Diplomatic Immunity

MartinPrince · 11 Oct 2019 at 12:56

The simple fact is that immunity can be waived, as it has been done in the past. Therefore it doesn't preclude any diplomat to commit willful intentional acts or high crimes without the fear of punishment.

Recently a Georgian diplomat, while drunk behind the wheel killed a cyclist in Washington. In this case immunity was waived and he was sent to prison.

Blackjack Davy · 11 Oct 2019 at 13:26

MartinPrince said:
The simple fact is that immunity can be waived, as it has been done in the past. Therefore it doesn't preclude any diplomat to commit willful intentional acts or high crimes without the fear of punishment.

Recently a Georgian diplomat, while drunk behind the wheel killed a cyclist in Washington. In this case immunity was waived and he was sent to prison.

That requires their govt to waive it and as someone said earlier the USA hasn't done that since the 1940's.

Do you think that the same would happen if the shoe were on the other foot? Is not Trump specific its unlikely any POTUS would behave any differently. Yes realpolitik is unfair.

MartinPrince · 11 Oct 2019 at 17:12

Blackjack Davy said:
That requires their govt to waive it and as someone said earlier the USA hasn't done that since the 1940's.

Do you think that the same would happen if the shoe were on the other foot? Is not Trump specific its unlikely any POTUS would behave any differently. Yes realpolitik is unfair.

That was me that said it earlier.

If Mrs Sacoolas was drunk then the U.S. would have been under immense pressure even from within the U.S. to waive immunity as this would have mirrored the situation with the Georgian diplomat. Whether they would have is anybodies guess but as this was a tragic accident there was little chance that immunity would be waived.

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 17:15

MartinPrince said:
That was me that said it earlier.

If Mrs Sacoolas was drunk then the U.S. would have been under immense pressure even from within the U.S. to waive immunity as this would have mirrored the situation with the Georgian diplomat. Whether they would have is anybodies guess but as this was a tragic accident there was little chance that immunity would be waived.

No vehicle related crash is an "accident".

MartinPrince · 11 Oct 2019 at 17:27

StriderX said:
No vehicle related crash is an "accident".

Accident: "an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."

The definition does not change whether she was driving the space shuttle, a car, lorry or push bike. Neither does the outcome change the definition; whether she knocked down a sign post or killed 20 people.

It was unintentional and therefore an accident. As long as she legally entered and started driving in the car and was not impaired by drugs or alcohol then it will legally be deemed an accident.

fezster · 11 Oct 2019 at 18:19

No one intends on having an accident (or at least, very very few do). Even if you are on drugs, it'd be classed as an accident.

However, there are levels of culpability in any accident. Driving without due care and attention. Dangerous driving.

In this case, she's obviously forgotten which side of the road to drive on and it has tragically ended in a fatality. I don't see any judge in this country saying what Trump did - "its an easy mistake to make", so let's let her off.

MartinPrince · 11 Oct 2019 at 18:39

Yes though if you enter the car illegally, as you would do if impaired by drugs or alcohol or without the necessary documentation, you become culpable for whatever happens subsequently.

If she had stayed and not had diplomatic immunity she would probably have been charged with Dangerous Driving (which carries up to 14 years in prison) and Careless Driving (Driving without due care and attention).

Though it would still have been an accident and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 18:51

I think intentionally driving on the wrong side of the road (if you aren't reading about the laws when coming here, that's no excuse), is not "accidental".

It's a bit like going to the Philippines with a little bit of weed and wondering why you're on death row, or taking prescription drugs into Egypt and again wondering why you're up for life in prison.

It is not an accident, she also ******* fled which is also a crime on top of the obstruction of justice, unless it was also an accident for her fleeing, i guess she just thought she was above our law somehow, and seemingly she is, what a generous friend the US is.

fezster · 11 Oct 2019 at 18:57

MartinPrince said:
Yes though if you enter the car illegally, as you would do if impaired by drugs or alcohol or without the necessary documentation, you become culpable for whatever happens subsequently.

If she had stayed and not had diplomatic immunity she would probably have been charged with Dangerous Driving (which carries up to 14 years in prison) and Careless Driving (Driving without due care and attention).

