Mum appeals for US suspect's return

[d@rk51d3]

News here was that Hubby wasn't actually serving as a diplomat..... no immunity.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

You know something, I try very hard not to insult other world leaders, especially those who some believe to be our allies, even more so when taking into consideration the political choices for leadership we currently face in the UK.

What on earth was the POTUS thinking

I don't think there was any ill intent Jim.

Maybe he just wanted to give the family the opportunity to speak to their sons killer face to face because circumstances had made it possible (and may not be otherwise). It's not like he had the woman hauled in, she asked for it (and BTW i agree that boat don't float) and it's not like the family was forced to meet her. She offered and they declined, all Trump did was to facilitate it and he's the one they get mad at.

Now maybe it was a dumb idea but I am not sure what else Trump could do here one way or the other. I'm not lawyer but i am pretty sure he can't just hand over a civilian US Citizen to a foreign country regardless of how much he empathised, especially one that has not even been charged with a crime. I guess we'll have to see it anything pans out from this different angle he mentioned.

Now from what I understand it was your government that asked the President to meet with the family right? I assume that HMG knows what POTUS can and can't do so if it wasn't for the family to convince Trump to return the woman to the UK what was the real purpose behind their request?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

I don't think there was any ill intent Jim.

Maybe he just wanted to give the family the opportunity to speak to their sons killer face to face because circumstances had made it possible (and may not be otherwise). It's not like he had the woman hauled in, she asked for it (and BTW i agree that boat don't float) and it's not like the family was forced to meet her. She offered and they declined, all Trump did was to facilitate it and he's the one they get mad at.

Now maybe it was a dumb idea but I am not sure what else Trump could do here one way or the other. I'm not lawyer but i am pretty sure he can't just hand over a civilian US Citizen to a foreign country regardless of how much he empathised, especially one that has not even been charged with a crime. I guess we'll have to see it anything pans out from this different angle he mentioned.

Now from what I understand it was your government that asked the President to meet with the family right? I assume that HMG knows what POTUS can and can't do so if it wasn't for the family to convince Trump to return the woman to the UK what was the real purpose behind their request?

I guess very few if any know what goes through the POTUS head despite all and sundry claiming that they do but I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say it may have been a dumb idea. At the very least, the family should have been forewarned of Sacoolas presence, someone in the White House invited her to attend and I'm 100% confident it would have been on the instruction of the POTUS.

Sacoolas was not charged for committing a crime, on that you are quite correct but it is obvious that was the consequence of her fleeing the UK despite informing the Police she had no plans to do so.

My understanding of the boys parents intentions are that they went to the US to seek public support through media channels etc. and in so doing obviously made it known they would like a face to face meeting with Sacoolas but Trump in his eternal wisdom thought he could control and manage said meeting.

Her actions post incident speak volumes for her innocence or otherwise and she should do the decent thing and return to the UK and face justice instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of diplomatic immunity which apparently is very questionable.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

but Trump in his eternal wisdom thought he could control and manage said meeting.

But do you really think that he couldn't control such a meeting in his own White House Jim?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

But do you really think that he couldn't control such a meeting in his own White House Jim?

Of course he could but it wasn't any of his business. Any meeting between both parties must surely be on their joint pre-agreed terms.

[Skybird]

Trump wanted to parasitize by posing with the family that attracts sympathy from which he hoped to get his share.

A bit like - more materialistically - he abuses his position to demand that international conferences and next year the G7 summit again must be held in hotels/ressorts belonging to his business empire. Money to his business. Advertising worldwide for free.

[Jimbuna]

Harry Dunn's parents say they expect UK police to charge a US diplomat's wife in connection with his death.

Radd Seiger, the family's spokesman, said they have concerns of "misconduct and a cover up on both sides of the Atlantic".

A statement from the family said: "It is clear that the Americans are desperate to protect Mrs Sacoolas and are intent on ruthlessly and aggressively not letting her return. We are trying to find out why that is. We will not let up in our search for Justice for Harry.

"We now expect Northants Police to take over from the work we have done and the progress we have made, charge her and begin extradition proceedings to bring her back."

Mrs Sacoolas can only be extradited if she is charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with a criminal offence that is serious enough to warrant it.

Northants Police confirmed they were continuing to prepare evidence to hand over to the CPS.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-50096928

Extradition even if successful could take years of legal wrangling.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Of course he could but it wasn't any of his business. Any meeting between both parties must surely be on their joint pre-agreed terms.

But there wasn't a meeting Jim. It was an offer of a meeting. That a big difference. Just because they had the woman ready to meet doesn't mean the family had to meet her right then, or ever for that matter.

