Posted on 10/15/2019 12:30:46 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
If her husband was in the foreign service or one of the numerous agencies, e.g. US AID, attached military, etc.
She will not face British justice... But she may be subject to US Law and our legal system.
Many nations have laws that subject foreigners to primitive punishment by Western or USstandards.
Dip Immunity affords protections against prosecution in that country but the US does process these cases.
UK diplomatic personages in the US and likewise US diplomats in the U K as well as in other closely allied Western nations are told that they will obey the laws of the host nations and face the music if they break the laws.
They are instructed not to abuse diplomatic immunity.
This woman did not want to face the music.
I saw this on CBS and was wondering why Americans aren’t mourned the same way and international uproars abound like this when illegals kill Americans by drunk or careless driving.
Before everyone gets all huffy, remember we have those thousands of UN officials and those 200 or so country diplomats with diplomatic immunity. Before you get all crazy, investigate how many Americans have been killed or injured with the foreign diplomats claiming immunity. Bet you will be surprised.
Matthew Broderick did the same thing and killed two people.
He got a fine of $175.00
On August 5, 1987, while driving a rented BMW in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, Broderick crossed into the wrong lane and collided head-on with a Volvo driven by Anna Gallagher, 28,[34] accompanied by her mother, Margaret Doherty, 63, killing both instantly. He was vacationing with Jennifer Grey, whom he began dating in semi-secrecy during the filming of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off; the crash publicly revealed their relationship. He had a fractured leg and ribs, a concussion, and a collapsed lung. Grey received minor injuries, including whiplash.
Broderick told police he had no recollection of the crash and did not know why he was in the wrong lane: “I don’t remember the day. I don’t remember even getting up in the morning. I don’t remember making my bed. What I first remember is waking up in the hospital, with a very strange feeling going on in my leg.” He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and faced up to five years in prison, but was later convicted of the lesser charge of careless driving and fined $175
Diplomatic immunity is generally a absolutely disgusting excuse for anything truly against a civil law (yes,that's relative in sh*tholes). The major problem (irregardless of this case) is that if Americans did not have it, America would have thousands in prisons for crimes that would never get the light of day under our Constitution.I digress,the left has their own immunity today and will use this as one more Trump hating example ("Impeachment").
The US embassy claimed diplomatic immunity and whisked her out of the country. Apparently her husband works in intelligence so that might have complicated things. Her name was kept secret to begin with.
Going through the judicial process and if neccessary, stand trial for careless driving. For this type of offence she would expect to serve a maximum of 6 months in prison, but would probably get less than that, and would serve half that sentence before being paroled for good behaviour.
I’ll be honest, if she is truly sorry about what she did, she would come back to Britain to face the music, otherwise her apologies ring hollow and she makes it obvious that she is prioritising saving her own ass over giving the family of the boy she killed a sense of restitution and closure.
Diplomatic immunity should be sacrosanct and not violated by the host nation. But any country that considers itself civilised and respectful of the rule of law should agree to waive that immunity when their diplomats do commit crimes and then try to hide behind that immunity, otherwise those countries deserve to be treated like pariah states.
I can sympathise with these cases where Americans cause traffic accidents in the UK because they aren’t used to driving on the left, I’m sure that in most cases it is unintentional and that should be reflected in the sentence, but that said drivers have a responsibility to understand the rules of the road and take care to observe them, and be held to account for failing to abide by them. I think 5 years would have been too harsh, but a $175 fine for causing an accident which killed someone is a little on the light side.
The purpose of diplomatic immunity is to prevent unjust prosecution of our diplomats and families and their diplomats and families in a political prosecution.
This tragic death was not political. Trump should order stripping this woman of diplomatic immunity and let the UK extradite her back to the UK to face charges.
I agree.
Not doing it on purpose is called manslaughter.
I don’t know English law, but in NY Penal Code, there is Negligent Manslaughter, which means that a defendant engages in conduct that causes a substantial risk of death to another, but is unaware that his conduct has caused that risk. Then there is Reckless Manslaughter, which means that a defendant engaged in conduct that causes a substantial risk of death to another, and is aware that his conduct has caused that risk. Driving down the street in one’s customary manner, forgetting that in England traffic is supposed to go the other way, is probably not even Negligent Manslaughter, but is certainly not more than that. If she was veering all over the road, putting her pedal to the metal or intoxicated, or some combination, it would be a clear-cut case, but not with these facts. If English penal law is more stringent in this regard, let me know.
Forgot to mention, the conduct has to deviate strongly from the conduct of the “reasonable person”.
Remember a couple of years ago, when some Saudi Prince sodomized some young woman when she and others were attending a party at his mansion in California? She was bleeding and screaming for help, trying to climb over a stone wall around his property. He left the country immediately, using diplomatic immunity. As far as I know, that was the end of it.
It’s tragic about the kid in the U.K., but it was an accident. I would say she should go back and face the music, but she may end up with a judge who has it in for the U.S., and gives her an unfair sentence. So it’s a risky proposition. If the government could assure our government that she would not be given an unfair sentence, maybe she should go back and face the music.
A diplomAt and his family living in another country don’t know what side of the road to drive on? Tourists seem to manage.
Remember crossing the street in Britain look right look left.
I’m not her defense attorney, and I don’t know if she had diplomatic immunity or not. I don’t even drive. But such lapses do happen, and when they do, they are not necessarily even negligent homicide. The proceeds of their policy limits, given over without contest, if the insurance company is willing, will do more for the family than hauling the woman off to the Tower or Whitehall, or wherever you jail diplomats’ wives, can. The former is a material comfort to the bereaved parents. The latter, mere vindictiveness.
My middle son, when he was eleven, was hit by a car while riding on his bike. He suffered a com-minuted fracture of the tibia and fibula and was confined to a wheelchair for months. Had he not been wearing his helmet, he could have been killed. The office where I was employed represented him. There was a minimal policy of 15 grand. After depositions, the insurance company threw it in and the court approved the settlement. It stayed in the bank until he turned 18, and he used it to buy a car, which he drove on the right side of the road, but still wrecked it in an accident. Nobody was killed or even injured. His injuries from the accident at age 11 exceeded the coverage of the vehicle. Had he been killed, G-d forbid, we would have gotten 50 grand, which would have been utterly inadequate.
What little consolation the family in this case can get would be that a diplomat’s wife hit their boy, and that the coverage is very high from such drivers, for just such an eventuality as happened. Putting her in jail would not do a thing for their loss, but the money would, to the extent that anything can.
I would have argued with you about money softening the pain of a dead child except saw that in my own family.
My cousin’s 22 year old son was shot and killed due to another driver going into road rage. The man that shot him was 20something too, and had family wealth. Due to family wealth the murderer was able to hire an outstanding attorney and that attorney got the murderer off pretty light.
Someone suggested my cousin consider a lawsuit against the murderer. She didn’t want money, she wanted her son back. That wasn’t possible though and her thinking was if that punk got into more trouble when he got out of his short prison sentence he could once again use his family wealth to get off lightly.
My cousin did file a lawsuit and won a considerable settlement. She bought a nice cabin in the mountains for the family to use, then donated the rest to charity.
The family spent a lot of time at “Scott’s Cabin” as they named it. Memory time, healing time...it really did help them. It helped to have the win in the lawsuit as they felt that was an additional punishment to the murderer. They used the cabin to help get through the grieving process.
Money in no way makes up for the loss of a child of course.
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.