That's pretty surprising tbh. Wouldn't driving on the wrong side of the road count as gross negligence? A vehicle (especially an SUV) is a dangerous weapon and should be treated as such in cases like this.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump defends diplomat's wife who killed teenage Briton in crash: 'It happens'
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
That's pretty surprising tbh. Wouldn't driving on the wrong side of the road count as gross negligence? A vehicle (especially an SUV) is a dangerous weapon and should be treated as such in cases like this.
And I'm sure the lawyer will point out anything that is wrong, like a faded line, a half covered traffic sign, ... It is why nobody likes lawyers, it is because they try to find any gap to get their client off.
Probably? nobody here is trying to litigate the case, we're just saying it's ridiculous to expect the lawyer to not try to do it.
It is very literally the lawyer's job to attempt to prove her innocence. And while it leads to shit like this, it also is very important for the right to a fair trial that they do so for everyone.
Again, nobody here is defending her, so...not sure why you're trying to litigate it to us.
She also drove for 400 metres on the wrong side of the road. I'm sure road markings had a lot to do with it.
It's usually reserved for things like excessive speeding (like wreckless driving speed), dui, etc. usually things that are criminal charges in their own right.
You wouldn't be criminally charged for something like this in the US unless you were drunk or some other aggravating factor. You would be liable for damages and cited for the traffic offenses
It would again depend on the reason. Like, did you get a technical problem which made you drift, did you misjudge an attempt to catch up, did you try to avoid an obstacle, were you racing, were you drunk, ... The underlying reason will play a huge role.
Indeed. Still doesn't change that people usually don't like lawyers.
In a court of law. The idea of her lawyer saying she shouldn't face these charges is him advocating for her to circumvent the justice process, isn't it? Isn't that the opposite of what a lawyer should be doing?
No? Her lawyer advocating for her is what CREATES the justice process. The entire point is to prove if she's guilty or not. You do not want a world where lawyers are not there to defend you when you're accused of something.
I'm not sure I follow. Her lawyer's job is to advocate for her, to prove whether she's guilty or not, but absolutely not in court? Just to news outlets, like he's doing? While saying that she should hide from these formal charges? Am I going crazy or did I not make my initial point well?
Her lawyer's job is to prove she's not guilty. not 'whether she's guilty or not'
The prosecutor's job is to prove her guilty.
It's the jury's job to determine who makes the better argument.
He can be completely unhinged now that he's been impeached. The worst that could happen to him is over.
The justice process absolutely starts before a trial. For instance, to convince the prosecutor with a plea bargain or that a trial isn't worth it.
This statement - made long before the impeachment - doesn't negatively impact his popularity anyway. His base likes him defending Americans against foreign governments.
prosecutors have a large amount of discretion whether a case even goes to trial. a defense lawyer's job absolutely covers trying to get charges dropped or not filed in the first place. it's bizarre af for folks to think the lawyer is doing something weird or unethical by saying his client shouldn't be criminally charged.
Anyone that seems to not understand why it's VERY important that everyone have a lawyer that sides with them, go watch the star trek DS9 episode Tribunal. Look at the Cardassian justice system, and understand that that is what happens when you remove this one very key piece of the puzzle. It removes all pretense of a fair trial, without it you basically just devolve into 'whoever is prosecuted is guilty' - this woman absolutely may be guilty (I certainly think so), but it doesn't mean it shouldn't have to be proven or that she should be denied rights that I would never want denied to myself.
I think I get it. The part that's weirding me out reading about this case is how I think usually in this situation the prosecution has a lot more relative power whereas here they have absolutely none.
Traffic deaths for some reason really bring out some people's ignorance of the practicalities of the law. Saw the same thing with the Caitlin Jenner case a couple years ago.
Damn...this one gets me everytime. It really is the greatest GIF ever.
If you kill someone because you were driving on the wrong side of the word the you'd probably be charged with negligence homicide.
negligence is when someone should have foreseen the danger. unknowingly going down the wrong side of the road is stupidity, not negligence. (in the US or at least most states)
Highly inappropriate my fucking asshole.
In some countries it's deemed "highly inappropriate" to kill people.
mid you're driving abroad on the wrong side of the road you have extra liability to ensure you're not doing the most dangerous possible driving maneuver and that could be easily presented as highly negligent.
A bus driver forgetting to apply a safety brake is negligent.
negligence is often involuntary and includes lots of examples of forgetfulness as the inception point for the accident and negligence.
it's not by definition an active term. It can absolutely be passive in origin.
Even then the bar for prosecution, outside of dui, is really high.
