Posted on 10/16/2019 5:23:29 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
crash death after Donald Trump dropped the "bombshell" that she was in the room next door at the White House.
Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn felt "a little ambushed" by the offer made by the US president.
Anne Sacoolas, 42, returned to the United States days after the crash which killed 19-year-old Harry.
Harry's parents said they wanted to meet Mrs Sacoolas in the UK.
Mr Dunn said a White House official told them she would not be returning to the UK, but Mr Trump said he would "try to push this from a different angle".
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
I was on a bicycle & found that round-abouts are tricky.
There are big signs on the road at cross walks. LOOK LEFT before crossing.
I did it twice while I was in Australia; once for about 100 miles!
My only excuse was I in the deep, o-dark-30 desert with no other traffic the whole time.
An on-coming truck eventually led me to realize I was on the wrong side.
The other time I was in a small town with a road with a treed divider. I turned right instead of left. Quickly pulled over and got going the correct way.
Why are you holding the British and the Americans to a higher standard than the rest of the world?
She did not have any diplomatic immunity and it turns out her husband may not have had any either. So it gets down to a extradition situation if this is true.
That would be extradition, not prosecution.
a person
operating a motor vehicle on a public street of highway
while intoxicated
Those are the elements of a DWI in Texas.
If you are not driving the car, can’t be arrested and charged with a DWI.
In the UK, a few years back, I was riding with a police officer in Lincolnshire, he saw a car that was blocking one of the narrow ally’s.
He took out some tools, opened the car, moved to clear it and then re-locked it. Nice.
But when he opened the car the discovered marijuana bags below the drivers seat, so he arrested the missing driver.
No 4th amendment protections, searching without probable cause but didn’t matter there.
UK Police officers can’t just go breaking into other people’s property willy nilly, they need a warrant to enter somebody’s property without their permission unless they have probable cause to suspect an offence is taking place.
That incident sounds highly dubious, but then again, the police officer may have had probable cause to break into the vehicle because it was parked extremely illegally by blocking a thoroughfare, and then happened to find the drugs. A police officer who just went around breaking into people’s cars or houses without a warrant and no good reason would have to explain himself and justify why he thought it was neccessary because otherwise he would be in the shit.
In Britain we have an offence called ‘being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle’ which you are liable to be arrested and charged for if you get drunk and sit in the driver’s seat and put the keys in the ignition you are reasonably assumed to be about to drive off under the influence. It is legitimately an offence, and had it not been an offence this drunk I mentioned earlier could have simply driven off before my police officer friend could have had reason to stop him, and it was pretty obvious that is what he intended to do. He was alright up until the moment he put his keys in the ignition and showed intent to drive off.
Reckless homicide. She should be held to account in some way. She killed their child, and the only thing that can offer some solace is her going to prison for the mistake she made.
She is clearly at fault, and she is clearly trying to avoid the rightful punishment which is due her.
This is an abuse of diplomatic immunity. The United States understands fully that someone driving on the wrong side of the road and thereby killing someone should be punished with prison time for doing so.
"Diplomatic immunity" is intended to protect diplomats from both politically motivated intrigues, and for lack of knowledge of local obscure laws.
This is not a peculiar law, and she understood the difference between right and wrong in this case. The United States understands the difference between right and wrong in this case. It is a clear case of an actual and fully comprehended violation of a type of law recognized on both sides of the Atlantic, and "Diplomatic Immunity" should not be allowed to be used as an excuse for her to avoid the rightful punishment which is due her mistake.
If someone killed your only son as a consequence of driving on the wrong side of the road, would you settle for an apology?
I would come very near to wanting blood for this. Only the fact that it was unintentional would sway me from not demanding death.
An apology? You gotta be kidding. Prison time is the only thing that can assuage some of the pain, and even that isn't enough.
Is this not how diplomatic immunity is applied around the world?
My observations, the “how” and the “why”, have already been stated in other posts. You are of one opinion, I am of another. I don’t think we will be agreeing on this issue, except perhaps that it is a very sad incident. I wish you well.
Listen, I’ve driven thousands of miles in the UK and South Africa - I’m born and raised in the USA and learned to drive here.
I agree with defending diplomatic immunity, because if you don’t defend it in the UK you won’t be able to defend it in shitholes.
But this was far from a “sad accident”. There is no excuse whatsoever for driving on the wrong side of the road and killing someone.
Notwithstanding what I actually witnessed in East Anglia a few years back, then Lincolnshire.
Luv the Brits, great buys, but they are not American and Texas won’t lift a finger to snag the Brit or American that murdered someone. . .unless the proper extradition papers are prepared.
Heading to the UK this weekend for about 10-days. Doing a Guild thing in the City of London. Guild is great guys, all, and I just finished my Assistant to the Court duties.
(Have Livery of my guild and have Freedom of the City from the Lord Chamberlain. . .nice to be able to go about the City with a drawn sword, drunk and disorderly without fear of arrest, and if guilty of a capital crime, I MUST be hung with a silk rope.) ;-)
I’m not going to rehash what I’ve already wrote that addresses what you’ve written. We will not be agreeing on this issue. I would have thought at least my description of this wouldn’t have been disputed, but, it appears even that is challenged. As strongly as you and others that agree with you have stated their views, I feel equally as strongly on the flip side.
Who knows what a British jury or Justice with possible local resentments would do? In places in the US something like this—if she does not habitually have accidents—would probably result in a fine, drivers training, community service, loss of your license for a time. (Unless you used alchol or drugs.) (Then there is the Civil suit....)
I do not know what happens in Britain, but someone made the determination it might be better to send her home.
The woman did wrong, She should answer for it.
I wish you well, and I also wish well to those others who have disagreed with me in the past, and who shall do so in the future. :)
It has nothing to do with a higher standard. It would be 2 countries cooperating with each other. If other countries would like to do the same, then agreements might be made with them also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.