Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:38 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,768

US diplomat's wife kills UK teenager, claims diplomatic immunity


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)

Quote:
A chief constable has written to the US Embassy in London demanding the return of an American diplomat's wife who is a suspect in a fatal crash inquiry.
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:

Quote:
i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment (previously 18 months);
ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment (previously 3 years);
iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment (previously 5 years);
iv) Most serious culpability – seven to fourteen years' imprisonment (previous starting point of 6 years).
  #2  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:26 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,279
Generally, as I understand it, the US doesn't waive immunity even in clear-cut cases like this, as a matter of principle. So odds are slim she'll be extradited.
  #3  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:43 AM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Generally, as I understand it, the US doesn't waive immunity even in clear-cut cases like this, as a matter of principle. So odds are slim she'll be extradited.

We are an exceptional people after all, why we kill across the planet, this is just what we do.
  #4  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:58 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
We are an exceptional people after all, why we kill across the planet, this is just what we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
Yes, but we don't even deal with/call out/prosecute our own war criminals but rather recycle them back into governmental positions and TV punditry to push for ever more war across the globe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
"(perhaps flawed)? Definitely gaslighting. We can't even ID our own corruption any more.

"With the current administration? Who the hell knows?"

Oh its bound to come out against this sort of thing taking a principled stand against kleptocracy and kakistocracy.
All of your posts in this thread have been off topic, and seemingly steering towards what seems to be your preferred topic. You're welcome to discuss that, in an appropriate thread. This is not that thread.

Do no post in this thread again.

[/moderating]
  #5  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:01 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
All of your posts in this thread have been off topic, and seemingly steering towards what seems to be your preferred topic. You're welcome to discuss that, in an appropriate thread. This is not that thread.

Do no post in this thread again.

[/moderating]
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?

And anyway, here's the full post you can't handle:

Quote:
"(perhaps flawed)"?
Definitely gaslighting. We can't even ID our own corruption any more.

Quote:
"With the current administration? Who the hell knows?"
Oh its bound to come out against this sort of thing taking a principled stand against kleptocracy and kakistocracy, don't you think?

Quote:
"All the US government has to do is mutter about "national security" or "national interests" and all hands are tied."
We the people's hands are never tied unless we refuse to challenge authority with all of our fweedumb. Just as the ruling aristocracy gets away with Jeffie Epstein's pimping to its penchant for pedophilia, so can they skate on this as we do nothing but watch and post and feel oh so sorry someone died; here, have some thoughts and prayers. La dee dah, another day in america.

Last edited by Fentoine Lum; 10-07-2019 at 12:03 PM.
  #6  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:36 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883

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 12:37 PM.
  #7  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:09 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
I doubt she'll be extradited but she deserves to be labelled as a cowardly shit for not even helping the police and the family with the enquiry.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #8  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:52 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
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)
Yes, yes it is. I've been hearing about this for days on both TV and radio news. Oddly, does not seem reflect in the print press, at least not on page one.

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? Give compensation to the victim's family? Stick two fingers up to them?
I usually hear about this from the other side: a foreign diplomat killing or raping someone in the US. Now, I in no way endorse or excuse any of this, but generally what happened is exactly what occurred here - the offender zips off back home and the victim(s)/heirs get nothing and no justice. Apparently, this is the norm world wide. Here's a short list of various offense perpetrated by diplomats from several different nations. Here is a somewhat longer list in Wikipedia

I note that the parents of the deceased have attempted to appeal to President Trump, and I'd love to be proved wrong on this, but Trump doesn't give a {deleted} about anyone but himself and has a legendary distrust and contempt for foreigners. I think he's more likely to further shield the woman than to turn her over to British authorities.

It is my understanding that a person can not voluntary waive immunity for themselves so it's not so much she is claiming immunity as the US is asserting immunity for her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
I doubt she'll be extradited but she deserves to be labelled as a cowardly shit for not even helping the police and the family with the enquiry.
In fact, she did initially cooperate with British authorities, answered questions, attending a meeting with them, and so forth as reported in UK media - it looks like Northamptonshire Police Superintendent Sarah Johnson is the original source of those statements. It may be that the woman in question wanted to stay in the UK and help with the inquiry but the US decided to bring her home. Characterizing her as a "cowardly shit" is an understandable emotional reaction but in this case may be in error. It appears that initially she did do what both of us consider the right thing - cooperate with police - but the US government overruled that impulse. Which, again, is usually what happens world-wide in such circumstances.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Dunn's parents and family, but given past history I don't hold out much hope for them bringing the woman back to the UK to face an inquiry and/or penalty.

