Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:01 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Please god someone tell me they drive on the left in the base even though it's American.
It’s a British base, just with Americans there.
  #102  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:08 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
You don't think dangerous driving is criminal? This wasn't a momentary lapse of concentration
She hasn't actually been charged with anything yet. Why are you so sure about whether it was a momentary lapse or not? Do you have details of the accident not in the BBC articles?

Thanks, Ravenman.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-10-2019 at 07:09 AM.
  #103  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:01 AM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanVito View Post
You don't think dangerous driving is criminal? This wasn't a momentary lapse of concentration
I've got a pretty safe (U.S.) driving record and I visit the UK all the time, but I stopped driving there because I found myself easily driving 100+ ft down the wrong side of the road even after years of off-and-on practice. It usually happens on turns, I just instinctively turn into the wrong lane (that's the "momentary lapse") but everything seems "ok and natural" as I drive along until I see something (like other cars) and think "oh shit". I'm lucky nothing worse happened.
  #104  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:07 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
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.
"Simple negligence" is a term of art, meaning garden-variety negligence as opposed to gross negligence. So when I say "this was more than simple negligence" I'm not force fitting the circumstances to the word; I'm referring to a different standard.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
"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.
Fair enough. I may have made an unwarranted assumption about how far she went on the wrong side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Did she mean or want to hurt or kill anyone? Did she have any criminal intent?

If the answer is no, then no jail.
So if Looten Plunder, Doctor Blight and Duke Nukem dispose of toxic waste by pouring it into a river, and they don't intend to kill anyone, should they escape jail time? If I go to a nightclub with a loaded firearm in my sweatpants holster and it goes off, should I escape jail time? If a diplomat's wife gets drunk and runs over an old lady, should she escape jail time?
__________________
This can only end in tears.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 10-10-2019 at 09:08 AM.
  #105  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:18 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Press got a look at a “secret” paper with talking points for Trump on why he won’t waive immunity. What an asshole.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/3927941002
  #106  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:21 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
On the bright side, this is helping to show the British public what horseshit Boris Johnson's claims about how Brexit will mean closer ties between the US and UK are.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #107  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:50 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
On the bright side, this is helping to show the British public what horseshit Boris Johnson's claims about how Brexit will mean closer ties between the US and UK are.
You'd have to be really not very bright to think closer ties meant disregarding diplomatic immunity.
  #108  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:57 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
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.
Surely the point is that no-one can come to any conclusion about any of these questions if she's not actually here to give her explanation.
  #109  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:03 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You'd have to be really not very bright to think closer ties meant disregarding diplomatic immunity.
Ooooh, witty. And yet totally uninformed.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #110  
Old 10-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post
Could they though? What federal law did she break? Can she be prosecuted by her home state?
If Russia can do it, surely the US can

We had an episode several years ago in Ottawa where a Russian diplomat was drunk driving. His car mounted the curb and killed a woman and injured her companion, who were just out for a walk.

Russia asserted diplomatic immunity, so the Canadian courts had no jurisdiction. Canada revoked his diplomatic status and he got shipped home to Russia.

As soon as he got home, the Russian government fired him and then charged him with involuntary manslaughter under Russian law. The Russian authorities cooperated with the Canadian police to have the evidence gathered in Canada used at the trial in the Russian courts.

And he was convicted, got sentenced, and was last heard of at a labour camp near Murmansk.

So it can be done.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/former...ghter-1.313443
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #111  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:13 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 85,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
...You may think a prisoner exchange to help out Johnson and Trump's approval ratings is a good idea but I don't.
No, I don't either. It was (mostly) a joke.
  #112  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:23 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
If Russia can do it, surely the US can
I wouldn't be quite so sure. Russian criminal law is not federalized; the country has a single criminal code.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #113  
Old 10-10-2019, 01:49 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You'd have to be really not very bright to think closer ties meant disregarding diplomatic immunity.
Well, Johnson and Trump...
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #114  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:00 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I wouldn't be quite so sure. Russian criminal law is not federalized; the country has a single criminal code.
True, but the US has a code of military justice that covers individuals in the US military, even though criminal law is mainly state jurisdiction.

