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

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: ScepticScot

2019

we had an entire embassy shoot it out

Sorry what do you mean?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: ScepticScot

2019

we had an entire embassy shoot it out

Sorry what do you mean?

you didn't read the entire link did you?

the shoot out with the Lybian embassy, when has that ever happened in the UK?

A police office died, and it was a female.

So yah, it's the UK's turn for the UN now.

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: ScepticScot

2019

we had an entire embassy shoot it out

Sorry what do you mean?

you didn't read the entire link did you?

the shoot out with the Lybian embassy, when has that ever happened in the UK?

A police office died, and it was a female.

So yah, it's the UK's turn for the UN now.

Someone didn't read the link properly.

Go on read it again. It's quite a famous incident.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

You need to or it WILL be held against you. In the US it can't be.

and it won't be legally held against you.

I just sourced that is not true. If you do not speak then it will be used against you.

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence

You cut off the end of statement which is rather dishonest.

"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”.

Not saying anything doesn't harm defence. As already covered it means courts may decide to put less weight on statements that you only provide once the case is underway.

The end doesn't have a qualifier for the beginning and thus doesn't change the meaning, so no dishonesty. If you do not tell the police your defense, then it will be held against you when you use it in court. What I quoted or what you quoted, they both say the same thing.

In America what you DO say can hurt your case (or help it), but not saying anything can never hurt your case, you do not need to tell the police your alibi or your defense, and if you do not, it will NOT harm your defense.

Anyways, the post was geared towards the other poster who foolishly decided to post about how superior and amazing the UK is and how horrible nazi like the US is.

No, they don't say the same thing at all.

You claimed that if you do not speak it may be used against you and misquoted the warning to back that up.

No I did not. The full quote you posted says the exact same thing, no difference. The only part I did not include is that speaking up can hurt you. That actually supports my case even more. The full quote is actually a stronger argument for me, not a weaker one.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

You need to or it WILL be held against you. In the US it can't be.

and it won't be legally held against you.

I just sourced that is not true. If you do not speak then it will be used against you.

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence

You cut off the end of statement which is rather dishonest.

"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”.

Not saying anything doesn't harm defence. As already covered it means courts may decide to put less weight on statements that you only provide once the case is underway.

The end doesn't have a qualifier for the beginning and thus doesn't change the meaning, so no dishonesty. If you do not tell the police your defense, then it will be held against you when you use it in court. What I quoted or what you quoted, they both say the same thing.

In America what you DO say can hurt your case (or help it), but not saying anything can never hurt your case, you do not need to tell the police your alibi or your defense, and if you do not, it will NOT harm your defense.

Anyways, the post was geared towards the other poster who foolishly decided to post about how superior and amazing the UK is and how horrible nazi like the US is.

No, they don't say the same thing at all.

You claimed that if you do not speak it may be used against you and misquoted the warning to back that up.

No I did not. The full quote you posted says the exact same thing, no difference. The only part I did not include is that speaking up can hurt you. That actually supports my case even more. The full quote is actually a stronger argument for me, not a weaker one.

This is what you 'quoted'

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence.


That has a completely different meaning from the actual caution.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ScepticScot

You need to or it WILL be held against you. In the US it can't be.

and it won't be legally held against you.

I just sourced that is not true. If you do not speak then it will be used against you.

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence

You cut off the end of statement which is rather dishonest.

"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”.

Not saying anything doesn't harm defence. As already covered it means courts may decide to put less weight on statements that you only provide once the case is underway.

The end doesn't have a qualifier for the beginning and thus doesn't change the meaning, so no dishonesty. If you do not tell the police your defense, then it will be held against you when you use it in court. What I quoted or what you quoted, they both say the same thing.

In America what you DO say can hurt your case (or help it), but not saying anything can never hurt your case, you do not need to tell the police your alibi or your defense, and if you do not, it will NOT harm your defense.

Anyways, the post was geared towards the other poster who foolishly decided to post about how superior and amazing the UK is and how horrible nazi like the US is.

No, they don't say the same thing at all.

You claimed that if you do not speak it may be used against you and misquoted the warning to back that up.

