Straight Dope Message Board

[SanVito]

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)

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:

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).

1

[MrDibble]

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. 2

[Novelty Bobble]

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. 3

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by SanVito

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.

Originally Posted by SanVito

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.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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. 4

[Alessan]

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. 5

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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. 6

[Broomstick]

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. 7

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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.)? 8

[orcenio]

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. 9

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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? 10

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by SanVito

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. 11

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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.

Originally Posted by running coach

Would she be prevented from cooperating remotely (email, video call, etc.)?

It is my understanding that the US government could, indeed, forbid that.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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. 12

[madsircool]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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. 13

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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? 14

[orcenio]

Originally Posted by madsircool

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. 15

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by madsircool

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. 16

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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. 17

[Jasmine]

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. 18

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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? 19

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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. 20

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by kayaker

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. 21

[Lord Feldon]

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. 22

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

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? 23

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by madsircool

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.

Originally Posted by madsircool

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.

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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.

Originally Posted by Jasmine

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. 24

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

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. 25

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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.

Which is actually a very important thing. Because let’s say China or Russia decide to round up one of our diplomats on some bogus charge, and then announce that TOTALLY VOLUNTARILY the diplomat was waived his own immunity for the serious charges he’s facing. Of course the privilege of immunity resides with the state.

But as I stated before, the person had immunity at the time of the crime. Returning later doesn’t negate that immunity, unless she wants to commit another crime while visiting as a tourist.

By the way, Britons shouldn’t be under the impression that this tragedy and the current stalemate is caused by American arrogance. About a year or so ago, a foreign student at a private school in DC stabbed another kid. Because the assailant was the child of a diplomat, nothing happened. I don’t think the nationality of the kid was ever revealed. 26

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Which is actually a very important thing. Because let’s say China or Russia decide to round up one of our diplomats on some bogus charge, and then announce that TOTALLY VOLUNTARILY the diplomat was waived his own immunity for the serious charges he’s facing. Of course the privilege of immunity resides with the state.

I think there is a world of difference between your scenario and a citizen choosing to revoke their immunity whilst safely in their own country and voluntarily travelling back to the country in question. 27

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

By the way, Britons shouldn’t be under the impression that this tragedy and the current stalemate is caused by American arrogance.

I don't think anyone has suggested it nor even hinted at it. It isn't the first such incident but it is the most recent, a boy is dead and the family are being told there is nothing we can do about it. From a point of view of simple human compassion those involved should be, and deserve to be, ashamed of themselves. 28

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I think there is a world of difference between your scenario and a citizen choosing to revoke their immunity whilst safely in their own country and voluntarily travelling back to the country in question.

Can I ask where you get the idea that the woman can simply travel back on a tourist visa and face legal consequences for an act that is quite clearly covered by immunity? Is this something you have read about, or is this conjecture, or what?

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

I don't think anyone has suggested it nor even hinted at it. It isn't the first such incident but it is the most recent, a boy is dead and the family are being told there is nothing we can do about it. From a point of view of simple human compassion those involved should be, and deserve to be, ashamed of themselves.

I'm certainly not attributing that view to you, but yes, the idea of "American arrogance" has quite literally been raised, even on this message board: Cite. 29

[SanVito]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

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.

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. 30

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by SanVito

She could have sat in a Police interview in total silence for all we know.

For all you know...?
During the investigation, the American woman cooperated “fully” with police, and even assured them “she had no plans to leave the country in the near future,” Northamptonshire Police Superintendent Sarah Johnson said in a statement Saturday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...dunn-immunity/ 31

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Can I ask where you get the idea that the woman can simply travel back on a tourist visa and face legal consequences for an act that is quite clearly covered by immunity? Is this something you have read about, or is this conjecture, or what?

Is the crime or the person covered by immunity? How indeed can crime be covered by immunity without the implicit admission that a certain person of diplomatic association is guilty?

If it is the person then I absolutely do think it should be permissible for that person to state their revocation of immunity and travel as a private citizen. If that was voluntary I don't see how that would present a problem for existing diplomatic relationships. The concept didn't spring out of nothing and isn't immune to critical assessment.

I'm certainly not attributing that view to you, but yes, the idea of "American arrogance" has quite literally been raised, even on this message board: Cite.

but not in this thread, not in relation to this issue, so not sure why it was brought up. 32

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

Is the crime or the person covered by immunity? How indeed can crime be covered by immunity without the implicit admission that a certain person of diplomatic association is guilty?

If it is the person then I absolutely do think it should be permissible for that person to state their revocation of immunity and travel as a private citizen. If that was voluntary I don't see how that would present a problem for existing diplomatic relationships. The concept didn't spring out of nothing and isn't immune to critical assessment.

Just to be clear -- you admit that you are just speculating here? Drawing your own conclusions based on your limited understanding of the law in these areas? Even though it has been stated several times that immunity belongs to the state, not the individual?

but not in this thread, not in relation to this issue, so not sure why it was brought up.