Why not a federal law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to try cases of US diplomats for crimes alleged to be committed abroad, using a US equivalent to the alleged foreign offence?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #115  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:03 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
But which US equivalent?
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #116  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:20 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
How does it work when a US military person is charged with committing an offence in a foreign country and tried under US law under a visiting forces agreement?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #117  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:27 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
The UCMJ is a criminal code, so they are prosecuted under that.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #118  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:34 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Then why not have a similar code for diplomats? Or just try them in Federal Court under the relevant offence under the USMCJ?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #119  
Old 10-10-2019, 02:44 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
There's no reason we couldn't. I'm just saying I don't think we have such a code, and the UCMJ applies to uniformed military personnel only. We could create one, but it would cause some serious ex post facto problems in this case.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #120  
Old 10-10-2019, 03:01 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
The UCMJ is a criminal code, so they are prosecuted under that.
A guy I knew was caught doing drugs by the US Army in Turkey. He was tried and imprisoned by the Turks.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #121  
Old 10-10-2019, 03:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Ooooh, witty. And yet totally uninformed.
Oh, please tell me what makes that seem uninformed to you.
  #122  
Old 10-10-2019, 04:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
...

Why not a federal law giving the federal courts jurisdiction to try cases of US diplomats for crimes alleged to be committed abroad, using a US equivalent to the alleged foreign offence?

Before we get out the rope here, remember quite possibly no felony was committed. There was a tragic accident.
  #123  
Old 10-10-2019, 04:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
"...

So if Looten Plunder, Doctor Blight and Duke Nukem dispose of toxic waste by pouring it into a river, and they don't intend to kill anyone, should they escape jail time? If I go to a nightclub with a loaded firearm in my sweatpants holster and it goes off, should I escape jail time? If a diplomat's wife gets drunk and runs over an old lady, should she escape jail time?
Very rarely do Looten Plunder, Doctor Blight and Duke Nukem go to jail, there's usually just fines. But knowingly and willfully is the equivalent of intent, imho.

Yes. Burress only got jail tiem due to "The situation got ugly for Burress because he didn't have a license to be carrying a gun in New York, and carrying an unlicensed firearm in the state called for mandatory jail time.

Maybe.
  #124  
Old 10-10-2019, 05:47 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Before we get out the rope here, remember quite possibly no felony was committed. There was a tragic accident.
Two points:

1. I'm just exploring options to see if there is a way to reconcile diplomatic immunity with personal responsibility, by charges in the US court system. So far, that doesn't seem to be a possibility in this case, but possibly changes in the law could be made to allow it in future cases.

2. We don't know if a crime was committed, or if this was just a tragic accident. That's what police investigations and court trials are designed to determine. It's not a question of "getting out a rope" to say that's there should be a way to have the matter determined in court, via due process.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #125  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
The problem with setting up some Diplomat Justice System is the llegalities, logistics and expense can be prohibitive. Do you move a full court to the scene of the crime or do you fly all the witnesses to America? This DJS will have no authority over foreign nationals so how will you compel witnesses to appear, deal with perjury or contempt of court?

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-10-2019 at 07:14 PM.
  #126  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:22 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
That's what Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties are for. In a world with so much international mobility, countries have entered into treaties, which they them implement by domestic laws, to ensure that allegations of criminal behaviour can be fully investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted. The U.K. can enact legislation that would allow a foreign subpoena to be adopted and enforced via the UK courts. Yes, it's cumbersome, but it's better than just shrugging shoulders and saying 'She fled the jurisdiction to the US. Nothing we can do now."
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #127  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:29 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
See the fact sheet on the Canadian Mutual Legal Assistance Act. Canada will help gather evidence in Canada for crimes that are being prosecuted in another country, and can require Canadians to appear as witnesses in foreign courts, via video links. It's under court supervision, so there is due process, but means already exist to do thus type of prosecution. The diplomatic bit is just an odd twist.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/...n-ejaucan.html
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 10-10-2019 at 07:31 PM.
  #128  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:31 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
I didn't think Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties were used to compell witnesses or anything at all like that. I thought was mostly information sharing and maybe locking down suspicious bank accounts.