No I did not. The full quote you posted says the exact same thing, no difference. The only part I did not include is that speaking up can hurt you. That actually supports my case even more. The full quote is actually a stronger argument for me, not a weaker one.

This is what you 'quoted'

You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence.


That has a completely different meaning from the actual caution.

“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.”

You do not have to say anything. If you do not say anything, your defense may be harmed. If you do say something, your defense may be harmed.

What did I misrepresent? You guys have your laws. They work for you, you like them, I am not from the UK, you guys do you. I prefer our 5th, and I hope you prefer your way. If I grew up in the UK I'd probably prefer the UK way too.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: alldaylong

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

What a bloody system they have.

So in the UK do you issue arrest warrants? In the US before a judge approves an arrest warrant the prosecutor needs to provide evidence to the judge to justify it and that is called a charge. Also, an arrest is not admission of guilt.

There are arrest warrants in English law but they mean something different I think than the US system. They are mainly a way of getting someone to appear in court rather than part of the police arrest process.

Semantics, same thing in the US. You are suppose to turn yourself in, if you don't, they issue a warrant, the police arrest you, and you go to court.

Not really semantics as they , as far as I understand it, are used in different circumstances between the US and UK.

I am actually interested how it is used there. In the US if you do not turn yourself in they will go before a judge and give the evidence and ask for a warrant. That warrant is then used to arrest you and bring you in to court.

How is warrant used there? How do you deal with a person who is suspected of a crime, runs, and refuses to turn themselves in?

Going slightly off topic but my understanding of US system (and please do correct me where I am wrong) is that arrest warrants are a requirement before the police can arrest you in many circumstances.

In UK more of a court device after person has already been charged to them appear at court.

Perhaps Oldcarpy who I believe is a lawyer (albeit not criminal law) could explain better.

No, there is never a need for an arrest warrant. They are issued when someone has skipped their court date or when evidence of a crime has come out and there is a suspect. It is done when someone has been charged and it is to force them to appear in court, same as UK it seems.

The best scenario and the one that is always preferred is that the suspect turns themselves in.

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: Xtrozero

originally posted by: alldaylong

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

What a bloody system they have.

So in the UK do you issue arrest warrants? In the US before a judge approves an arrest warrant the prosecutor needs to provide evidence to the judge to justify it and that is called a charge. Also, an arrest is not admission of guilt.

There are arrest warrants in English law but they mean something different I think than the US system. They are mainly a way of getting someone to appear in court rather than part of the police arrest process.

Semantics, same thing in the US. You are suppose to turn yourself in, if you don't, they issue a warrant, the police arrest you, and you go to court.

Not really semantics as they , as far as I understand it, are used in different circumstances between the US and UK.

I am actually interested how it is used there. In the US if you do not turn yourself in they will go before a judge and give the evidence and ask for a warrant. That warrant is then used to arrest you and bring you in to court.

How is warrant used there? How do you deal with a person who is suspected of a crime, runs, and refuses to turn themselves in?

Going slightly off topic but my understanding of US system (and please do correct me where I am wrong) is that arrest warrants are a requirement before the police can arrest you in many circumstances.

In UK more of a court device after person has already been charged to them appear at court.

Perhaps Oldcarpy who I believe is a lawyer (albeit not criminal law) could explain better.

No, there is never a need for an arrest warrant. They are issued when someone has skipped their court date or when evidence of a crime has come out and there is a suspect. It is done when someone has been charged and it is to force them to appear in court, same as UK it seems.

The best scenario and the one that is always preferred is that the suspect turns themselves in.

Never had the privilege of being arrested in the US ( not yet anyway) however my understanding is that unless the crime happens in the officers presence then there are a lot more scenarios where a warrant is required in advance ( for example in your own home).

UK police seem to have much wider powers of arrest. Not making any point about one system being better than the other institute they do seem to be used in different circumstances in UK.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

Tuff titties to late as it was an accident and they didn't hold her initially.

Say that to the parents and family of the person she killed...

Actually its for the british gov/police to explain.
Emotional much?????

And -

As she come from a country that drives on the opposite side of the road to where she was it then definitely puts weight into the accident theory.

