BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   7Post - 7 Series Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-13-2019, 04:34 PM   #23
Manivxr
Lieutenant
171
Rep
552
Posts

Drives: 435d EB
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Staffordshire

iTrader: (0)

Relationships are about give and take.
What is special about the USA and UK relationship is that the UK gives and the USA takes.

Who said the relationship was about equal reciprocation?
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2019, 04:39 PM   #24
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanQS View Post
I think what gives this a particularly foul taste in the U.K. is that she bolted for home at the earliest opportunity after saying she would not do so. There is also a suggestion that she did not really have diplomatic immunity in her own right (maybe yes, maybe no).

But what sticks in British craws is that when it comes to sending citizens from one of the 2 countries back to the other country for some sort of investigation, the USA expects the U.K. to do so, but does not reciprocate and though expecting other countries to do so, will not send their own citizens back to a third country.

It's a bit like a British company taking a US company to court in the U.S. The Jury always sides with the US company, no matter how egregious their actions.
I can't say I've been paying close attention to diplomatic immunity news over the years, but the legal dictionary is calling bullshit on both your questioning the qualifications of immediate family members; and your assertion that the US is somehow unfair when it comes to exercising this protection for diplomats and their families.

If I may quote... (my emphasis added)

In the United States, several levels of immunity are granted: the higher the rank, the greater the immunity. Diplomatic Agents and their immediate families have the most protection and are immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

The United States has had a tendency to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats because a large number of U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...matic+immunity
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2019, 04:58 PM   #25
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanQS View Post
I think what gives this a particularly foul taste in the U.K. is that she bolted for home at the earliest opportunity after saying she would not do so. There is also a suggestion that she did not really have diplomatic immunity in her own right (maybe yes, maybe no).

But what sticks in British craws is that when it comes to sending citizens from one of the 2 countries back to the other country for some sort of investigation, the USA expects the U.K. to do so, but does not reciprocate and though expecting other countries to do so, will not send their own citizens back to a third country.

It's a bit like a British company taking a US company to court in the U.S. The Jury always sides with the US company, no matter how egregious their actions.
I can't say I've been paying close attention to diplomatic immunity news over the years, but the legal dictionary is calling bullshit on both your questioning the qualifications of immediate family members; and your assertion that the US is somehow unfair when it comes to exercising this protection for diplomats and their families.

If I may quote... (my emphasis added)

In the United States, several levels of immunity are granted: the higher the rank, the greater the immunity. Diplomatic Agents and their immediate families have the most protection and are immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

The United States has had a tendency to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats because a large number of U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...matic+immunity
I have to add this fact as its own post. People need to gain some perspective here. The US let a diplomat's son suspected of 15(!) rapes claim protections; and a woman involved in a car accident is supposed to face trial? Get the fuck outa here! The best thing that woman did was leave the UK before they tied her to a stake.

Diplomats and their families have also been known to use diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution for criminal behavior. For example, in a 1983 case the New York City Police Department suspected a diplomat's son of 15 different rapes. The son was allowed to leave the United States without ever being taken to court because he claimed diplomatic immunity. If diplomatic immunity is used as a shield, the police cannot prosecute, no matter how serious the crime may be.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2019, 05:04 PM   #26
1 AKY
Major
1 AKY's Avatar
United Kingdom
292
Rep
1,182
Posts

Drives: E90 330D MSport Auto
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK

iTrader: (1)

Was it a British diplomat's son?
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2019, 05:05 PM   #27
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 AKY View Post
Was it a British diplomat's son?
I don't know, but it's not a relevant fact.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-13-2019, 05:16 PM   #28
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America. There shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for the immediate family of a diplomat.

If the driver was drunk, diplomatic protections should still hold strong. No change in position in this case.

The only question I'm willing to even entertain is if the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist and killed him intentionally. Even so, there's a debate here. We cannot be confident the driver would receive a fair trial. When I read the past precedent I lean towards retaining protections even in this case, but I'd at least consider a waiver if it was intentional.

