24 Hours in Police Custody

[DrLarry 441]

13 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't.

Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside.

Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

Two factors are at play here Criminal law and Civil Law.  The judge had to arrive in the criminal law courts as to whether she set out to carry out a criminal act.  She was negligent and sadly because of some silly loop hole in the diplomatic immunity she was not covered in her journey to and from the base in the same way her husband was who had full immunity.  Spousal diplomatic immunity as I understand it neglected this element of travel.  Now in Civil law she acted negligently gross negligence in fact and the case is yet to be heard in the civil case.  

As I said it is a terribly sad case but whilst negligent there is no malice involved so in her absence  I have to presume the judge simply had to prove criminal negligence.  That must have a fixed term associated with with it.  My apologies if I have misread this case but what it does is give her a criminal record  for careless driving which I think was the thrust of what the case wanted to achieve.  Whilst it seems a contradiction careless driving even if is causes death is different to dangerous driving to the degree to which a single careless act compares with repeatedly acting in a way that falls far below the expected of a competent driver.  

[1949threepence 3,366]

3 hours ago, DrLarry said:

Two factors are at play here Criminal law and Civil Law.  The judge had to arrive in the criminal law courts as to whether she set out to carry out a criminal act.  She was negligent and sadly because of some silly loop hole in the diplomatic immunity she was not covered in her journey to and from the base in the same way her husband was who had full immunity.  Spousal diplomatic immunity as I understand it neglected this element of travel.  Now in Civil law she acted negligently gross negligence in fact and the case is yet to be heard in the civil case.  

As I said it is a terribly sad case but whilst negligent there is no malice involved so in her absence  I have to presume the judge simply had to prove criminal negligence.  That must have a fixed term associated with with it.  My apologies if I have misread this case but what it does is give her a criminal record  for careless driving which I think was the thrust of what the case wanted to achieve.  Whilst it seems a contradiction careless driving even if is causes death is different to dangerous driving to the degree to which a single careless act compares with repeatedly acting in a way that falls far below the expected of a competent driver.  

I watched the summing up which can now be shown televised. The maximum is 3 years imprisonment, and the minimum 6 months. We heard a lot of mitigating factors, and no reference to the fact that she absconded the country in such a cowardly way. Obviously any sentence is in absentia.

I think it's very odd you use the word "sadly" in highlighting the fact that she was not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity in the same way as her husband.    

[1949threepence 3,366]

4 hours ago, DrLarry said:

I suppose luckily in life there are those that think one way and those that think another my understanding and position is based on a set of experiences that are different to yours and that is as it is.  the Law of consequences in life would inevitably lead to untold issues in the world if we allowed them to control our lives.  In the majority of cases a cascade of events does not happen because there are rules , laws and social orders..  These keep the system in check some decide to break those rules and we have over centuries either by statutes or precedent established ways to codify this ...these things laws can be reformed , they can be modified.   If we the electorate feel strongly enough we can call upon elected individuals to raise these issues and if public opinion is strong enough and the argument well put then there is a chance for change.  There have been (as you point out) many such high profile cases summoning "85%" or "majority of the public"opinion in favour of reforms but when those figures are more considered they are not absolute numbers or else it is more than likely that the legal system would be overturned.  But whilst the law makers can make these changes the Judiciary and the politicians must be independent of each other or else the politicians might break the laws they create and if they cannot be called to justice well ....who knows what might happen they might lose the confidence of those who elect them.  

 

 

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority.  

Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand  - sorry, sorry.)

[Peckris 2 2,043]

23 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Anne Saccolas caused a death. Adam White didn't.

Both were driving improperly and neither had intent to kill, but she gets off, and he gets a 2 year sentence inside.

Sorry. but however you argue the law, that is not right.

Saccoulas drove negligently, carelessly,and caused a death. I personally believe her punishment should have  been more severe, but the whole diplomacy/immunity issue stinks. As to White, he didn't have intent to kill, but the jury decided he had intent to cause harm  by driving dangerously.

Sorry, but that's the law whether you like it or not.

6 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority.  

Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand  - sorry, sorry.)

"you can rest assured it will be a majority" - I have no doubt that within the community in which you move and have your being, that is the case. But I move in a different community that thinks different.

[DrLarry 441]

17 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I watched the summing up which can now be shown televised. The maximum is 3 years imprisonment, and the minimum 6 months. We heard a lot of mitigating factors, and no reference to the fact that she absconded the country in such a cowardly way. Obviously any sentence is in absentia.

I think it's very odd you use the word "sadly" in highlighting the fact that she was not automatically covered by diplomatic immunity in the same way as her husband.    

sadly in as much as it was apparently an oversight in the legal process that spousal immunity does not make her as liable as her husband. would have been if he had caused an accident when travelling too and fro from the place of work  at which their immunity was requested .  The home office has since reviewed the rules and changed them so that a spouse is equally liable.  It is SAD that some idiot in whitehall got it wrong.  If it had not she would have had to take a longer sentence.  Or at least this is my understanding.   There seem to be some strange forces behind her suggestions that she may have been working for the CIA but it is unclear.  We have to remember that she was allowed to remain in the US and returned during Trumps time in "office" regretfully he does not own the right to call himself a president.  

 

Yes very cowardly 

[DrLarry 441]

17 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

I can see you are having difficulty psychologically processing the fact that most people favour the householder in these cases, and not the criminal. But even if it's not as high as 85% you can rest assured it will be a majority.  

Anyway, we've done this topic to death, so I'll let you have the last word (or three thousand  - sorry, sorry.)

well in a discussion the idea it to do the subject to death , or else why would it have been raised in the first place.  I am more than happy to use time to write 1000's of words if they progress a debate .   I was taught the need to advance my side of a debate and bring in facts that can be substantiated hence why I would never attempt to quantify the level of support that such cases really have.  I would need to see a representative poll of all demographics age and all other factors powered by a large enough population to believe  that there is some conspiracy towards the homeowners or a contra conspiracy that favoured the criminal.  Apologies if I write a lot this is a FORUM taking place in the FORA  one corner are standing chatting using words.  Perhaps I should not take the word FORUM too literally if that is your preference.  

I dont assume to know your circle no more than you know mine so I shall not attempt to make this personal or to throw insults .  That would nullify the  whole purpose of the discussion for me .