Now -

That doesn't mean she should walk should be manslaughter at best but they let her out so - tuff titties indeed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Actually that is not the case. They are asking to be allowed to interview her, not charge her.

This is 2019, interview by Skype

Yes. Then tell the Americans they can interview Assange by Skype, too, but they can't have him because he might face the death sentence, which is a reason Britain always cites for refusing extradition.

originally posted by: micpsi

Yes. Then tell the Americans they can interview Assange by Skype, too, but they can't have him because he might face the death sentence, which is a reason Britain always cites for refusing extradition.

The difference is she was not charged for a court hearing and Assange was, so for her it is an interview for information and his it is a official notice to stand in front of a judge.

originally posted by: NotSoBigG
OK, this is my first thread and I just have to get this off my chest! Anne Sacoolas is the wife of a US diplomat who was based in the UK. She killed a 19 year old Harry Dunn after driving on the opposite side of the road smashing into his bike and rendering him dead. All completely her fault! She was interviewed by UK police and PROMISED not to leave the country during the investigation.

Guess what? Just like the filthy coward that she is, she absconded back to the US after promising that she wouldn't and is now hiding behind diplomatic immunity. Trump has said that she will not be returned and is basically tossing the situation away and claiming "it happens"!

Now, let is say the same thing occurred on US soil involving the family of a British diplomat. The US would scream holy # if the said person came back to the UK and never returned, diplomatic immunity or not! This is rank hypocrisy, and a brilliant example of how the US thinks its above laws in other countries, but expect their laws to be followed complicity.

The US government and its cronies disgust me and just looking at their flag makes me want to deficate unprofusely. The 25% of American blood coursing through my veins curdle at the thought of originating in such an entitled, hypocrisy ridden land. My grandfather would be ashamed that the once great US has become a self absorbed self important land of idiots!

"We do as we like, and we like what we do" should be the new American mantra.

Rant over!

www.bbc.co.uk...

LOL Let me help you out. Here's the INTERNATIONAL LAW that lots of countries, because it's international, signed on to and all comply with. It's not USA law, it's INTERNATIONAL law. Read it and weep. It's a done deal. treaties.un.org...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: NotSoBigG

With this president only America matters and only American lives count , it's a shame that Diplomatic Immunity has been turned into a get out of jail free card for people who are not diplomats , we need to reevaluate its scope following this case.

That is as it should be. The USA President should be the biggest, baddest cheerleader the USA has. It's their job. They are the figurehead and lead the country. Why are you not screaming about how China or some other country's leaders are not ALL for their country? Guess you only hold the USA to such high standards and morals? Why is that? The USA is not perfect nor is it always going to do the "right" thing because there is no such thing on the world's stage. There are lots of cultures and what is correct in one is NOT correct and thought to be horrible in others. There are NO WORLD standards of right and wrong, moral or immoral. You are showing your own, personal bias on life and morals which do not happen to agree with other's biases or morals.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you can find a benefit I will listen.

If justice needs to be served, then she needs to be here to face any possible consequences of what she has done.

Is that a good enough benefit for you?

Go ask your government why the want Assange sent to The U.S. What benefit would they have for wanting him ?

Great, get rid of the 'if' part, and get to the part where they are ready to serve justice.

They are ready to prosecute Assange, not see if he did something and then maybe send him home.

WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Charged in 18-Count Superseding Indictment

www.justice.gov...

So since you are the one comparing their situations, not me, now you can follow through and show me the indictment against this woman.

LOL

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

Bloody hell, are you the new Soviet Union. LOL

They do it all the time. Welcome to American justice system. LOL

originally posted by: alldaylong

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...

Been this way since the country was formed. Most just hear the "you are innocent until proven guilty part". They miss the fact that you are standing there, looking down the barrel of a gun that's going to shoot you with the right evidence or let you go if it's missing. Most criminals in the USA plead out their charges without going to trial because it's much easier and usually pleading gets you a lighter sentence. And if you don't plead out, you better have money because it's gonna cost you if you get charged with anything, guilty or innocent doesn't matter one bit.