People should remember that A: the default rule is the diplomat and his/her immediate family immune from criminal prosecution (and civil lawsuits); and B: waivers are very rare. A fucking auto accident isn't at all worthy of a waiver. Case closed imo.
__________________
Appreciate 1
Run Silent12164.00

      10-14-2019, 08:02 AM   #29
AlanQS
Colonel
AlanQS's Avatar
Scotland
131
Rep
2,701
Posts

Drives: Jaguar XE P250 HSE
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I can't say I've been paying close attention to diplomatic immunity news over the years, but the legal dictionary is calling bullshit on both your questioning the qualifications of immediate family members; and your assertion that the US is somehow unfair when it comes to exercising this protection for diplomats and their families.
I am not aware of any bullshit. I merely pointed out that there is an opinion that she may not have had proper diplomatic immunity and I noted "maybe yes, maybe no" to illustrate I was not making a definitive statement. So, not bullshit.
Further, when done formally, accreditation is presented at St. James Court in the U.K. This did not happen with the lady in question, however, it has been long standing practice to unofficially extend the cover to close relations even though not consistent with international protocols.

The other thing you called bullshit, regarding US court bias towards US citizens or companies again, has nothing to do with legal maxims but simply the experience of British companies in American courts, pursuing US companies. It is so bad that there is a corporate maxim in international British companies, that there is no point in taking a case out against an American company in an American Court. It may just be a matter of statistics but it's certainly not in any legal dictionary.

Your last points are well put. I don't think there was any intention to jail her, even though it was entirely her fault that a teenager died. Depending upon the circumstances, vehicular manslaughter in the U.K. does not carry mandatory jail time unless it was wilful, or drink or drugs related, but civil remedies would have applied as anywhere else which, it looks, like she is trying to avoid. It's the fact that she cut and run, hiding behind diplomatic immunity that has upset so many people.
Appreciate 1
tcphoto571.00

      10-15-2019, 09:01 PM   #30
agentorange
Lieutenant
United_States
161
Rep
472
Posts

Drives: 328d
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Desert SW

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America.
Errm, I don't know about New Jersey, but here in Nevada we a few statutes relating to dangerous driving. I'm sure being on the wrong side of the road and taking out a biker would qualify, and yes, there would be a trial.
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 09:34 AM   #31
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanQS View Post
I think what gives this a particularly foul taste in the U.K. is that she bolted for home at the earliest opportunity after saying she would not do so. There is also a suggestion that she did not really have diplomatic immunity in her own right (maybe yes, maybe no).

But what sticks in British craws is that when it comes to sending citizens from one of the 2 countries back to the other country for some sort of investigation, the USA expects the U.K. to do so, but does not reciprocate and though expecting other countries to do so, will not send their own citizens back to a third country.

It's a bit like a British company taking a US company to court in the U.S. The Jury always sides with the US company, no matter how egregious their actions.
I can't say I've been paying close attention to diplomatic immunity news over the years, but the legal dictionary is calling bullshit on both your questioning the qualifications of immediate family members; and your assertion that the US is somehow unfair when it comes to exercising this protection for diplomats and their families.

If I may quote... (my emphasis added)

In the United States, several levels of immunity are granted: the higher the rank, the greater the immunity. Diplomatic Agents and their immediate families have the most protection and are immune from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

The United States has had a tendency to be generous when granting diplomatic immunity to visiting diplomats because a large number of U.S. diplomats work in host countries less protective of individual rights. If the United States were to punish a visiting diplomat without sufficient grounds, U.S. representatives in other countries could receive harsher treatment.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...matic+immunity
I have to add this fact as its own post. People need to gain some perspective here. The US let a diplomat's son suspected of 15(!) rapes claim protections; and a woman involved in a car accident is supposed to face trial? Get the fuck outa here! The best thing that woman did was leave the UK before they tied her to a stake.

Diplomats and their families have also been known to use diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution for criminal behavior. For example, in a 1983 case the New York City Police Department suspected a diplomat's son of 15 different rapes. The son was allowed to leave the United States without ever being taken to court because he claimed diplomatic immunity. If diplomatic immunity is used as a shield, the police cannot prosecute, no matter how serious the crime may be.
So why would it matter if she had targeted him on purpose? After all, your contention is that immunity is immunity, and it should never be waived.
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 09:41 AM   #32
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
So why would it matter if she had targeted him on purpose? After all, your contention is that immunity is immunity, and it should never be waived.
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 10:25 AM   #33
Run Silent
Run Deep
Run Silent's Avatar
United_States
12164
Rep
3,399
Posts

Drives: Back and Forth To Work
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: The Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Not quite sure how this is even a discussion. Should she be prosecuted? Maybe. Should she go back to the UK? Perhaps.