Though it would still have been an accident and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

I can't understand the point you are making.

In both circumstances, the actions of the driver are illegal and carry a punishment. In both circumstances, the collision in question is classed as an "accident".

Your original post implied an "accident" was somehow innocent and deserving of lesser or no punishment. You seem to have gone back on that - but I'm unclear what point you are now trying to make?

Nasher · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:01

It was an accident though. Even though someone died they would probably just get a ban. I dont even think they could pin death by dangerous driving on them.

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:03

Nasher said:
It was an accident though. Even though someone died they would probably just get a ban. I dont even think they could pin death by dangerous driving on them as they wern't intentionally doing something dangerous.

Driving on the wrong side of the road is intentionally dangerous, why don't you try it and see how far you get.

Nasher · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:05

StriderX said:
Driving on the wrong side of the road is intentionally dangerous, why don't you try it and see how far you get.

But they did it by mistake. It happens a lot when people first drive in countries where they drive on the opposite side.

To go to prison for it you need to be doing something stupid on purpose, like going at silly speeds. We don't punish people for geniune accidents.

MartinPrince · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:09

StriderX said:
I think intentionally driving on the wrong side of the road (if you aren't reading about the laws when coming here, that's no excuse), is not "accidental".

I suspect you do not understand what has occurred.
Let us establish some facts:

She did not intentionally drive on the wrong side of the road.

She pulled out of the airbase unaware that she was on the wrong side of the road and went into automatic driving mode. For her driving on the right was normal.

As somebody who regularly drives in US and Europe, I know how easy this is to do especially when there are no cars on the road the you are pulling onto (as was the case in this incident). You have to really concentrate, especially when new to the changed environment. Something she clearly did not do enough of.

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:15

Nasher said:
But they did it by mistake. It happens a lot when people first drive in countries where they drive on the opposite side.

Since i have no information on how long they've been here for, i won't speculate on her abilities (though she was fined in the US for careless driving).

The mitigation depends seemingly on showing remorse, history and having dependents, which would be difficult considering she fled like a coward.

I've found one such example.

https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/...-causing-fatal-crash-driving-wrong-side-road/

On Tuesday, a judge deferred sentence on Emmet until November next year after she agreed to carry out 500 hours of unpaid work with two charities in France, where she lives.

Lord Glennie banned Emmet from driving for three years and ordered she resit a test before driving again.

The judge said he accepted that Emmet’s offending did not feature aggravating issues such as drink or drug driving, driving too fast or using a mobile phone.

Lord Glennie said that the tragedy in Emmet’s case was that she drove on the wrong side of the road approaching a blind corner with another vehicle coming the other way unseen.

He said that Emmet’s previous driving record was exemplary and added: “You have shown remorse which I accept is genuine”.

The judge said he also took account of the needs of her child. Emmet provides care for her 14-year-old son, who has suffered medical problems from a young age.

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:17

Another striderx retarded argument. Fml. Do you have an actual diagnosis?

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:21

Dis86 said:
Another striderx retarded argument. Fml. Do you have an actual diagnosis?

I imagine you'd be happy if she killed your family member?

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:22

StriderX said:
I imagine you'd be happy if she murdered your family member?

Prove it's murder.

StriderX · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:23

Dis86 said:
Prove it's murder.

Someone is dead.

fezster · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:23

Nasher said:
But they did it by mistake. It happens a lot when people first drive in countries where they drive on the opposite side.

To go to prison for it you need to be doing something stupid on purpose, like going at silly speeds. We don't punish people for geniune accidents.

I'm not an expert on this subject, but from my limited google skills, I do not think that is right. Have a read yourself and I think you may agree - I am happy to be corrected, though.

This is what I found:

https://www.motorists-lawyer.co.uk/content/helpsheets/dangerousandcarelessdriving.rhtm

The Road Safety Act, which came into force in November 2006, created new offences of causing death:

By careless or inconsiderate driving,

Dis86 · 11 Oct 2019 at 19:24

StriderX said:
Someone is dead.

My grandad died. Ergo is he dead. Does that mean he was murdered?