U.S. security chief 'heaped pain' on grieving parents of UK teen

[Smyrna]

@WorldWatcher

Here is an interesting piece that tries to explain the situation.

The simple answer is: ???

It appears on first reading that Diplomatic Immunity (DI) applies to individuals when assigned under certain circumstances. This immunity also extends to dependents will accompanying the US employee.

The employee receives DI while on assignment and may have some Residual Immunity (RI) for actions during the assignment even after the assignment ended. However the concept of RI may not apply to dependents because they are not the primary recipient of DI, they receive DI as a collateral function being a dependent of the primary employee. That once the assignment ends, they can then be held liable possibly in criminal or civil cases once the DI has expired since they may not qualify for RI since they were not “members of the mission”, they were dependents of someone assigned to the mission.

#1 If Anne Sacoolas returns to the U.K. she could be subject to criminal or civil proceedings under U.K. law.
#2 if RI does not apply Anne Sacoolas may be subject to civil action in the U.S.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS

Thank you.

IMO…you do the crime, you do the time. Just like the health insurance for politicians being totally different than Obamacare, there should be no special place from wrong doing…just because you’re a politician who makes the laws.

[MoleUK]

@WildRose

Have you ever driven in a country where you drive on the right hand side of the road instead of the left?

It can be confusing as hell to find yourself driving in a country where everything is the opposite of what you’ve done for decades.

Yes, I have driven in countries where the driving laws are completely different.

I even managed not to kill someone and flee the country under the guise of diplomatic immunity when doing so.

She was still negligent. She still fled the law. Diplomatic immunity still shouldn’t be misused in this manner.

The US should hand her over if she refuses to return voluntarily to face what she did, but I don’t see that happening.

[Happyhappyjoyjoy]

She chose to live in a country that drive on the other, more correct, side of the road.

The onus is entirely on her to ensure she is safe if she chooses to drive.

No one forced her to drive.

And millions of British people manage the reverse every year without decimating mainland europe, it’s really not that hard.

It’s even easier in the US, with automatic cars and where people tend to drive like old ladies.

[WildRose]

Yes she was negligent, it was not an intentional act.

Diplomatic immunity has been used to even cover intentional murders, assaults, rapes, etc.

People do stupid things and panic. Sometimes people are injured or killed in those events and that’s a tragedy but it doesn’t turn an accident into an intentional act.

[WildRose]

I’m pretty sure one accident didn’t decimate the UK either.

[Happyhappyjoyjoy]

No, but the fact the guilty party ran off and is hiding behind diplomatic immunity to avoid justice isn’t doing much for the “special relationship”.

[WildRose]

Standard practice when a diplomat or covered family member is involved. Fleeing the scene unless under threat of grave bodily harm or death is never a good thing but her remaining would not have changed the outcome of the accident.

Again, an accident, not an intentional act of murder.

[Happyhappyjoyjoy]

Intentional or not, she is more than likely criminally negligent and a young man is dead because of her actions.

The fact her government is hiding her and denying the family of the victim justice is a bit shameful.

[WildRose]

She’s not in hiding and the parents were given an opportunity to meet her face to face but refused.

[Happyhappyjoyjoy]

She is hiding from due process.

[CanadianJudo]

Why would they Parent want to meet the person who killed their son, then fled.