Staff Sergeant Christopher Van Goethem, failed to stop at a junction and slammed headlong into a taxi, killing Teo Pete and injuring the driver. The Marine left the country immediately after the incident, prompting a furious reaction from the Romanian public.
He was acquitted of the charges of negligent homicide and adultery but convicted by a court-martial board of obstruction of justice and making false official statements. He did not return to Romania and was not tried in open court.
He was given a letter of reprimand. This for getting drunk, running a red light and killing a Romanian citizen.
I don’t know how such things work in the UK. But in the US This would be a necessary step to allowing the victim (or his family) to sue for damages. Not that they couldn’t sue without it, but that they’d have no chance of proving civil liability if a law enforcement investigation had not found any fault.
It is especially material in getting the opposing party’s insurance company to pay up for vehicle damages, medical and (in this case) funeral charges.
You’re the one who posited that the purpose of the “full legal trial” could only be “to distinguish between a drunken joy ride and forgetting which side of the road you are supposed to drive on”.
So, if that’s the only purpose of the trial, apparently it is entirely necessary because the body charged with deciding if they’re required or not has charged her.
Or, and purely putting this out there just as a possibility, the trial is actually to decide whether the death was caused by a criminal level of negligence. What do you reckon? Do you think the CPS want one because they “tell the difference between a drunken joy ride and driving on the wrong side of the street”, or do you think that maybe your position is willfully stupid and trying to misrepresent the actual purpose of the exercise?
He wasnt drunk:Stackhouse countered that although VanGoethem had admitted to drinking about three and a half beers over the course of the evening, tests of his blood returned negative for both alcohol and drugs.
So he had a trial, and was found not guilty of the major charge. He will not be allowed to continue his career. I dont know what you think a court martial isnt a real trial.
There are 522000 hits and major news about this every day about this.Now they are dragging in Prince Andrew. :eek: *With that kind of media attention- no one gets a fair trial.
*
I certainly didn’t mean to say that, although I might have mistyped, or been misunderstood. What I intended to say was that I think it’s obvious that the wrong-doing in this case is much less than in the other case folks have been bruiting about. It’s other people who keep saying, “but how do you know without a trial?” As if you somehow need a trial to determine that.
Since she has diplomatic immunity, I see no purpose at all to a trial. Since she’ll never again drive in the UK (and probably isn’t a dangerous driver in the US) I see no particular benefit to convicting her, even if it could be done.
It’s pretty broad, according to the Wikipedia article. I don’t find this especially surprising. The primary purpose of diplomatic immunity is to prevent a country from harassing or harming a diplomat (not to protect diplomats who are actually guilty of crimes, although it has that result, too.) And you could certainly harass a diplomat by framing his wife or child. And you could prevent that diplomat from executing his duties if you arrested enough of the diplomatic staff, too.
Or not concentrating sufficiently to avoid a legal offence of careless driving, and killing someone in the process. Yeah, funny, we have laws and courts precisely to clear up the facts, regardless of random people’s POV.
That’s the maximum sentence for Death by Dangerous Driving. Whatever happened, it doesn’t sound like it IS ‘dangerous driving’ - which is a legal definition. It’s a much higher benchmark than ‘Careless driving’. Feel free to do some research and check the sentencing guidelines for this.
This is the UK Courts not trial by tabloid.
Because that’s how extradition between civilised countries works. Really, if you’re going to make random claims, you could at least look some of this stuff up.
Prosecutors in the UK do not “demand” any sentence. That’s entirely up to the judge, in the light of the sentencing guidelines in relation to the evidence heard and proven in court. Counsel for both sides can argue as to which of the various criteria in the sentencing guidelines are appropriate for the circumstances proven in evidence: they can’t just pluck a figure out of the air, nor is public opinion a factor recognised in the sentencing guidelines. Whether or not the maximum might apply in this case depends on the evidence proven in court and what arguments can be made about the relevant criteria: none of which can be known until the case is heard in court, not based on suppositious speculation. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/information-for-victims/what-happens-at-a-sentencing-hearing/
While there are always details that don’t make it into public discussions, and there are often errors in the details that DO make the news, it’s absurd to claim that you need a trial to distinguish two cases that are so very different.
Of course, the British laws on defamation are much stronger than the US ones. In the US, it would probably have been claimed that she was drunk in the papers, whether or not there was any evidence backing that. We are used to the nuanced facts being much more sympathetic towards the accused than the public story. Perhaps that’s not true in the UK. I remember some famous case of a bridge player who had obviously cheated, and who (I think, but it’s a long time ago) was thrown out of tournaments for cheating, who managed to keep a lot of that out of the UK press by threatening to sue.
But the published facts are pretty sympathetic to the accused, despite the tragic death. I dunno, can you point to examples of cases where a crime apparently this minor turned out to be much worse after it went to trial in the UK?
That’s a new record, folks, as we go from “tragic death” to “crime apparently this minor” in just 11 words. If that crime were any more minor, Harry Dunn would still be alive.
Sure, we can conjour up hypotheticals. What if she were drunk? What if she were coked off her tits? What if she were videoing herself screaming “Fuck your limey laws, I drive on the right in America, Imma drive on the right here 'cos Jesus and George Washington say I can, that’s why”. What then, eh, what then?
These hypotheticals are immaterial. She drove on the wrong side of the road and killed a person. A justice system that wouldn’t find that grounds for a trial is a justice system that isn’t fit for purpose.
This hasn’t been an everyday story since August. News pops up when there’s something to report. Not sure why you are so invested in your position that you’re making terrible arguments. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes, you know.
I am not sure what has prompted to much anger, resulting in accusations of dishonesty, stupidity, and malice, but it stops here. The next such accusation will result in a Warning and being banned from this thread. Just lay out your arguments without any reference to personality or the traits of the posts to which you are responding.
This includes everyone, although DrDeth and Ravenman are especially noted for their contributions, here.
“In a statement released on Friday, Chief Crown Prosecutor Janine Smith, said:“Following the death of Harry Dunn in Northamptonshire, the Crown Prosecution Service has today authorised Northamptonshire Police to charge Anne Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving.”
*
What am I gonna look up ? The fact that a media circus makes a fair trial impossible?
:eek: *With that kind of media attention- no one gets a fair trial.