Because it is relevant. Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to discuss relevant issues unless you personally raise them first? 33

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Just to be clear -- you admit that you are just speculating here? Drawing your own conclusions based on your limited understanding of the law in these areas? Even though it has been stated several times that immunity belongs to the state, not the individual?

You have a problem with me stating what I think should happen over what, does happen? I'm not trying to revoke an immutable physical law of the universe here.

"speculation" is not the word I would use. I said.

I absolutely do think it should be permissible for that person to state their revocation of immunity and travel as a private citizen. If that was voluntary I don't see how that would present a problem for existing diplomatic relationships. The concept didn't spring out of nothing and isn't immune to critical assessment.

Which is clearly a suggestion by me regarding what I think is a better way forward. It leaves the way open for the person in question to follow their conscience (or not) without compelling them to or damaging the concept of wider diplomatic privileges. I think it is a sound compromise. 34

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Because it is relevant. Are you suggesting that I'm not allowed to discuss relevant issues unless you personally raise them first?

I think previous incidents of that accusation would be relevant in this thread, if there were similar accusations of arrogance in this thread. There weren't so not sure why it was raised.

You are allowed to discuss whatever you like but I'm not sure that line was going to go anywhere seeing as no-one was asserting it 35

[Ravenman]

You have a problem with me stating what I think should happen over what, does happen?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your last few posts left it unclear to me whether you were suggesting a practical solution (that she return as a tourist in order to face prosecution) or suggesting a re-write to the treaty and laws that are in force (to allow a person to return to a country for prosecution). To me it sounded like the former, now I understand it's the latter. Thank you for clearing that up. 36

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your last few posts left it unclear to me whether you were suggesting a practical solution (that she return as a tourist in order to face prosecution) or suggesting a re-write to the treaty and laws that are in force (to allow a person to return to a country for prosecution). To me it sounded like the former, now I understand it's the latter. Thank you for clearing that up.

No problem, I thought your tone was rhetorical rather than the genuine question it was.

So yes, I think my suggestion was just that, a practical improvement. 37

[Manda JO]

Originally Posted by Alessan

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. 38

[eschrodinger]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

[...]
Which is clearly a suggestion by me regarding what I think is a better way forward. It leaves the way open for the person in question to follow their conscience (or not) without compelling them to or damaging the concept of wider diplomatic privileges. I think it is a sound compromise.

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.

I do think waiver by the diplomat's country should be considered for serious intentional crimes, and part of the consideration should be whether the justice system is one we consider fair, and specifically that the person will likely get a fair trial. (And not, for example, bear the brunt of disapproval of the administration, so that a jury might convict them out of bias, or to send a message.) 39

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble

No problem, I thought your tone was rhetorical rather than the genuine question it was.

So yes, I think my suggestion was just that, a practical improvement.

Hmmm -- now I'm confused again. There isn't a practical end-run around the laws in place, because as stated, it is the decision of the US whether or not to waive immunity, and UK is equally bound to gain the waiver from the US before proceeding with a prosecution or whatever.

As a question of whether the laws should be re-written to allow individuals to make a decision to return to face prosecution, I have a very hard time seeing that anyone would actually agree to that. Writing exceptions into a laws like this is actually quite complicated. For example, what would happen if this woman went on vacation in Japan next year? Since she would be a tourist on that trip, could the UK seek her arrest by Japanese authorities and subsequent extradition?

Opening up exceptions to a strict rule is of course sometimes necessary, but its hard to see why many countries would sign up to a pretty substantial re-write to the custom of diplomatic immunity that has been around for many generations.

Obviously, the easiest and correct thing to do would be for the US to waive immunity in this case. 40

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

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. 41

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Hmmm -- now I'm confused again. There isn't a practical end-run around the laws in place, because as stated, it is the decision of the US whether or not to waive immunity, and UK is equally bound to gain the waiver from the US before proceeding with a prosecution or whatever.

As a question of whether the laws should be re-written to allow individuals to make a decision to return to face prosecution, I have a very hard time seeing that anyone would actually agree to that. Writing exceptions into a laws like this is actually quite complicated. For example, what would happen if this woman went on vacation in Japan next year? Since she would be a tourist on that trip, could the UK seek her arrest by Japanese authorities and subsequent extradition?

Opening up exceptions to a strict rule is of course sometimes necessary, but its hard to see why many countries would sign up to a pretty substantial re-write to the custom of diplomatic immunity that has been around for many generations.

Obviously, the easiest and correct thing to do would be for the US to waive immunity in this case.

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. 42

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

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. 43

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by orcenio

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? 44

[Bone]

Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum

We are an exceptional people after all, why we kill across the planet, this is just what we do.

Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum

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.

Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum

"(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] 45

[mandala]

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. 46

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by Bone

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:

"(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, don't you think?

"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. 47

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by mandala

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. 48

[mandala]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Calling that one murder is a gigantic stretch. At least you linked to the wiki describing the attempted robbery.

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. 49

[Fentoine Lum]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

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. 50