And she didn't flee the jurisdiction by normal standards because she was completely free to leave. "There's nothing we can do" would have been the answer if she was still in the UK.


Eta: from your link:
Quote:
The criminal matter for which the assistance is sought must be pending before the foreign judge, court or tribunal.
So, that wouldn't work in this case. I'll have to read further to see how it would go if the Canadian was a defendant.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-10-2019 at 07:36 PM.
  #129  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Myy mistake, that was for non-treaty countries. Ignore my eta.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-10-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #130  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:42 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
If there were an American charged it's a crime in the US, the MLAT could be used to compel a Canadian witness to testify by video link.

By extension, if there were a way to charge and try a US diplomat in US courts for a crime committed in a foreign country, an MLAT could be used to have witnesses from that foreign country testify by video in thebUS proceedings.

I'm aware of one case where a witness in Siberia testified by telephone in a civil case in Canada. It can be done.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #131  
Old 10-10-2019, 07:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
I'm incredibly uneasy about the government extending its jurisdiction outside the bounds of its own country even if it sounds like a super moral thing.
  #132  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:11 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
But these treaties don't give a country power to act outside its own boundaries. MLATs don't give the FBI the power to operate outside the US, or the Mounties to operate outside Canada. Rather they give the LEO of one country the power to ask for assistance from LEOs in another country, but under the laws of the second country, and only through court supervision where it starts to affect Individual rights.

So if the FBI thinks Bob American is running a cross-border drug ring with Doug Canadian, the FBI can approach the Mounties and say "we think there's a cross-border drug ring. Can we work together to investigate it? Here's what we've got on it already."

And the Mounties may say "first we've heard of it. We'll start looking. ". Or they might say "Aha! We've had our eye on Doug Canadian for a while. This is another piece in the puzzle! Here's what we've got."

But, any investigations on the US side have to be done by the FBI and US LEOs, consistently with US constitutional law and criminal procedure, as well as the treaty, all of which have due process built in.

And investigations on the Canadian side have to be done by the Mounties and Canadian LEOs, consistently with the Charter, the Criminal Code, and the treaty, again with due process built in.

It's sort of like an investigation version of extradition, at an earlier stage, but under the laws of each country.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #133  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:14 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
My suggestion for prosecution in US courts could be seen as an assertion of US power over events outside the US, but that can already happen now, in a cross-border crime. Just ask Noriega. And the proposal does balance the principle of diplomatic immunity, which is crucially important, with the principle that an individual alleged to have committed a crime should be called to account, if the evidence is strong enough.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #134  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Investigation is really different than compelling Canadians to participate in a foreign trial.

I would be against anything like a Diplomat Justice System. If we're going to do something to punish diplomats' misbehavior, it should be through treaties that resemble an extradition agreement to waive immunity between trusted countries.

But as far as international treaties go, this is waaay down my list. A tragic traffic accident doesn't even approach getting me worked up about it.


Eta: Noriega? That has to be the worst example to bring up to promote international criminal investigation cooperation.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-10-2019 at 08:23 PM.
  #135  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:48 AM
MarvinKitFox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.
For the car accident, no criminal intent. She made a simple mistake.
But for telling police that she would remaining the UK and available for the investigation, then absconding to the US to excape prosecution.
HELL YES, there was criminal intent there.
She may have used a legal channel to do so, but there is no mistaking that she was fleeing justice.
  #136  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:17 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,584
We have an offence of "careless driving". That would seem, by definition, not to require criminal intent, but lack of intent doesn't limit culpability, hence causing death by careless driving can carry a heavy penalty:


https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...t-for-web1.pdf

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 10-11-2019 at 05:19 AM.
  #137  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:38 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh, please tell me what makes that seem uninformed to you.
Here's the post in question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
On the bright side, this is helping to show the British public what horseshit Boris Johnson's claims about how Brexit will mean closer ties between the US and UK are.
You'd have to be really not very bright to think closer ties meant disregarding diplomatic immunity.
It's got nothing to do with "disregarding diplomatic immunity." The US has the authority to waive immunity, as was explained in the thread already.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #138  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox View Post
For the car accident, no criminal intent. She made a simple mistake.
But for telling police that she would remaining the UK and available for the investigation, then absconding to the US to excape prosecution.
HELL YES, there was criminal intent there.
She may have used a legal channel to do so, but there is no mistaking that she was fleeing justice.
She was likely advised to do so, so no intent. And there was no "prosecution" to "escape".