[Jimbuna]

Dave we can both play around with semantics till the cows come home but as far as I'm concerned Trump attempted to interfere beyond the point of what the boys parents were led to believe was on offer and that was a meeting with a senior White House official. Meeting Trump might have been a bonus, depending on what the individual thinks of the man.

I'm of the opinion he went above and beyond what was necessary, some might call it grandstanding to the media and in coming to my opinion the simple test I base my opinion on is "How would I have felt if Ann (my wife) and I were suddenly and without prior warning put into that situation."

The bottom line for me is the fact that someone lost their life possibly because of the actions of another person. That person fled the country to evade justice despite stating they had no such intentions.

Let the courts decide a justifiable outcome.

[Jimbuna]

The suspect in a crash that killed Harry Dunn will be interviewed under caution in the United States, British police have said.

Mr Dunn, 19, died in a crash outside RAF Croughton with a car owned by US citizen Anne Sacoolas, who later left the UK claiming diplomatic immunity.

Chief Constable Nick Adderley said Mrs Sacoolas had requested the interview.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-50134394

Looks to me like a step in the right direction.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Extradition even if successful could take years of legal wrangling.

pie in the sky wishful thinking as far as I am concerned:

1. I have not seen one shred of evidence so far that this was anything other than a tragic accident, so no reason to waive "diplomatic immunity". Notice also that no one in the U.S. is asking for this which is the real litmus test;

2. Even if they do decide to charge mrs. Sacoolas and try to extradite her (assuming diplomatic immunity is waived), the British Government would have to present its evidence in a U.S. Court and convince a U.S. judge that there was enough evidence of an actual criminal act;

3. Honestly, this is actually the reason why diplomatic immunity exist. This is becoming a political footbal in the UK, where everyone just wants to punish and lock up the "Ugly American". No one in the U.S. will agree to waive diplomatic immunity, just to have mrs. Sacoolas locked up in the UK for 2-3 years while she is awaiting trial where there is no real evidence of a crime;

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

pie in the sky wishful thinking as far as I am concerned:

1. I have not seen one shred of evidence so far that this was anything other than a tragic accident, so no reason to waive "diplomatic immunity". Notice also that no one in the U.S. is asking for this which is the real litmus test;

2. Even if they do decide to charge mrs. Sacoolas and try to extradite her (assuming diplomatic immunity is waived), the British Government would have to present its evidence in a U.S. Court and convince a U.S. judge that there was enough evidence of an actual criminal act;

3. Honestly, this is actually the reason why diplomatic immunity exist. This is becoming a political footbal in the UK, where everyone just wants to punish and lock up the "Ugly American". No one in the U.S. will agree to waive diplomatic immunity, just to have mrs. Sacoolas locked up in the UK for 2-3 years while she is awaiting trial where there is no real evidence of a crime;

1. I also believe this to be a tragic accident and diplomatic immunity no longer applies because her husband has left his post.

2. How about the video footage the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) currently has?

3. This has nothing to do with punishing the "Ugly American" Don't lose sight of the fact a young man lost his life due to the alleged actions of somebody and when I wore the uniform causing death by careless or reckless driving was and still is a criminal offence here in the UK, an offence that could warrant a prison sentence of up to five years.

It is currently being stated in the press that she has asked for the interview to take place, just a pity she hadn't felt that way before she fled the UK despite assuring the Police she had no intentions of doing so.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

1. I also believe this to be a tragic accident and diplomatic immunity no longer applies because her husband has left his post.

Hi, I read that also, but that argument does not make any legal sense. You cannot prosecute a diplomat when he is in the UK, but as soon as he leaves, you can extradite him/her back to the UK and then charge him?

I have been a lawyer long enough to know that no U.S. or Canadian Court would accept that argument.

3. This has nothing to do with punishing the "Ugly American" Don't lose sight of the fact a young man lost his life due to the alleged actions of somebody and when I wore the uniform causing death by careless or reckless driving was and still is a criminal offence here in the UK, an offence that could warrant a prison sentence of up to five years.

Agreed, and in a case of a serious crime, countries will waive diplomatic immunity. If this was an intentional murder or she was drunk while driving, the UK might potentially have a case.

Criminal negligence, which is what we are talking about here, requires a reckless disregard for the consequences of your action. Just driving on the wrong side of the road, late at night, when you are tired and unfamiliar with driving on the left side of the road (which is no doubt what her lawyers will claim) does not rise to that standard.

[Jimbuna]

Matters should become clearer after she has given a statement under oath. Then it will be up to the CPS how they want to proceed.

I notice you didn't respond to point 2. There may be some incriminating evidence contained within the footage but that will only be made public if a trial is instigated.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I notice you didn't respond to point 2. There may be some incriminating evidence contained within the footage but that will only be made public if a trial is instigated.

well no, obviously if there is incriminating evidence in the video, that might change things.