police statement. She did, in writing, confirm that she would not be leaving the UK. Then, with no notice, she just upped and left.
  #84  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:27 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
If she signed some promise to return, that could be a charge but I have a hard time believing an unfulfilled promise is "giving a false police statement".
  #85  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:51 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,907
Yeah, it would be reasonable to try her for negligent homicide, but I can't see a charge of "making false statements to police".
  #86  
Old 10-09-2019, 10:15 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,961
This is starting to remind me of a long-ago crazy ex-girlfriend: “It’s not that you killed somebody — I’m mad that you lied about it!!

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-09-2019 at 10:15 AM.
  #87  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
(maybe we could trade her for Julian Assange?). [...] Trump seems to really admire BoJo.
And here is a great reason why the US should just stick with established policy. You may think a prisoner exchange to help out Johnson and Trump's approval ratings is a good idea but I don't.
  #88  
Old 10-09-2019, 01:30 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox View Post
Yep.

Here is what SHOULD happen:
She should be tried (and almost certainly convicted) on two charges:
1) Negligent homicide.
2) Making a false police statement. She did, in writing, confirm that she would not be leaving the UK. Then, with no notice, she just upped and left.
"Making a false police statement" means falsely accusing someone else of a crime, not just saying something to the police that isn't true. In England and Wales, it can also mean falsely claiming to have knowledge relevant to a crime.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #89  
Old 10-09-2019, 01:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
...

Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road. The victim came over the brow of a hill and so had no opportunity to avoid her car.

So, she has claimed diplomatic immunity and scuttled off home, which of course she can. But should the US do something? Send her back? Prosecute her at home? ...
I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

She will likely lose her job. And the USA should write a check.
  #90  
Old 10-09-2019, 01:55 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,302
I can't believe the fuss over this matter, when there's such a simple and effective way of dealing with it.
  #91  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:18 PM
Manda JO is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Bricker's staff report on Diplomatic Immunity.


First and foremost, the diplomat is still covered by the laws of his home country, and may be prosecuted under those laws for any crimes he commits in the host country .... To emphasize, under no circumstances is the diplomat free from all legal constraints: even if his host country can’t get him, his home country always can.


So, USA probably won't waive immunity for her, but possibly could prosecute her themselves. I hope this is what happens, but somehow I doubt it.
Could they though? What federal law did she break? Can she be prosecuted by her home state?
  #92  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:46 PM
casdave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,364
Quote:
I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.
You need to look up the term 'reasonably forseeable' when you consider negligence, negligence can be plenty criminal especially when evaluating the balance between cost, and sacrifice vs the need to ensure the safety of people. There are many cases of negligence that result in death and prison, and thats why courts will determine when this should be the case

How do you know this was an accident?

Do you know if she had any substances in her?

Do you know if she was speeding?

Do you know if she had a driving licence and insurance?

Do you know if she was fit to drive without glasses?

Do you know if she has been given other police warnings for poor driving or speeding?

Do you know if she was using her mobile phone?

In other words, it is not for your personal opinion to judge if an incident is actually an accident, do you believe that we in the UK are somehow not capable of determining this for ourselves and acting accordingly?

We do not pass and enact specific legislation in order to please you, neither does the USA do the same for us, however its reasonable to imagine that we have enough principle in common to have largely similar expectations of our respective legal systems, your criticism of the UK criminal justice system is at the very least uninformed and patronising, its as if you believe we are some third world podunk nation that is unable to meet your exacting requirements

Last edited by casdave; 10-09-2019 at 02:50 PM.
  #93  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:57 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.
Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #94  
Old 10-09-2019, 03:46 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.
Was there some nefarious purpose behind driving on the wrong side of the road? I doubt she was intending to hurt someone or was deliberately driving on the wrong side for thrills.

I'm ok with people being imprisoned for egregious negligence such as this, but I'd still use the word to describe the crash, rather than force fit the circumstance to a different word.
  #95  
Old 10-09-2019, 03:57 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.
I may have missed something -- was this woman driving on the wrong side of the road for miles? The only thing I saw with specifics of the accident was that it was 400 yards from the base, and the innocent young man just came around a bend when he was struck. I just assumed from that description that the woman had exited the base and driven for a short distance (and of course I have no idea why she would be driving on the wrong side of the road, whether it was her first time on a British road, if she was overtaking someone, if she was intoxicated, or whatever -- I 'm not inclined to guess why).
  #96  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:15 PM
TruCelt's Avatar
TruCelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 11,573
In Washington, DC, when something happens to a car while it's under the care of a valet parking service, the valet employees are instructed to say that the damage was done by a car with diplomat tags. The police come, they write down the damage, and as soon as they hear "Diplomat Tags" they tear off the sheet and good luck even getting a report for your insurance company. This happened to me in the late 90's.

Nobody bothers to write a ticket or tow a car with diplomat tags.

Whatever our frustration with the process, it is steeped in necessity and is by no means a mere job benefit. The vast majority of the diplomats and their families take their behavior here very seriously, and treat everyone with the utmost respect.

While no one can give them their son back, I'm certain that the US will reimburse them for whatever damages can be justified under UK law. And I'm certain they will receive the profoundest apologies that this diplomat and his wife can present.

But the US President's current "Investigate 'em!!" approach to political maneuvering should be all that is needed to defend the necessity of diplomatic immunity.
  #97  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:18 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.
"Reports say she was driving for some distance on the wrong side of the road." I don't know if "some distance" constitutes feet, miles, or furlongs.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #98  
Old 10-09-2019, 06:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Driving for miles on the wrong side of the road is more than simple negligence.
Well, everyone in Britain does it all the time!

Did she mean or want to hurt or kill anyone? Did she have any criminal intent?

If the answer is no, then no jail.
  #99  
Old 10-09-2019, 08:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I may have missed something -- was this woman driving on the wrong side of the road for miles? The only thing I saw with specifics of the accident was that it was 400 yards from the base, and the innocent young man just came around a bend when he was struck. I just assumed from that description that the woman had exited the base and driven for a short distance (and of course I have no idea why she would be driving on the wrong side of the road, whether it was her first time on a British road, if she was overtaking someone, if she was intoxicated, or whatever -- I 'm not inclined to guess why).
Please god someone tell me they drive on the left in the base even though it's American.
  #100  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:50 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.

She will likely lose her job. And the USA should write a check.
You don't think dangerous driving is criminal? This wasn't a momentary lapse of concentration
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017