Last edited by Broomstick; 10-07-2019 at 04:54 AM.
  #9  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:42 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It may be that the woman in question wanted to stay in the UK and help with the inquiry but the US decided to bring her home. Characterizing her as a "cowardly shit" is an understandable emotional reaction but in this case may be in error.
Well if her moral character is as it should be I assume that she'll be seeking to return to the UK as a private citizen as soon as possible and help the police with their enquiries.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #10  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:41 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
Well if her moral character is as it should be I assume that she'll be seeking to return to the UK as a private citizen as soon as possible and help the police with their enquiries.
Enquiries? Is there any question about what happened?
  #11  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:00 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Enquiries? Is there any question about what happened?
'Helping the Police with their enquiries' is a turn of phrase, whilst the crime is being investigated and no one has yet been charged.
  #12  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:11 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,584
Given that she's clearly a criminal suspect, hasn't she already greatly exceeded her obligations in these "enquiries"? Even if she was a British citizen with roots predating the Norman conquest, presumably she would not have been obligated to help the police incriminate her.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-07-2019 at 08:13 AM.
  #13  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:19 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
LOL. Hyper-nationalists? Nation States rarely waive immunity.
While your second statement is true - nation states rarely waive immunity - the first is also true of the US at this time. The Trump administration is more hostile towards foreign nations in general (rather than opposing specific nations) than I can remember the US being in a long, long time. That makes the current US government even less likely to waive immunity than would normally be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
And if we had a full accounting of the swept under the rug crimes and misdemeanors committed by UK diplomats and family in the USA the outrage would dissipate quickly.
Whataboutery and tu quoque assertions will help no one and nothing in this instance. ALL countries have a history of misbehaving diplomat's & family using and abusing diplomatic immunity to evade consequences for their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
She's not the diplomat though and she's not on official business. Is she now not free to leave the country?
Diplomatic immunity extends to the families of diplomats as well as the diplomats themselves. She has diplomatic immunity. She can't remove it. Even if she did go to the UK as a "private citizen" she would STILL have diplomatic immunity whether she wants it or not and the US government is going to have a fit if the UK tries to prosecute her, perhaps even if they merely interview her or allow the police to interact with her and, the UK wanting to preserve its own diplomatic immunity privilege for its own diplomats and their families, are not going to allow that. Most likely, if she did arrive in the UK the UK authorities would just put her on an airplane going back to the US as soon as possible. However much Mr. Dunn's family and/or the Northhampshire police want to pursue this, it is not in the best interest of the upper level UK government to allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
Waving immunity sets what would undoubtedly be a very uncomfortable precedent because a decision like that is purely subjective. "When", "what", and "how bad" become blurry lines. It also leaves open the possibility of foul play. For example, you are a diplomat in my country and, for some reason, I want to punish you or the nation you represent, I could simply trump up charges and demand to put you on trial. I don't see how any diplomat could ever feel safe or protected again.
... and that is WHY diplomatic immunity exists. It's not for the benefit of those guilty of crimes, but rather for the much larger group that are innocent of wrong-doing.

Which makes circumstances such as prompted this thread no less distressing.
  #14  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:36 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 24,761
It's horrific, but what are you going to do? The treaties that prevent this woman from paying for her crime are the same treaties that prevent the Saudis from arresting her for going outdoors without a male escort. It's a deeply imperfect system, but it's better than the alternative.
  #15  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:01 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
It's horrific, but what are you going to do? The treaties that prevent this woman from paying for her crime are the same treaties that prevent the Saudis from arresting her for going outdoors without a male escort. It's a deeply imperfect system, but it's better than the alternative.
More to the point, it stops Trump or who from arresting the spouse of a diplomat purely as a retaliatory move. It's not just about different laws, it's about protecting people in pretty precarious situations.
  #16  
Old 10-07-2019, 05:56 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
I don't think you understand - it is not her decision. As a diplomat's wife it is the US government that decides whether or not she has diplomatic immunity, not her. ONLY if the US government waives immunity can do do what you suggest. If the US government doesn't waive immunity it is not her choice and "as soon as possible" will be never regardless of how much she may or may not want to cooperate.

