norwegian guy attacks a dominican on a flight to POP

[Virgo]

Mirgo, mijito, if matters happened as Beeza wrote, then there is no Dominican jurisdiction. Incompetent lawyer or incompetent judge, MdeC most likely to be overturn on appeal. I am not a lawyer but I took several law courses (Uni), so it is quite likely I know more about the law than you do. Plus I know a lot of lawyers and how things are done, first hearing is almost never done according to the rules of procedure as we are accustomed to in the "western world" in spite of law saying one thing. these judges that do MdeC are not the same ones that handle the case later on. They are the "first appearance judges", then motions, amparos and appeals follow.

Anyway, about a written statement to CESAC by the captain, it is what the law states, either provide written statement to CESAC signed by captain and witness(es) or appear in court. It is not the same as a report to the airline or who-knows-what. The law is specific about it.

I went into trouble to read the law, the link you posted, so do yourself a favor and read it as well before discussing it with me.

Learn to read before writing so as no to spew irrelevant nonsense. Where did I speak of a report to the airline? WHERE? Give me a direct quote.

I simply translated ACTA as written report, which is much better than a "written statement" which may be just one sentence put in writing. Get it, now?

I know perfectly well what "medidas de coerci?n" means and explained it for people like you. He has NOT yet been found guilty, since the actual trial has not occurred. However, the JUDGE has RULED that the case is sufficiently well-founded to go to trial.

If you want to speculate that the judge is incompetent and didn't bother to review carefully the jurisdiction issue, it's your business. Go ahead and speculate all you want.

I prefer to assume that the first thing the judge checked was jurisdiction. First, it's the "first landing after the incident" issue. And, as as I explained to you already, if he was still being restrained when the landing occurred, OBVIOUSLY IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CREW he was STILL a disruptive passenger up to and including landing. Otherwise, why on earth would they keep him under physical restraint? WHY? WHY?

Hence IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CREW he was still acting in violation of the law up to and including landing. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you any more. Sorry.

 

[dv8]

this is why we cannot have nice things...