One way special relationship? The disgusting behaviour of the US government!

There is no Jonathan Sacoolas on the official Diplomatic list. Neither Sacoolas nor his wife has any right to claim diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention states that:

A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state

Article 37 extends this privilege to family members living in his household. A “diplomatic agent” is defined in article 2(d).

The “members of the diplomatic staff” are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nothing in my post was remotely defensive. Just explaining why they would want to question her.

originally posted by: alldaylong

So The U.S. can charge someone ( Assange ) without even questioning him first.

Bloody hell, are you the new Soviet Union. LOL

You can charge anyone...that doesn't mean anything outside the prosecutor feels they have enough evidence to do it...they are still presume innocent, plus Assange was not under diplomatic immunity outside of living in a embassy that has it.

originally posted by: studio500
There is no Jonathan Sacoolas on the official Diplomatic list. Neither Sacoolas nor his wife has any right to claim diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention states that:

A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state

Article 37 extends this privilege to family members living in his household. A “diplomatic agent” is defined in article 2(d).

The “members of the diplomatic staff” are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;

The FO have confirmed that he & she are covered by diplomatic immunity.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

Again 5th amendment applies in the US, not the UK. Intervening under caution is the way of confirming legally she has been advised of her rights.

Not sure what further investigation you are expecting. Police have cc tv evidence of the incident and identified her as driver of the car. If there was was any witnesses they will already have been interviewed.

The US is preventing any further action by not waiving her diplomatic immunity.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

Again 5th amendment applies in the US, not the UK. Intervening under caution is the way of confirming legally she has been advised of her rights.

Not sure what further investigation you are expecting. Police have cc tv evidence of the incident and identified her as driver of the car. If there was was any witnesses they will already have been interviewed.

The US is preventing any further action by not waiving her diplomatic immunity.

The only request they have made is to interview her. Request waiver for prosecution. If they have their evidence there is no need to charge her.

Again, I do not care if UK citizens have he 5th, I know they don't, she is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity which means she has it. Up until the point diplomatic immunity is waived. If you have enough evidence that it would lead to trial in the US, I want it waived and her be tried.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

Again 5th amendment applies in the US, not the UK. Intervening under caution is the way of confirming legally she has been advised of her rights.

Not sure what further investigation you are expecting. Police have cc tv evidence of the incident and identified her as driver of the car. If there was was any witnesses they will already have been interviewed.

The US is preventing any further action by not waiving her diplomatic immunity.

The only request they have made is to interview her. Request waiver for prosecution. If they have their evidence there is no need to charge her.

Again, I do not care if UK citizens have he 5th, I know they don't, she is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity which means she has it. Up until the point diplomatic immunity is waived. If you have enough evidence that it would lead to trial in the US, I want it waived and her be tried.

This would be a UK criminal trial so UK legal rights would apply. The 5th has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What is relevant is her diplomatic immunity, while that is in place she cannot be charged.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: alldaylong

So The U.S. can charge someone ( Assange ) without even questioning him first.

Bloody hell, are you the new Soviet Union. LOL

You can charge anyone...that doesn't mean anything outside the prosecutor feels they have enough evidence to do it...they are still presume innocent, plus Assange was not under diplomatic immunity outside of living in a embassy that has it.

Bloody hell, that does sound like The Soviet Union.

In The U.K. you cannot be charged before being cautioned and questioned. How do you people allow this to happen?

If you have been arrested, you must be cautioned and interviewed ‘under caution’, at which time you will have the right to legal representation. Once they have concluded their questioning they must either charge or release you. In some circumstances they can ask a magistrate or crown court judge to give them permission to keep you in detention for longer than the normal 24 hours

www.abouthumanrights.co.uk...

a reply to: alldaylong

I have no idea what you are trying to say. He said anyone can be charged, but they are still considered innocent. You then posted anyone can be charged .. without the addition of them being considered innocent. Somehow them being innocent until proven guilty is bad?

In the US you don't need to say anything and it can never be held against you. In the UK you apparently have to answer questions and possibly self incriminate or else it CAN be held against you. How do you people allow this to happen?

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

www.gov.uk...

So glad we have our rights here in America.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

Again 5th amendment applies in the US, not the UK. Intervening under caution is the way of confirming legally she has been advised of her rights.

Not sure what further investigation you are expecting. Police have cc tv evidence of the incident and identified her as driver of the car. If there was was any witnesses they will already have been interviewed.