Last edited by Broomstick; 10-07-2019 at 05:56 AM.
  #17  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:08 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I don't think you understand - it is not her decision. As a diplomat's wife it is the US government that decides whether or not she has diplomatic immunity, not her. ONLY if the US government waives immunity can do do what you suggest. If the US government doesn't waive immunity it is not her choice and "as soon as possible" will be never regardless of how much she may or may not want to cooperate.
Would she be prevented from cooperating remotely (email, video call, etc.)?
  #18  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:21 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I don't think you understand - it is not her decision. As a diplomat's wife it is the US government that decides whether or not she has diplomatic immunity, not her. ONLY if the US government waives immunity can do do what you suggest. If the US government doesn't waive immunity it is not her choice and "as soon as possible" will be never regardless of how much she may or may not want to cooperate.
So the USA will prevent her from travelling to the UK as a private citizen?
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #19  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:42 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
I don't think you understand - it is not her decision. As a diplomat's wife it is the US government that decides whether or not she has diplomatic immunity, not her. ONLY if the US government waives immunity can do do what you suggest. If the US government doesn't waive immunity it is not her choice and "as soon as possible" will be never regardless of how much she may or may not want to cooperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Would she be prevented from cooperating remotely (email, video call, etc.)?
It is my understanding that the US government could, indeed, forbid that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
So the USA will prevent her from travelling to the UK as a private citizen?
If she's the family member of a diplomat my (perhaps flawed) understanding is that yes, the US government could do that. Having a diplomat's family member tried in a foreign court against the wishes of the US is not a precedent the US wants to have set. (To be fair, no nation wants that precedent set, that's the whole point behind diplomatic immunity in the first place). All the US government has to do is mutter about "national security" or "national interests" and all hands are tied.

Now - will the US government do that? No way to know. Prior administrations might have waive immunity in such a case where the guilty party wants to cooperate with foreign law enforcement but it's always the government's call. Doing so has some precedent, but requires both governments to agree with waiver of immunity prior to any legal investigation or proceedings to go forward.

With the current administration? Who the hell knows? My gut feeling is that no, immunity will not be waived in this or any other case while we have hyper-nationalists in charge.

I'm sorry - a young man has died, I don't think his family is going to get any sort of closure, and it's a double shame in that the woman in question seemed willing to cooperate with the Northhampshire police. Then the US government got involved and recalled her back to the US.
  #20  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:49 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post

With the current administration? Who the hell knows? My gut feeling is that no, immunity will not be waived in this or any other case while we have hyper-nationalists in charge.
LOL. Hyper-nationalists? Nation States rarely waive immunity. And if we had a full accounting of the swept under the rug crimes and misdemeanors committed by UK diplomats and family in the USA the outrage would dissipate quickly.

The UK is simply deflecting attention away from their Brexit nightmare.

Last edited by madsircool; 10-07-2019 at 06:50 AM.
  #21  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:56 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
LOL. Hyper-nationalists? Nation States rarely waive immunity. And if we had a full accounting of the swept under the rug crimes and misdemeanors committed by UK diplomats and family the outrage would dissipate quickly.
What nonsense. Reverse the events in terms of nationality and location and my outrage would be no less. In fact it would probably be even more. A serious crime such as this should not protected by diplomatic immunity.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #22  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:49 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
If she's the family member of a diplomat my (perhaps flawed) understanding is that yes, the US government could do that.
She's not the diplomat though and she's not on official business. Is she now not free to leave the country?
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #23  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:05 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
She's not the diplomat though and she's not on official business. Is she now not free to leave the country?
The US Government can certainly place a hold upon just about anyone and prevent them from leaving the country legally.
  #24  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:50 AM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
It is my understanding that the US government could, indeed, forbid that.


If she's the family member of a diplomat my (perhaps flawed) understanding is that yes, the US government could do that. Having a diplomat's family member tried in a foreign court against the wishes of the US is not a precedent the US wants to have set. (To be fair, no nation wants that precedent set, that's the whole point behind diplomatic immunity in the first place). All the US government has to do is mutter about "national security" or "national interests" and all hands are tied.

Now - will the US government do that? No way to know. Prior administrations might have waive immunity in such a case where the guilty party wants to cooperate with foreign law enforcement but it's always the government's call. Doing so has some precedent, but requires both governments to agree with waiver of immunity prior to any legal investigation or proceedings to go forward.

With the current administration? Who the hell knows? My gut feeling is that no, immunity will not be waived in this or any other case while we have hyper-nationalists in charge.

I'm sorry - a young man has died, I don't think his family is going to get any sort of closure, and it's a double shame in that the woman in question seemed willing to cooperate with the Northhampshire police. Then the US government got involved and recalled her back to the US.
"(perhaps flawed)? Definitely gaslighting. We can't even ID our own corruption any more.

"With the current administration? Who the hell knows?"

Oh its bound to come out against this sort of thing taking a principled stand against kleptocracy and kakistocracy.
  #25  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:53 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
So the USA will prevent her from travelling to the UK as a private citizen?
To my understanding, it doesn’t matter. As a matter of both US and UK law, her irresponsible actions are covered by immunity regardless of whether she travels back to the UK on her own. Since the UK is a party to the treaty that says she can’t be prosecuted for her actions, what exactly do you expect the UK to do if she did return? Violate its own laws in order to prosecute her?