And since the police have no interesting in arresting her, just asking questions (which they can do by phone or get a notarized statement) then she wasnt' "fleeing justice". I am not sure how the UK system works, but at least in the uSA you dont have to tell the police anything at all beyond simple ID, nor answer any questions.

Sure the local authorities would like her to be available for questioning, but afaik, they have no ability to compel her.

She did nothing wrong, no crime was committed.
  #139  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
https://heavy.com/news/2019/10/anne-sacoolas/


Sacoolas had only been in the U.K. for three weeks..She has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing at this point...According to Sky News, someone on the American side told Sacoolas to leave Britain.....

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-s...n-with-her-car
The police went back again Sept. 15 to place Sacoolas under formal questioning in a wrongful death inquiry but she, her husband, Jonathan, and their three children had left the country, claiming diplomatic immunity. The U.S. Embassy in London said they did so on the advice of the U.S. State Department.

The family is upset, but really there is nothing Sacoolas can do for them. The police wont charge her, so why shoudl she go back? So they can serve papers on her?
  #140  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:52 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarvinKitFox View Post
For the car accident, no criminal intent. She made a simple mistake.
But for telling police that she would remaining the UK and available for the investigation, then absconding to the US to excape prosecution.
HELL YES, there was criminal intent there.
She may have used a legal channel to do so, but there is no mistaking that she was fleeing justice.
She may not have realized she would be instructed to return to the US.

And even if she lied, I don't think there was anything criminal about it. Once the police realized she was covered by diplomatic immunity, they couldn't have done anything to her even had she stayed. But surely it would be awkward to stay and have all the neighbors reminded every time they saw her that she was protected from justice.
  #141  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:01 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She did nothing wrong, no crime was committed.
She might well have done. Causing death by careless driving could well mean up to 5 years in jail.

But no-one knows until there has been proper investigation including her side of the story.
  #142  
Old 10-12-2019, 01:58 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
She might well have done. Causing death by careless driving could well mean up to 5 years in jail.

But no-one knows until there has been proper investigation including her side of the story.
If a accident can put you in prison for 5 years the justice system is wrong.

And they can get that from a signed statement.
  #143  
Old 10-12-2019, 03:08 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
But no-one knows until there has been proper investigation including her side of the story.
I keep seeing this talking point, here and elsewhere. I don't get it. Even if immunity is waived, why is it assumed that she would give "her side of the story"? I get that the right to silence isn't quite as broad as in the USA (sometimes adverse inferences can be drawn, and I don't think the police are obligated to stop the questioning at the suspect's request), but I assume it's still the case that it's very easy to talk yourself into jail and very hard to talk yourself out of it.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 10-12-2019 at 03:12 AM.
  #144  
Old 10-12-2019, 07:00 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,838
It's not clear to me what the point of an investigation would be. It seems the major facts aren't in dispute. She was driving on the wrong side of the road, and had a head-on collision with someone coming the other way. They didn't see each other due to a crest in the hill.

You'd get the speed from forensic evidence, not from asking the drivers. (skid marks, possibly info in the cars' black boxes, depending on the age and make it the cars.)

What more is there to investigate? Whether she was drunk? I wouldn't expect her to admit to that if she wasn't tested at the scene. Whether the other driver was drunk?

Something else?

Last edited by puzzlegal; 10-12-2019 at 07:01 AM.
  #145  
Old 10-13-2019, 06:51 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
1 was this her first time driving in the UK, or had she already been out and about several times?