The US is preventing any further action by not waiving her diplomatic immunity.

The only request they have made is to interview her. Request waiver for prosecution. If they have their evidence there is no need to charge her.

Again, I do not care if UK citizens have he 5th, I know they don't, she is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity which means she has it. Up until the point diplomatic immunity is waived. If you have enough evidence that it would lead to trial in the US, I want it waived and her be tried.

This would be a UK criminal trial so UK legal rights would apply. The 5th has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What is relevant is her diplomatic immunity, while that is in place she cannot be charged.

Yes, once immunity is waived and there is a trial. UNTIL that point, her US rights absolutely apply. Tell the US you are ready to charge her, when you guys do that, let me know.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

I have no idea what you are trying to say. He said anyone can be charged, but they are still considered innocent. You then posted anyone can be charged .. without the addition of them being considered innocent. Somehow them being innocent until proven guilty is bad?

In the US you don't need to say anything and it can never be held against you. In the UK you apparently have to answer questions and possibly self incriminate or else it CAN be held against you. How do you people allow this to happen?

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

www.gov.uk...

So glad we have our rights here in America.

You conveniently missed the point.

You cannot be charged for a crime in The U.K. without being first cautioned and then questioned.

It seems in The U.S. you can charge anyone and everyone with whatever you wish, without then being even present in the country.

Yep, The New Soviet Union.

Edit.

From your link.

If you’re arrested, you’ll usually be taken to a police station, held in custody in a cell and then questioned. After you’ve been taken to a police station, you may be released or charged with a crime.

American Rights? You can keep em.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

I have no idea what you are trying to say. He said anyone can be charged, but they are still considered innocent. You then posted anyone can be charged .. without the addition of them being considered innocent. Somehow them being innocent until proven guilty is bad?

In the US you don't need to say anything and it can never be held against you. In the UK you apparently have to answer questions and possibly self incriminate or else it CAN be held against you. How do you people allow this to happen?

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

www.gov.uk...

So glad we have our rights here in America.

You don't have to self incriminate at all and do have have right to silence as actually shown in the text you quote.

What it means is that if, for example, to make a defence of alibi when the case goes to court and you never mentioned the alibi before the court is entitled to put less weight on that alibi (as you may well have just made it up). It doesn't automatically rule it out but there would be far more requirement on you to provide convincing evidence for it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

The point being she has used diplomatic immunity to avoid any proper investigation or potential trial.

I have already stated that I don't like how this has been and is being handled. Including that this woman is being vilified for unspecified "crimes".

How has her departure impeded a proper investigation? She has already spoken to authorities, so at least seemingly cooperating with authorities. If necessary, and if consented to, they could have additional conversations via phone. (Or she may invoke her right to say nothing at all) Her flight in no way affects the scene of the accident. Unless she took the vehicle with her, she has not prevented inspection of the vehicle. I have not heard that any/all witnesses were also spirited out with her.

As far as a potential trial, for what? What crime have authorities determined she committed? The presumption is that she is guilty of some crime... or at least that there is reasonable suspicion warranting a trial... but for what? Why are the authorities in England not making the legal and criminal points crystal clear?

If a genuine accident fair enough, if she has been driving in dangerous manner then then she be tried just as anyone else would be.

And it's the "if" that's the problem for me at this point. No one has even asserted that a crime has been committed, or any criminal liability at all!!! If authorities had determined she was criminally liable, then I would expect that we would be hearing exactly that. But we're not.

Nor do I see any reasonable or legal argument for why the longstanding rules and protocols of diplomatic immunity should be waived in this particular situation. I seriously doubt this is the first such accident to ever take place; how were previous such accidents handled? Is the handling of this accident setting a new precedent? Or is this the standard procedure? Beyond Boris Johnson's rabble rousing, have the appropriate officials made a formal request for her to return? The victim's family certainly isn't happy with the way British authorities have handled it either.

Trump has stated that he will try to facilitate a meeting between the two families. I would strongly suggest that the victim's family find a good civil lawyer and sue her in civil court. I'm pretty sure that's the best "justice" they can hope for in their situation.

What she is or is not guilty of is largely irrelevant at this point.
What is relevant is that she has used, or been made to use, diplomatic immunity to avoid the legal process that any normal person would go through.
Despite the claims made in this thread diplomatic immunity is rarely abused for serious crimes and certainly not between long standing allies.

you can source this correct? or was this in the heat of the moment??