For the record, I think in a case of such a serious matter occurring in a country with a fair and respectable legal system, I think the US ought to waive immunity in this case.
  #26  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:12 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
To my understanding, it doesn’t matter. As a matter of both US and UK law, her irresponsible actions are covered by immunity regardless of whether she travels back to the UK on her own. Since the UK is a party to the treaty that says she can’t be prosecuted for her actions, what exactly do you expect the UK to do if she did return? Violate its own laws in order to prosecute her?
If she voluntarily, and as a private citizen, returned the UK then would diplomatic immunity still hold if she was not travelling on a diplomatic visa?
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #27  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:21 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
If she voluntarily, and as a private citizen, returned the UK then would diplomatic immunity still hold if she was not travelling on a diplomatic visa?
Yes.

Only the government issuing diplomatic immunity can revoke it.

She can not shed diplomatic immunity on her own. She has it, whether or not she wants it.
  #28  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:18 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,219
In incidents like this (agreed crime in both friendly countries) the immunity is commonly removed or the person is tried in a foreign court but serves (and sometimes not serves) in their jurisdiction.

Last edited by orcenio; 10-07-2019 at 06:23 AM.
  #29  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:37 AM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,662
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:
https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/why-di...y-with-murder/

The people of NYC deal with this and worse all the time. Save your outrage for the diplomatic system that allows it.
  #30  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:51 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
https://nypost.com/2017/10/11/why-di...y-with-murder/

The people of NYC deal with this and worse all the time. Save your outrage for the diplomatic system that allows it.
While criminal, none of those examples are crimes resulting in death.
  #31  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:56 AM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
While criminal, none of those examples are crimes resulting in death.
Look deeper. You'll find a bunch of assaults, rapes, intoxication manslaughter offenses---hell, maybe even a murder or two---committed by diplomats in NYC and DC. Vast majority are PNG'd back to their home country. It looks like the US diplomat's wife just cut out the middleman, and PNG'd herself.

Horrible thing for the victim's family in the UK. Perhaps the US could provide some form of compensation to his family?
  #32  
Old 10-17-2019, 03:05 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcenio View Post
While criminal, none of those examples are crimes resulting in death.
But they ARE on purpose. Which do you feel should receive a harsher punishment: Someone who kills someone in what is 100% an accident (if she was, say, drunk, that'd be absolutely different), or someone who routinely beats their wife so hard they end up hospitalized?
  #33  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:06 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,266
Waving immunity sets what would undoubtedly be a very uncomfortable precedent because a decision like that is purely subjective. "When", "what", and "how bad" become blurry lines. It also leaves open the possibility of foul play. For example, you are a diplomat in my country and, for some reason, I want to punish you or the nation you represent, I could simply trump up charges and demand to put you on trial. I don't see how any diplomat could ever feel safe or protected again.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #34  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:00 PM
mandala's Avatar
mandala is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Diamond City, Zeta Prime
Posts: 596
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.
__________________
I think, therefore I am... I think
  #35  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:01 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,399
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.
Calling that one murder is a gigantic stretch. At least you linked to the wiki describing the attempted robbery.
  #36  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:04 PM
mandala's Avatar
mandala is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Diamond City, Zeta Prime
Posts: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Calling that one murder is a gigantic stretch. At least you linked to the wiki describing the attempted robbery.
Quote:
According to the investigative officers, when Davis fired at Faizan and Faheem, they were sitting on their bike in front of his car with their backs towards Davis.[29] Davis shot them through his windshield. After the shooting, Davis is alleged to have exited his car to take pictures and videos of the casualties with his cell phone.[30] There are additional reports that Davis shot five rounds through his windshield, got out of his vehicle and shot four more rounds into the two men as they lay on the pavement.[31] The police report notes that both witnesses and Davis reported that Davis fired from behind Haider as Haider was running away.
Sounds like murder to me.
__________________
I think, therefore I am... I think
  #37  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:27 PM
Gray Ghost is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,399
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.
  #38  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:05 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost View Post
Calling that one murder is a gigantic stretch. At least you linked to the wiki describing the attempted robbery.

It would be murder here, would it not? Depending of course upon one's race and socioeconomic status.
  #39  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:44 PM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,768
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.
  #40  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:28 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
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.
  #41  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:50 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,584
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 12:53 AM.
  #42  
Old 10-08-2019, 04:07 AM
Baboonanza is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 452
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 04:10 AM.
  #43  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:09 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,063
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 05:10 AM.
  #44  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:25 AM
SanVito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 4,768
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 05:25 AM.
  #45  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:01 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,861
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.
  #46  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:25 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,751
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.
  #47  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:16 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,558
She should face the penalty. After all it is only $87.50 per person killed.
  #48  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:30 PM
Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,435
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
  #49  
Old 10-07-2019, 04:41 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
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.
  #50  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:02 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,601
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?
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 03:04 AM.

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