Is she legally required to? Absolutely not.

1) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or VCDR, has been ratified by both the USA and by the UK.

2) It provides diplomats with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and protection from most civil and administrative actions brought in the "receiving State," or where they are stationed. A diplomat is not even required to give evidence in court as a witness under the VCDR.

3) There are three exceptions to a diplomat's civil immunity, none of which are likely to apply to a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a diplomat.

4) The VCDR extends immunity to family members who form part of the diplomat's household. While every country may define "family" differently, diplomats' spouses enjoy co-extensive immunity.
__________________
Don't sweat petty things....or pet sweaty things.
Appreciate 1
glennQNYC5525.50

      10-16-2019, 10:35 AM   #34
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Run Silent View Post
Not quite sure how this is even a discussion. Should she be prosecuted? Maybe. Should she go back to the UK? Perhaps.

Is she legally required to? Absolutely not.

1) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or VCDR, has been ratified by both the USA and by the UK.

2) It provides diplomats with absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and protection from most civil and administrative actions brought in the "receiving State," or where they are stationed. A diplomat is not even required to give evidence in court as a witness under the VCDR.

3) There are three exceptions to a diplomat's civil immunity, none of which are likely to apply to a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by a diplomat.

4) The VCDR extends immunity to family members who form part of the diplomat's household. While every country may define "family" differently, diplomats' spouses enjoy co-extensive immunity.
Thank you.

In the very first paragraph of diplomatic immunity in the legal dictionary makes clear that this situation is exactly why such a agreement is in place. The relevant quote:

Diplomatic immunity allows foreign representatives to work in host countries without fully understanding all the customs of that country.

The woman obviously made a mistake. In error, she drove on the side of the road we drive on in the US. She had her kids in the car; I don't think this was intentional. It's an unfortunate situation that I feel sympathetic towards everyone involved. People need to accept an accident for what it was and move on.
__________________
Appreciate 1
Run Silent12164.00

      10-16-2019, 10:37 AM   #35
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
Feel free to elaborate when you think it is worth consideration.

what difference does intention make?
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 10:41 AM   #36
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America. There shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for the immediate family of a diplomat.

If the driver was drunk, diplomatic protections should still hold strong. No change in position in this case.

The only question I'm willing to even entertain is if the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist and killed him intentionally. Even so, there's a debate here. We cannot be confident the driver would receive a fair trial. When I read the past precedent I lean towards retaining protections even in this case, but I'd at least consider a waiver if it was intentional.

People should remember that A: the default rule is the diplomat and his/her immediate family immune from criminal prosecution (and civil lawsuits); and B: waivers are very rare. A fucking auto accident isn't at all worthy of a waiver. Case closed imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
Feel free to elaborate when you think it is worth consideration.

what difference does intention make?
I included my earlier post above for your reference.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 11:20 AM   #37
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America. There shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for the immediate family of a diplomat.

If the driver was drunk, diplomatic protections should still hold strong. No change in position in this case.

The only question I'm willing to even entertain is if the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist and killed him intentionally. Even so, there's a debate here. We cannot be confident the driver would receive a fair trial. When I read the past precedent I lean towards retaining protections even in this case, but I'd at least consider a waiver if it was intentional.

People should remember that A: the default rule is the diplomat and his/her immediate family immune from criminal prosecution (and civil lawsuits); and B: waivers are very rare. A fucking auto accident isn't at all worthy of a waiver. Case closed imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
Feel free to elaborate when you think it is worth consideration.

what difference does intention make?
I included my earlier post above for your reference.
That doesn't tell me anything about why you think intention is relevant.

For what it's worth, I don't really see the point of having immunity if you're going to waive it, so I just don't really see why you think it makes a difference.