It's amazing how many USA citizens have records that are not deserved because they didn't have the money for a lawyer. And for the ones that state, the state will give you a public attorney.... Yeah, they will if you sit in jail until your trial and don't bail out to freedom until it. Or you are so poor, you can prove it. If you own anything, even have a job, you can not get a public attorney and have to pay out of pocket for one. Good luck finding any attorney, especially one that costs under $100 an hour and it's been years so that $100 is more like what $200 an hour for your case. You can sit in court for hours ya know. And that's not counting all the court fees and such. Expensive to prove your innocence in the USA. Guilty is easy, most just plead so they can go home and get on with their lives and not give up everything they've worked their entire life for. Ask Gen. Flynn why he doesn't own a house anymore or anything else trying to prove his innocence. Waste.

Do not get involved in the court system in the USA. If you do, you are screwed royally. Tip for those foreigners that want to immigrate here and all that thinking the USA is so free and all that crap.

I love all the 'it happens here so it is what it is' comments.

originally posted by: alldaylong


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

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

What a bloody system they have.

LOL Correct!

a reply to: sybdragon

yeah it's terrible in the USA, I mean look at myself as an example

I have been driving on the roads of the USA since I was 17, I'm 58 now, I have never had a moving violation in my life.

the one ticket I got, was driving a comercial vehicle, and the plates were expired, and I had told my boss and he said go anyway, if you get a ticket I'll pay for it, at least I was not out 300$.

hey guess what, My white privilege has keep me out of jail too i guess. I have never been arrested either.

How strange huh? I was also in the USMC, didn't get in trouble then either.

Gosh, it's so hard to not get in trouble anywhere. Oh yeah I went around the world 3 times in the USMC and have been to many many countries.

Didn't get in trouble in any of them, broke the law in most of them as well as the USA.

Hmmm. how strange.....

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I am actually interested how it is used there. In the US if you do not turn yourself in they will go before a judge and give the evidence and ask for a warrant. That warrant is then used to arrest you and bring you in to court.

How is warrant used there? How do you deal with a person who is suspected of a crime, runs, and refuses to turn themselves in?

Going slightly off topic but my understanding of US system (and please do correct me where I am wrong) is that arrest warrants are a requirement before the police can arrest you in many circumstances.

In UK more of a court device after person has already been charged to them appear at court.

Perhaps Oldcarpy who I believe is a lawyer (albeit not criminal law) could explain better.

I will try to answer this although I am not a lawyer, just someone that's messed with USA law and courts, of course on the "wrong" side of them. LOL

You do not need a warrant for any crime if said crime is witnessed by someone, especially a police officer. In the USA, there is a something called a "citizen's arrest" where a citizen that sees you doing something wrong can hold you for the police and it's done all the time. Usually when someone is fighting but there are lots of things you can do this on. It's dangerous so the police suggest you do not do this. But hey, Americans are slightly stupid a whole lot. LOL

Then you have cases where someone signs a complaint against you and the law will go pick you up for it, that would be a warrant. You are driving on a suspended driver's license and get stopped on a traffic offense or even go through a roadblock for drunks and are asked for it and don't have it, you are immediately arrested and thrown in jail until you pay bail. Lots and lots of people are arrested without warrants.

Crimes that are investigated tend to have warrants but not all crimes are investigated. They just are. And yes, that's hard to explain. Let's see, you get restraining order against someone and they invade the space around they are not allowed to be in per court order, no warrant or anything, the offending party is taken to jail for violating this order. Lots of arrests, no warrants. I don't think I ever got arrested on a warrant but I've been arrested. So..... just depends on the circumstances.

Another example. You are illegal and under deportation orders. You are arrested at your house, or anywhere, and the people with you are ID'ed, yes they can do that legally and you have to produce it because I don't know a state in the USA that doesn't have a law on the books that you must carry ID with you if you are over 16 years of age although it's not enforced that much. Those other people, even though they don't have deportation orders or any warrant are also illegal. They will also be taken down and deported with you. No warrant, no nothing. Just the way it is.

The legal system in the USA is kind of whacked out and it's not "innocent until proven guilty" although that sounds good and is in the law and all. It's ignored by all but the criminals, who are all innocent. Just ask them. LOL

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Found ya. Your post was the one I was quoting. I'm so sorry for messing that up.