TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 14 minutes ago, Foghorn said: Surely the woman should of stayed in the american compand until she had brains enough to know on what side of the road we drive in England . Why was she not detained at the time and passport confiscated until the court date, horrible woman I supposed you've never made a mistake and done something wrong in your life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyCarlton Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: She was an American who by nature and habit would be driving on the side of the road she was on... (albeit the wrong side for driving in the UK). And note the prior poster who mentioned that the driving on the U.S. bases in the UK is done US style, not UK style. So all in all, it's hardly the kind of situation to drag out a noose. And no one is suggesting dragging out a noose. All the facts you allude to would be presented to the court. However one of your facts is incorrect. It wasn't an American base. It's a British base that US spies have access to. You should have more faith in the British justice system as she would be highly unlikely to recieve a prison sentence. The main purpose of the court case would be to hear all witnesses, including her, so to obtain a full picture of the tragic event, thus providing closure to the family. The least that this selfish woman owes the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, cmarshall said: I think Sacoolas is criminally responsible, should be imprisoned, and should pay enormous damages. Then you don't know the criminal justice system. If the same exact thing had happened in the U.S. -- a regular foreign national driving by mistake on the wrong side of the road, no evidence of intoxication, no other criminal element, no history of driving infractions -- that person most likely would get something like probation and community service. They most likely would not be thrown in prison...absent some other exacerbating element. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robblok Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: She was an American who by nature and habit would be driving on the side of the road she was on... (albeit the wrong side for driving in the UK). And note the prior poster who mentioned that the driving on the U.S. bases in the UK is done US style, not UK style. So all in all, it's hardly the kind of situation to drag out a noose. No noose needed she just had to stand trial and by abusing diplomatic immunity she made it all a lot worse. Yes you showed that Brits did it too but that does not make this a good thing. I remember in my country how diplomats also abused their immunity by parking everywhere they wanted. I am sure that that is not why it was set up (spirit of the law remember). This is just a total f.. up and all the lady should have done is take court case and maybe get punished. Because it is like you said an accident but compounded many times by the abuse of diplomatic immunity. Anyone with a feeling of right and wrong would have send her back to face justice. That it does not happen show the moral bankruptcy of those involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robblok Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Then you don't know the criminal justice system. If the same exact thing had happened in the U.S. -- a regular foreign national driving by mistake on the wrong side of the road, no evidence of intoxication, no other criminal element, no history of driving infractions -- that person most likely would get something like probation and community service. They most likely would not be thrown in prison...absent some other exacerbating element. Yes maybe.. but at least they would have had the decency to be judged. Not the arrogance and moral bankruptcy of this lady. Its about escaping justice not about her crime because that is an accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmicbkktxl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Yes, it does. If the husband was covered by immunity by virtue of his position, then his immediate family is also covered... automatically, no ifs ands or buts. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-diplomatic-immunity.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, robblok said: Because it is like you said an accident but compounded many times by the abuse of diplomatic immunity. It wasn't abuse of diplomatic immunity. It was USE of diplomatic immunity. There is no system in place regards diplomatic immunity for anyone to say this kind of behavior is covered but that kind of behavior is exempted. As I said earlier, if the UK feels so strongly about it, I'll wait for the UK government to propose an overhall/reform of the worldwide diplomatic immunity system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarshall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Then you don't know the criminal justice system. If the same exact thing had happened in the U.S. -- a regular foreign national driving by mistake on the wrong side of the road, no evidence of intoxication, no other criminal element, no history of driving infractions -- that person most likely would get something like probation and community service. They most likely would not be thrown in prison...absent some other exacerbating element. That depends entirely on the degree of her negligence that would be determined by a trial, which we don't know now, except that we know she was driving on the wrong side of the road. Also, a guilty verdict in a criminal case, even without prison time, would strengthen the family's civil case for damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skytrooper70 Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 The wife killed an innocent teenager, when she broke the UK's traffic laws. Regardless, her status, all that the UK had requested, initially, was that she cooperate in their investigation of the accident. Although she promised to stay, in the UK, she sneaked out, like a thief, in the night. We'll never know but I suspect that the UK would have not gone for any imprisonment, even if she had been found guilty of negligent manslaughter. Her US lawyer, however, attempted to "cover" her client's reluctance to return to the UK because the UK's maximum punishment could have been a 14 year jail sentence, something that the UK had not indicated would be sought, initially. Diplomatic immunity is fine but there should be a moral code that a compassionate human being should follow and "do the correct thing." This woman should be ashamed of herself and brings shame upon the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zydeco Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 32 minutes ago, sucit said: So why doesn't Britain wake up and start defying US foreign policy? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, skytrooper70 said: Diplomatic immunity is fine but there should be a moral code that a compassionate human being should follow and "do the correct thing." This woman should be ashamed of herself and brings shame upon the US. Perhaps you can make your feelings known to all the British diplomatic staff like those referenced in this report (and surely all those that have followed them in subsequent years). And throw in Prince Andrew while you're at it. Quote Wednesday 29 November 2006 01:00 Seventeen British diplomats got off scot-free after being accused of serious offences including serious assault abroad last year by claiming diplomatic immunity. Each was accused of an offence which could have cost them at least a year in jail if they had not been protected by their diplomatic status. The allegations included serious assault, where the victims suffered injuries, and drunken driving in Muslim countries where alcohol is illegal. Complaints raised with the British authorities included two allegations that British staff had committed assaults causing actual bodily harm, one in Jordan and the other in Saudi Arabia. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/seventeen-british-envoys-avoided-trial-for-serious-crimes-last-year-426249.html Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAnotherHun Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 15 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said: Case above doesn't surprise me at all tho, germany for example never extradits their own citizen, diplomatic immunity or not. True, but Germany would prosecute it's citizen then. If the Americans do, everthing's ok IMHO. No country should extradite own citizens to other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rastlin Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 I think a big part of this is the different way the case is looked at in the U.S. as opposed to the U.K. There was no drunk driving involved and as such this case is looked at as a terrible accident in the U.S. While civil penalties would certainly apply, it would be unlikely that this lady would do jail time for a similar offense in the U.S. (Although not impossible I suppose.) Most Americans can see themselves as possibly making the same mistake (accidentally driving on the wrong side of the road) and as such can't get their mind around this lady doing jail time for the mistake. In the U.K., from the sound of it, even though this was an accident and no alcohol was involved, it sounds like "a couple of years" of jail time would be handed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, cmarshall said: That depends entirely on the degree of her negligence that would be determined by a trial, which we don't know now, except that we know she was driving on the wrong side of the road. Also, a guilty verdict in a criminal case, even without prison time, would strengthen the family's civil case for damages. Criminality usually requires one of two elements: either criminal intent, or reckless disregard. In this case, there's zero evidence of criminal intent. And the only reckless disregard element I've seen ever mentioned is driving on the wrong side of the road, which for an American new to the UK and perhaps coming from a UK/US base where U.S. roads rules are applied is likely going to a hard hill to climb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedrogaz Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Shamefully done by shameless people....a disgrace. Time to tighten up on diplomatic immunity for US spies in the UK. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, rastlin said: There was no drunk driving involved and as such this case is looked at as a terrible accident in the U.S. While civil penalties would certainly apply, it would be unlikely that this lady would do jail time for a similar offense in the U.S. (Although not impossible I suppose.) Most Americans can see themselves as possibly making the same mistake (accidentally driving on the wrong side of the road) and as such can't get their mind around this lady doing jail time for the mistake. I concur... but as an American, if a newly arrived Brit had the same thing (mistaken wrong way driving) happen on U.S. roads -- and no other criminal/liability elements were present -- I'd be a whole lot more understanding than many of the posters here who are calling for the woman's head. Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susco Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 20 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: If some country wants to take the position that the family members of their Embassy officers should not be covered by diplomatic immunity when abroad, they're likely to quickly find their embassy staff's family members being held de facto hostage by any number of adversary governments. Maybe tell us first why anyone should have immunity for killing someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said: Shamefully done by shameless people....a disgrace. Time to tighten up on diplomatic immunity for US spies in the UK. And the UK ones around the world too, let's not forget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Susco said: Maybe tell us first why anyone should have immunity for killing someone Firstly, I don't think anyone should be killed. But the current system for diplomatic immunity for covered officials and their immediate family is absolute... there's no provisions about it applying to this kind of incident but not to some other type. I didn't create the system, but I do understand how it works, and it applies equally to diplomats and their immediate families from the U.S., UK and every other country around the world... As I said earlier, if the UK government thinks it's wrong and should be changed, they're perfectly capable of bringing forth such a proposal. But they haven't, and they most certainly won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, mrmicbkktxl said: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-diplomatic-immunity.html I don't believe what you posted changes anything I've said. If her husband was covered as an Embassy officer, then she was covered as his wife. Her level of immunity would have matched his. And the British govt. publicly stated that she had immunity while in country -- unless the U.S. waived it. Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarshall Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: Criminality usually requires one of two elements: either criminal intent, or reckless disregard. In this case, there's zero evidence of criminal intent. And the only reckless disregard element I've seen ever mentioned is driving on the wrong side of the road, which for an American new to the UK and perhaps coming from a UK/US base where U.S. roads rules are applied is likely going to a hard hill to climb. Really I have a hard time conceiving of recklessness greater than driving on the wrong side of the road. Even driving drunk is probably less likely to result in death than driving head on into traffic. In the US reckless endangerment is activity that creates a severe risk of harm to another person. If the woman was not capable for any reason of preventing herself from driving into traffic head on, she recklessly endangered others by getting behind the wheel of the car. You seem to believe that there is no such legal concept of gross negligence or reckless endangerment. In your mind if the actor did not actually intend the outcome then no culpability attaches to him or her. That would be a strange legal concept. There is a prima facia case for regarding any activity that resulted in the death of another person as rising to either criminal or reckless endangerment. By fleeing the UK, Anne Sacoolas, if she ever has to face a civil suit for the teenager's death, will have a jury of Americans who may think, as perhaps you do, that we can't really be expected to drive on the left even in England. Shrewd of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 37 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: I concur... but as an American, if a newly arrived Brit had the same thing (mistaken wrong way driving) happen on U.S. roads -- and no other criminal/liability elements were present -- I'd be a whole lot more understanding than many of the posters here who are calling for the woman's head. Nobody is calling for her head, such over the top reactions don't do your case any good. People are saying she should stand trial, and probably get away with community service and probation. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placnx Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Does the UK really have to accord US employees at an airbase - and family members - full diplomatic immunity? Posters keep mentioning Embassy personnel, but this seems a different case. Rather it could as some discussed involve a lesser immunity attached only to official duties, in which case the US State Dept is abusing diplomatic privilege. If only Britain would stop admitting family members on diplomatic passports, the matter would be so much clearer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, stevenl said: Nobody is calling for her head, such over the top reactions don't do your case any good. People are saying she should stand trial, and probably get away with community service and probation. Quite a few posters here are saying she should have been thrown in prison, calling her a "horrible" woman and all kinds of other stuff. So it's not so over the top. But in any event, diplomatic immunity prevented that legal process from occurring, just as it has many times in the past with British Embassy staff involved in legal problems at various spots around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallGuyJohninBKK Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) I don't know if this is true, but it was interesting to see it mentioned in The Sun: Quote Anne claimed diplomatic immunity after a special deal was put in place between the UK and the US which gives staff and their families based at RAF Croughton diplomatic immunity. Usually, diplomatic immunity only covers those diplomats and their dependants based in London. The special arrangement has been in place as early as 1994 for this particular base. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10090807/anne-sacoolas-jonathan-spy-america-crash-immunity/ Quote What does apparently exist between the UK and US is a secret, bilateral agreement to treat GCHQ and NSA staff as if they had diplomatic immunity. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/jonathan-sacoolas-is-not-and-has-never-been-a-diplomat/ Edited January 25, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingamabob Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, cmarshall said: Other times, however, it's best to sue the grossly irresponsible party who caused the death of your loved one into poverty and cherish the court's award of damages. The appropriate response to smarm is snark. Puerile comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiekerjozef Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Just go there and push her in front of a train. Done, justice served. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingamabob Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 17 hours ago, cmarshall said: Then why did she run? And why are the Brits asking for her extradition if she can't be prosecuted? Bit slow on the uptake Marshall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Bundooman said: Stupid, stupid response. Not even worth posting really...…... Stupid, stupid response. Not even worth posting really...…... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfill Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 5 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said: She was an American who by nature and habit would be driving on the side of the road she was on... (albeit the wrong side for driving in the UK). And note the prior poster who mentioned that the driving on the U.S. bases in the UK is done US style, not UK style. So all in all, it's hardly the kind of situation to drag out a noose. Well sunshine, it may surprise you to learn that the UK is still connected to Europe by a tunnel and on one side they drive on the left and on the other they drive on the right. Both sides seem to travel quite extensively in their counterpart and yet still manage to get it right. The side you drive on is not determined by 'nature and habit' but by the laws of the prevailing country. This is just an irresponsible driver not paying attention to what is going on. Just like the pick up truck driver in Thailand who drive the wrong way down carriageways - yes, THAT stupid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now