Interestingly the US persuaded Georgia to revoke immunity for a diplomat to face trial for death he caused when driving.


https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/09/u...-age-girl.html

I don't think he meant to do it, so do you feel that this was the wrong outcome?
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 01:05 PM   #38
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America. There shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for the immediate family of a diplomat.

If the driver was drunk, diplomatic protections should still hold strong. No change in position in this case.

The only question I'm willing to even entertain is if the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist and killed him intentionally. Even so, there's a debate here. We cannot be confident the driver would receive a fair trial. When I read the past precedent I lean towards retaining protections even in this case, but I'd at least consider a waiver if it was intentional.

People should remember that A: the default rule is the diplomat and his/her immediate family immune from criminal prosecution (and civil lawsuits); and B: waivers are very rare. A fucking auto accident isn't at all worthy of a waiver. Case closed imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
Feel free to elaborate when you think it is worth consideration.

what difference does intention make?
I included my earlier post above for your reference.
That doesn't tell me anything about why you think intention is relevant.

For what it's worth, I don't really see the point of having immunity if you're going to waive it, so I just don't really see why you think it makes a difference.
You're missing my point. What I'm saying is without intention there shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for diplomats. This is more a statement about how a situation without intent is handled, rather than how we handle a situation with motives and intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Interestingly the US persuaded Georgia to revoke immunity for a diplomat to face trial for death he caused when driving.


https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/09/u...-age-girl.html

I don't think he meant to do it, so do you feel that this was the wrong outcome?
This is interesting. Thanks for adding something meaningful to the conversation.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "wrong outcome." It's a decision the country of Georgia made. I wonder what their motivations were for doing this back in 1997. It was only 6 years after the breakup of the USSR. Perhaps they were trying to go along to get along with the west?

I'll just again point to the fact that Georgia's decision is an outlier and not how these situations are apparently handled. Everything I've read says waivers are extremely rare. An innocent car accident like the one this thread is discussing is not an appropriate occasion to waive the protections this woman is legally entitled to. The default position is the diplomat and their immediate family are entitled to this protection. It is up to those whom are pushing for a waiver to make their case. So far their case is as weak as it can be.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 01:41 PM   #39
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
I'll clarify my personal opinion on this...

If this was a simple car accident there shouldn't be any criminal trial at all... even if it's an American in America. There shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for the immediate family of a diplomat.

If the driver was drunk, diplomatic protections should still hold strong. No change in position in this case.

The only question I'm willing to even entertain is if the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist and killed him intentionally. Even so, there's a debate here. We cannot be confident the driver would receive a fair trial. When I read the past precedent I lean towards retaining protections even in this case, but I'd at least consider a waiver if it was intentional.

People should remember that A: the default rule is the diplomat and his/her immediate family immune from criminal prosecution (and civil lawsuits); and B: waivers are very rare. A fucking auto accident isn't at all worthy of a waiver. Case closed imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
That is not my contention. Your inaccurate interpretation aside... My point is that without intention, waiving immunity isn't even a topic worthy of consideration.
Feel free to elaborate when you think it is worth consideration.

what difference does intention make?
I included my earlier post above for your reference.
That doesn't tell me anything about why you think intention is relevant.

For what it's worth, I don't really see the point of having immunity if you're going to waive it, so I just don't really see why you think it makes a difference.
You're missing my point. What I'm saying is without intention there shouldn't even be a discussion about waiving protections for diplomats. This is more a statement about how a situation without intent is handled, rather than how we handle a situation with motives and intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Interestingly the US persuaded Georgia to revoke immunity for a diplomat to face trial for death he caused when driving.


https://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/09/u...-age-girl.html

I don't think he meant to do it, so do you feel that this was the wrong outcome?
This is interesting. Thanks for adding something meaningful to the conversation.

I'm not sure I'd call it a "wrong outcome." It's a decision the country of Georgia made. I wonder what their motivations were for doing this back in 1997. It was only 6 years after the breakup of the USSR. Perhaps they were trying to go along to get along with the west?