Hmmmm interesting

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

I have no idea what you are trying to say. He said anyone can be charged, but they are still considered innocent. You then posted anyone can be charged .. without the addition of them being considered innocent. Somehow them being innocent until proven guilty is bad?

In the US you don't need to say anything and it can never be held against you. In the UK you apparently have to answer questions and possibly self incriminate or else it CAN be held against you. How do you people allow this to happen?

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

www.gov.uk...

So glad we have our rights here in America.

You don't have to self incriminate at all and do have have right to silence as actually shown in the text you quote.

What it means is that if, for example, to make a defence of alibi when the case goes to court and you never mentioned the alibi before the court is entitled to put less weight on that alibi (as you may well have just made it up). It doesn't automatically rule it out but there would be far more requirement on you to provide convincing evidence for it.

You are correct. However all of this is a part of being interviewed and questioned by The Police.

In America it appears you can be charged before you have even been questioned.

What a bloody system they have.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

Then stop saying you want to question her as part of an investigation and start saying you want to charge her. If the UK has already concluded this is criminal then say so, so far, I can't see where they have drawn that conclusion.

If she felt she was completely innocent of any offence, then she would have stayed and explained the incident in detail on how it occurred.

By doing a runner it has made her look like she has something to hide. Again, any fool can see that.

She doesn't have to explain jack squat. I fully agree with her invoking her 5th amendment right as a US citizen with diplomatic immunity. I also fully agree with her being turned over if the UK says they are ready to prosecute.

What amazes me is that you are defending this woman, when there is apparently clear CCTV footage of her driving on the wrong side of the road ( dangerous driving ). Unless you are saying that the camera is lying ?

I don't know how that is your takeaway from my post. Go read it again.

So we are both in agreement that she should be returned to The U.K. for the investigation to be completed .

That's good to hear.

No, there is no need. I keep asking you, what is the benefit of her being there? What is the benefit of her lawyer telling investigators she is not answering questions?

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

Because they can then interview her under cauation. Allows any statements she makes to be used in evidence. It's similar but not identical to reading Miranda rights in the US.

Let me save you the trouble, she pleads the 5th and has no statement. If you require a statement you have no case. If you do not require a statement then move on to the next part. I don't get why that is so hard to understand. You are not getting a statement from her, just like the police in America would not get one. Build a case, they do it here, you can do it too. You guys interpret my belief she is entitled to her rights as a US citizen as me being against her getting prosecuted. Stop being so defensive. US citizens have no right to murder to people, they do have the right to not speak to the police.

1. the US constitution applies to the US not the UK.

2. You have no way of knowing what information she would or would not give in an interview.

3. She does have a right to silence in UK but it needs to be formalized that she is aware of rights and how they apply (which differs slightly from the US). Others use this could cause problems if the case was prosecuted.

4. Still can't be charged without her immunity being waived. The reasons for asking to question her further will have been made clear in the request to waive immunity.

5.Nithing in my post was remotely defensive. Just exposing why they would want to question her.

She has US diplomatic immunity. She gets the rights of all US citizens. End of story. She has the 5th amendment right. If she wants to talk to investigators she can, the fact she is remaining silent tells me she will remain silent.

You may not be defensive, the other poster is. Saying I am defending her when in fact I am merely defending her rights.

If investigators believe there is a crime, bring the evidence forward and say you want to charge her. If she did it, and it's a crime not an accident, I hope she pays.

Again 5th amendment applies in the US, not the UK. Intervening under caution is the way of confirming legally she has been advised of her rights.

Not sure what further investigation you are expecting. Police have cc tv evidence of the incident and identified her as driver of the car. If there was was any witnesses they will already have been interviewed.

The US is preventing any further action by not waiving her diplomatic immunity.

The only request they have made is to interview her. Request waiver for prosecution. If they have their evidence there is no need to charge her.

Again, I do not care if UK citizens have he 5th, I know they don't, she is a US citizen with diplomatic immunity which means she has it. Up until the point diplomatic immunity is waived. If you have enough evidence that it would lead to trial in the US, I want it waived and her be tried.

This would be a UK criminal trial so UK legal rights would apply. The 5th has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What is relevant is her diplomatic immunity, while that is in place she cannot be charged.

Yes, once immunity is waived and there is a trial. UNTIL that point, her US rights absolutely apply. Tell the US you are ready to charge her, when you guys do that, let me know.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it US rights don't apply in the UK.

An interview under caution is part of the legal process, again it's UK laws that apply.