I have a coworker who's mother in law was killed by a driver who was doing 45 over the speed limit down a city street. The DA did not prosecute.
I wouldn't hold my breath and expect that woman to face justice in UK for what she did.
Americans tend to play with their own ruleset.
And rejected.
You'd think a country protecting someone who killed one of our citizens would be worthy of a response instead of supine simpering. Can you imagine the outcry if it was Iran covering for the perpetrator?
They don't want to compromise the principle of diplomatic immunity.
But it is shit. I've said this before but I use that road a bit and this really gets to me.
The saving grace is that if she had just faced up to it she would have received a relatively short sentence, most likely. But now she'll live with this shadow the rest of her life. Good.
This is a mentality that spans both political parties in the USA.
The fact that we use "accident" as the descriptor for vehicular homicide.
The fact that we use "accident" as the descriptor for vehicular homicide.
I assume it was that windy section right outside the Croughton base leading to the M40 junction, I know there;'s been a few crashes there
He's right that it happens, and when it happens you face the legal system, you don't disappear abroad after lying to police
No, this is the country road off the A43.
A big part of the problem is that they help ship all their own cars over. Same issue when I was working near RAF Alconbury. So you end up with people whose only experience of driving is straight lines and 90 degree turns being put onto our roads with this over-familiarity of their own car and without being on the correct side of the car, which is a big fucking hint at where you need to drive.
Last edited:
Kinda wish in that case, we can kick out the US Ambassadors from the UK if America wants to play this sort of game.
Frankly Johnson is too fucking spineless to upset Trump, who he will need to get a hopelessly lopsided trade deal to satisfy his master's narcissism while in the process of destroying the UK.
These politicians are so self serving.
Literally the only upside is that this bitch will have a scarlet letter on her the rest of her life for killing someone.
Harry Dunn crash: Suspect Anne Sacoolas 'wanted internationally'
US national Anne Sacoolas is suspected of causing his death by dangerous driving
www.bbc.co.uk
"The suspect in the crash which killed Harry Dunn is "wanted internationally" after an Interpol notice."
Didn't see the point of creating a new thread so updated this one
Harry Dunn crash: Suspect Anne Sacoolas 'wanted internationally'
US national Anne Sacoolas is suspected of causing his death by dangerous drivingwww.bbc.co.uk
"The suspect in the crash which killed Harry Dunn is "wanted internationally" after an Interpol notice."
Didn't see the point of creating a new thread so updated this one
I wonder what would have happened if she stayed at the scene...showed geniune remorse and went through the court process.
Even though the US is Huge enough to not feel jailed, I bet she is dumb and spoiled enough to eventually try to travel again.
Doesn't this mean they can be arrested if they travel internationally?Harry Dunn crash: Suspect Anne Sacoolas 'wanted internationally'
US national Anne Sacoolas is suspected of causing his death by dangerous drivingwww.bbc.co.uk
"The suspect in the crash which killed Harry Dunn is "wanted internationally" after an Interpol notice."
Didn't see the point of creating a new thread so updated this one
My heart always goes out to this poor family every time a new development comes up. Listening to his mum on the BBC this morning, she's such a strong and we'll spoken lady who seems completely void of the kind of anger you'd expect in the situation. I hope she gets her justice one day.
Listening to all the legal experts that have been questioned in the over half year since this happened, she probably would have seen a suspended sentence if found guilty. At worst a very short term in a minimum prison.
But now she would probably be fucked if was ever arrested, so she'll never leave the US and given her assumed ex CIA status and ability to live a comfortable life, she probably doesn't care about being stuck in the US for life... though what does she say to the kids in the future when they ask why they never get to go foreign vacations?
Listening to all the legal experts that have been questioned in the over half year since this happened, she probably would have seen a suspended sentence if found guilty. At worst a very short term in a minimum prison.
But now she would probably be fucked if was ever arrested, so she'll never leave the US and given her assumed ex CIA status and ability to live a comfortable life, she probably doesn't care about being stuck in the US for life... though what does she say to the kids in the future when they ask why they never get to go foreign vacations?
There's a RedBull heir who did this in Thailand. Dragged a cop's body for a block. The followed the leaking brake fluid trail to his house. He seems to bounce around internationally just fine, despite the Interpol warrant out for him. And he's got no diplomatic ties. So... no. Rich people don't play by the rules you and I play by.
I swear it's like he's pre-dubbed into Bad Lip Reading format.
yup. Off the top of my head Interpol requires local cooperation and I don't see any country outside of the UK (And maybe even them considering they could apply more pressure) seeing it worth the bother in the future to pick a fight with the US.
Sucks.