2 how far had she been driving on the wrong side? Was it a momentary lapse caused by unfamiliar circumstances(e.g. She just came off a roundabout), or had she been driving on the wrong side without noticing for a lengthy period of time?

3 did both she and the young man take evasive action that cancelled each other out, leading to the crash?

4 how much time did she have from seeing the young man to the collision?

5 what evasive action, if any, did she take?


Those are just a few.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 10-13-2019 at 06:52 PM.
  #146  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:02 PM
Northern Piper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And since the police have no interesting in arresting her, just asking questions (which they can do by phone or get a notarized statement) ...
This same issue came up in the Assange matter, where some posters kept saying that the Swedish prosecutor should just conduct the interview over the phone.

The problem is that conducting police interviews is an act of a sovereign power. That means that the police of Country A cannot carry out investigations in Country B, even by telephone, without complying with the law of Country B, which normally means the police of Country A have to work with the police of Country B, through mutual legal assiatance treaties. If the British police just call her up in the United States and conduct an interview, they're in breach of US sovereignty.


Quote:
She did nothing wrong, no crime was committed.
Glad to have that cleared up. Didn't realise you were a judge of the UK Supreme Court.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."

Last edited by Northern Piper; 10-13-2019 at 07:02 PM.
  #147  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:18 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
She did nothing wrong, no crime was committed.
She was driving on the incorrect (right) side of the road, which was undoubtedly a violation of English traffic law. There may well have been other traffic laws which were broken, like unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. If there had not been an collision, those might have only been ticketable offenses (had she been, say, pulled over by a police officer who saw her driving on the wrong side of the road), but they still would count as "doing something wrong" and "committing a crime."

But, she did get into a collision, likely entirely due to violating one or more traffic laws, and another person died as a result. In doing so, she may well have violated one or more additional English laws.

What happened was almost undoubtedly not *intentional*, but operating a motor vehicle demands that the driver follow the laws of the road. "I didn't realize I was in violation of a law" or "I forgot that I wasn't supposed to be doing that" makes it unintentional, but it doesn't make it innocence, and it doesn't mean that nothing wrong was done.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-13-2019 at 07:20 PM.
  #148  
Old 10-13-2019, 07:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
1 was this her first time driving in the UK, or had she already been out and about several times?

2 how far had she been driving on the wrong side? Was it a momentary lapse caused by unfamiliar circumstances(e.g. She just came off a roundabout), or had she been driving on the wrong side without noticing for a lengthy period of time?

3 did both she and the young man take evasive action that cancelled each other out, leading to the crash?

4 how much time did she have from seeing the young man to the collision?

5 what evasive action, if any, did she take?


Those are just a few.
They interviewed her at the scene and another time at the station before she left the country. I can't imagine them missing those questions nor would I think the answers to some of them to be particularly accurate.

It's my understanding that she had been in the country only 3 weeks. The most obvious answer to what happened is she reverted to habit and just drove on the right when she came out of a turn or something.
  #149  
Old 10-13-2019, 10:29 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,828
The reason messing with diplomatic immunity, making exceptions or having a corps diplomatique version of the UCMJ is that in some countries, police investigations are suspect, and at times the outcome is outright for sale. So, prosecuting based on the findings in the host country becomes problematic if the offense took place in Mexico, or Haiti, or Iraq etc.
excluding certain countries from the diplomatic corps justice scheme, or from waiving immunity would create diplomatic problems, including with a close neighbor. Probing the validity of the host country investigation during trial would do likewise.
  #150  
Old 10-13-2019, 11:09 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
They interviewed her at the scene and another time at the station before she left the country. I can't imagine them missing those questions nor would I think the answers to some of them to be particularly accurate.

It's my understanding that she had been in the country only 3 weeks. The most obvious answer to what happened is she reverted to habit and just drove on the right when she came out of a turn or something.
And honestly, what difference does it make? I doubt anyone thinks she was driving on the wrong side of the road intentionally. And she can't be prosecuted. And I'm pretty sure she's not going back to the UK. So, does it really matter how long she was driving on the wrong side of the road?

I certainly think she did something wrong and a crime was committed. But I don't see much value in investigating further.
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 03:07 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