Incident matter how you think or want the process to work. What matters is how its does work and if the US government will waive the immunity.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Which means you NEED to speak, which can lead to self incrimination. In the US you don't need to speak jack squat and it can never be held against you.

originally posted by: alldaylong


Bloody hell, that does sound like The Soviet Union.

In The U.K. you cannot be charged before being cautioned and questioned. How do you people allow this to happen?

If you have been arrested, you must be cautioned and interviewed ‘under caution’, at which time you will have the right to legal representation. Once they have concluded their questioning they must either charge or release you. In some circumstances they can ask a magistrate or crown court judge to give them permission to keep you in detention for longer than the normal 24 hours

www.abouthumanrights.co.uk...

I think you are confused...charged and arrest are two different things. If you are arrested you are read your Miranda rights which basically say you are innocent until proven guilty, you do not need to say anything and you should get legal counsel before you do.

To charged someone is basically the first court action by the processor after arrest, after that you are summoned to the court for a hearing and a judge tells you what you are being charged for and at that point you give your plea and that is it until the trial or if you plea guilty you are then convicted and sentenced.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: alldaylong

I have no idea what you are trying to say. He said anyone can be charged, but they are still considered innocent. You then posted anyone can be charged .. without the addition of them being considered innocent. Somehow them being innocent until proven guilty is bad?

In the US you don't need to say anything and it can never be held against you. In the UK you apparently have to answer questions and possibly self incriminate or else it CAN be held against you. How do you people allow this to happen?

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

www.gov.uk...

So glad we have our rights here in America.

You don't have to self incriminate at all and do have have right to silence as actually shown in the text you quote.

What it means is that if, for example, to make a defence of alibi when the case goes to court and you never mentioned the alibi before the court is entitled to put less weight on that alibi (as you may well have just made it up). It doesn't automatically rule it out but there would be far more requirement on you to provide convincing evidence for it.

You are correct. However all of this is a part of being interviewed and questioned by The Police.

In America it appears you can be charged before you have even been questioned.

What a bloody system they have.

Of course you can. Why shouldn't you be able to be? I guess it makes sense in the UK since they want to force you to talk to the police first and incriminate yourself. If you don't, then you are penalized in your defense.

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

The point being she has used diplomatic immunity to avoid any proper investigation or potential trial.

I have already stated that I don't like how this has been and is being handled. Including that this woman is being vilified for unspecified "crimes".

How has her departure impeded a proper investigation? She has already spoken to authorities, so at least seemingly cooperating with authorities. If necessary, and if consented to, they could have additional conversations via phone. (Or she may invoke her right to say nothing at all) Her flight in no way affects the scene of the accident. Unless she took the vehicle with her, she has not prevented inspection of the vehicle. I have not heard that any/all witnesses were also spirited out with her.

As far as a potential trial, for what? What crime have authorities determined she committed? The presumption is that she is guilty of some crime... or at least that there is reasonable suspicion warranting a trial... but for what? Why are the authorities in England not making the legal and criminal points crystal clear?

If a genuine accident fair enough, if she has been driving in dangerous manner then then she be tried just as anyone else would be.

And it's the "if" that's the problem for me at this point. No one has even asserted that a crime has been committed, or any criminal liability at all!!! If authorities had determined she was criminally liable, then I would expect that we would be hearing exactly that. But we're not.

Nor do I see any reasonable or legal argument for why the longstanding rules and protocols of diplomatic immunity should be waived in this particular situation. I seriously doubt this is the first such accident to ever take place; how were previous such accidents handled? Is the handling of this accident setting a new precedent? Or is this the standard procedure? Beyond Boris Johnson's rabble rousing, have the appropriate officials made a formal request for her to return? The victim's family certainly isn't happy with the way British authorities have handled it either.

Trump has stated that he will try to facilitate a meeting between the two families. I would strongly suggest that the victim's family find a good civil lawyer and sue her in civil court. I'm pretty sure that's the best "justice" they can hope for in their situation.

What she is or is not guilty of is largely irrelevant at this point.
What is relevant is that she has used, or been made to use, diplomatic immunity to avoid the legal process that any normal person would go through.
Despite the claims made in this thread diplomatic immunity is rarely abused for serious crimes and certainly not between long standing allies.

you can source this correct? or was this in the heat of the moment??

That serious abuses are rare? Since they are widely but extremely infrequently reported I would think the onerous is on those claiming they occur often to provide evidence. If you can show there are lots of these cases happening then please share.