I'll just again point to the fact that Georgia's decision is an outlier and not how these situations are apparently handled. Everything I've read says waivers are extremely rare. An innocent car accident like the one this thread is discussing is not an appropriate occasion to waive the protections this woman is legally entitled to. The default position is the diplomat and their immediate family are entitled to this protection. It is up to those whom are pushing for a waiver to make their case. So far their case is as weak as it can be.
As I understand it, the original purpose of diplomatic immunity is to afford protection to those who could be at risk from the nefarious actions of a foreign state, which makes complete sense. Especially when there are plenty of countries and governments with fairly low moral standards, and dubious legal and justice standards.

But should immunity mean impunity from any kind of reasonable justice process, and accountability for ones actions?

Involuntary manslaughter is still a serious crime, on either side of the Atlantic, as far as I understand it. It's. It not like unpaid parking tickets and suchlike.

Ones actions leading to another person losing there life, whether intentional or not, should not be seen as trivial.

If I was this lady I would do exactly as she has done I suspect, as I'd rather have the time and freedom to consider my position.

But I'd think most folk would understand anyone feeling that immunity seems inappropriate, so I don't get why you think it's "weak"?
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 01:52 PM   #40
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
I'd think most folk would understand anyone feeling that immunity seems inappropriate, so I don't get why you think it's "weak"?
The argument for a waiver is weak... As weak as can be actually. It just isn't appropriate in this case at all. It was a simple car accident!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 01:55 PM   #41
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
I'd think most folk would understand anyone feeling that immunity seems inappropriate, so I don't get why you think it's "weak"?
The argument for a waiver is weak... As weak as can be actually. It just isn't appropriate in this case at all. It was a simple car accident!
I just don't get why you say that. You've not made any case for that view that I can see.
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 02:23 PM   #42
glennQNYC
2006 TIME Person Of The Year
glennQNYC's Avatar
United_States
5526
Rep
5,020
Posts

Drives: M Sport 335i
Join Date: May 2013
Location: North Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 335i  [4.87]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tengocity View Post
I'd think most folk would understand anyone feeling that immunity seems inappropriate, so I don't get why you think it's "weak"?
The argument for a waiver is weak... As weak as can be actually. It just isn't appropriate in this case at all. It was a simple car accident!
I just don't get why you say that. You've not made any case for that view that I can see.
My case is based on what the law is. The person is afforded protection from prosecution and civil lawsuits. I think we agree to this point.

What (I think) you and other are arguing for is a waiver from this law. The burden is on you and those seeking an exclusion from the law. My point is I haven't heard even close to a good argument for why this person should be excluded from the protections she is afforded.

Looking at it another way... If we're going to remove protections for a person getting in a simple car accident, then we're effectively throwing out the entire agreement. That isn't wise.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-16-2019, 03:14 PM   #43
Tengocity
Lieutenant General
Tengocity's Avatar
Scotland
4994
Rep
17,271
Posts

Drives: M4 CP/330e/Boxster S
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oxfordshire and Scotland sometimes

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
My case is based on what the law is. The person is afforded protection from prosecution and civil lawsuits. I think we agree to this point.

What (I think) you and other are arguing for is a waiver from this law. The burden is on you and those seeking an exclusion from the law. My point is I haven't heard even close to a good argument for why this person should be excluded from the protections she is afforded.

Looking at it another way... If we're going to remove protections for a person getting in a simple car accident, then we're effectively throwing out the entire agreement. That isn't wise.
I think the argument goes along the lines that it would be the right thing to do. The UK is a country known for a fair justice process, the woman wasn't on "government business", and it's fairly clear that she was culpable.

I would do as she is doing, no doubts, but I'd totally understand why others would want immunity waived, so I think it's clearly worth debate and consideration.

Anyways, that's enough from me on the subject.
__________________
Current: 2018 M4 Competition, 2019 G20 330e MSport
Gone...F30 330e,Boxster S 987, F31 335d, Mini Cooper SD, E89 Z4, E90 330d 320d, E60 520d, E46 330d 320d, MX5s, E30 325i
Appreciate 0
      10-18-2019, 04:17 PM   #44
Manivxr
Lieutenant
171
Rep
552
Posts

Drives: 435d EB
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Staffordshire

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC View Post
The argument for a waiver is weak... As weak as can be actually. It just isn't appropriate in this case at all. It was a simple car accident!
A simple car accident which resulted in someone losing their life. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am absolutely disgusted.
Appreciate 1
1 AKY292.00

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.




7post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST