Page 10 of 13

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 11:15am
by Bonefishblues
D363 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
D363 wrote:
Possibly. But she's already playing the victim card and unfortunately even when prosecutions do proceed, that tends to play well at trial.

Sadly I suspect the Dunn's experience is an all too common one in some respects. While the publicity has been wide it could well be that the high politics dimension will obscure this side of it - namely that loss of life on roads is so often dismissed as an unfortunate accident from which nothing can be learned or changed.

How so?


In raising the prospect of a 14 year sentence. Although her lawyer is (presumably) only trained in US law, it's basic legal knowledge that the 14 year upper limit applies where there are aggravating factors and that such a sentence isn't even remotely possible in this case.

She's raised it as a possibility though, as a justification for staying in the US and presenting the prosecution as an excessive reaction to an unfortunate accident.

Lawyer doing lawyer's job, to present his client in the 'best' way. "...a potential penalty up to 14 years..."

Clearly, everyone would have preferred she stayed, faced the music, received 18 months, suspended, saw the victim's parents making the customary 'travesty of justice' speech outside the court, whereupon she'd have flown to the US, never to be seen again.

At least this way, we can rail against the injustice of it all for a little while longer, a jot of difference it won't make in either this case, or others of its ilk..

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 11:24am
by D363
Bonefishblues wrote:
D363 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:How so?


In raising the prospect of a 14 year sentence. Although her lawyer is (presumably) only trained in US law, it's basic legal knowledge that the 14 year upper limit applies where there are aggravating factors and that such a sentence isn't even remotely possible in this case.

She's raised it as a possibility though, as a justification for staying in the US and presenting the prosecution as an excessive reaction to an unfortunate accident.

Lawyer doing lawyer's job, to present his client in the 'best' way. "...a potential penalty up to 14 years..."

Clearly, everyone would have preferred she stayed, faced the music, received 18 months, suspended, saw the victim's parents making the customary 'travesty of justice' speech outside the court, whereupon she'd have flown to the US, never to be seen again.

At least this way, we can rail against the injustice of it all for a little while longer, a jot of difference it won't make in either this case, or others of its ilk..


Ok, lawyer doing a lawyer's job. Part of which in this case is playing the victim card. Why ask the question to begin with then?

Edit: also, no-one knows how the family would have reacted to any prosecution if she hadn't left the country.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 11:45am
by Bonefishblues
D363 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
D363 wrote:
In raising the prospect of a 14 year sentence. Although her lawyer is (presumably) only trained in US law, it's basic legal knowledge that the 14 year upper limit applies where there are aggravating factors and that such a sentence isn't even remotely possible in this case.

She's raised it as a possibility though, as a justification for staying in the US and presenting the prosecution as an excessive reaction to an unfortunate accident.

Lawyer doing lawyer's job, to present his client in the 'best' way. "...a potential penalty up to 14 years..."

Clearly, everyone would have preferred she stayed, faced the music, received 18 months, suspended, saw the victim's parents making the customary 'travesty of justice' speech outside the court, whereupon she'd have flown to the US, never to be seen again.

At least this way, we can rail against the injustice of it all for a little while longer, a jot of difference it won't make in either this case, or others of its ilk..


Ok, lawyer doing a lawyer's job. Part of which in this case is playing the victim card. Why ask the question to begin with then?

Edit: also, no-one knows how the family would have reacted to any prosecution if she hadn't left the country.

I hadn't, as it happens, read the full statement.

It was, you know, a question, based on looking for more facts. That's why.

Not everyone on here's looking for an argument all the time.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 3:35pm
by D363
Bonefishblues wrote:
D363 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:Lawyer doing lawyer's job, to present his client in the 'best' way. "...a potential penalty up to 14 years..."

Clearly, everyone would have preferred she stayed, faced the music, received 18 months, suspended, saw the victim's parents making the customary 'travesty of justice' speech outside the court, whereupon she'd have flown to the US, never to be seen again.

At least this way, we can rail against the injustice of it all for a little while longer, a jot of difference it won't make in either this case, or others of its ilk..


Ok, lawyer doing a lawyer's job. Part of which in this case is playing the victim card. Why ask the question to begin with then?

Edit: also, no-one knows how the family would have reacted to any prosecution if she hadn't left the country.

I hadn't, as it happens, read the full statement.

It was, you know, a question, based on looking for more facts. That's why.

Not everyone on here's looking for an argument all the time.


All that stuff about the victim's family making the customary travesty of justice speech outside the court just seemed totally unnecessary to me. Still does in fact. Without those comments, the whole exchange would have had a different tone.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 3:49pm
by Bonefishblues
D363 wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
D363 wrote:
Ok, lawyer doing a lawyer's job. Part of which in this case is playing the victim card. Why ask the question to begin with then?

Edit: also, no-one knows how the family would have reacted to any prosecution if she hadn't left the country.

I hadn't, as it happens, read the full statement.

It was, you know, a question, based on looking for more facts. That's why.

Not everyone on here's looking for an argument all the time.


All that stuff about the victim's family making the customary travesty of justice speech outside the court just seemed totally unnecessary to me. Still does in fact. Without those comments, the whole exchange would have had a different tone.

Ironic commentary* on the state of matters about which we agree. Sorry if that caused some confusion.

*But all-too-familiar, wouldn't you say?

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 5:56pm
by D363
Yes, definitely. Apologies for the response, I knew the comments were ironic but reacted anyway.

Possibly that's because the family's still in limbo and more or less forced into the position of either accepting that she left and won't come back, or publicly agitating for something further to be done and not knowing if it will.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 3:34pm
by mercalia
The extradition request has gone in the and the yanks think

Anne Sacoolas extradition bid inappropriate

well as inappropriate as using diplomatic immunity to escape justice after killing some one in the first place - thats not just an inappropriate use of Diplomatic Immunity but an abuse of it? If the extradition is refused then the UK police should issue an interpol request to arrest her if she sets foot out side the USA ( or refuse her entry to any country if the yanks try and pull a fast one)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-51075235

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 11 Jan 2020, 5:26pm
by NATURAL ANKLING
Hi,
Yes you've got it right.
Internationally she will never see peace and so it should be my opinion.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 14 Jan 2020, 11:04am
by mercalia
Johnson opens his big mouth

The chances of an American accused of killing motorcyclist Harry Dunn being extradited to the UK are "very low", the prime minister has said.

seems like he want to get out of doing anything. The matter should be escalated with Interpol, the minimum. Then remove diplomatic immunity from any one but serving diplomats ( hence the name)

but we know he wont as Trump has Boris in his back pocket.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-51103190

Interpol Red Notices

https://www.interpol.int/en/How-we-work/Notices/View-Red-Notices

It should apply to her as she is a fugitive from Justice?

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 6:35pm
by merseymouth
Hi All, Mike Pompeo say NO! So the might of the USofA does not appreciate that they have a duty of care and lawful compliance when it comes to members of their legation treating the statutes of host countries?
Their insistence of maintaining the feel of "Mom & Apple Pie" on bases around the world, which in this country is their practise of driving on the wrong side of the road on "Temporary American Soil", rather than blend seamlessly with the host nation practises is a direct cause of stupidity being commonly repeated by US personnel who employ an "Automatic Brain with an Automatic car"! Doh.
Could HMG not bring in a Driving Ban on all diplomatic personnel to encourage good neighbourlyness? You know it makes sense, also provide employment to UK natives in driving the non-compliant folk around. MM

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 7:50pm
by NATURAL ANKLING

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 8:14pm
by Mike Sales
So, inside American bases in the UK they drive on the right, but change to driving on the left at the gates? And sometimes they forget?
The obvious question is, how is the transition made? How is it marked?
Many thousands of drivers cross the Channel yearly. Are there many wrong side crashes?
Perhaps the crossing by boat or tunnel is sufficient to remind drivers to change sides of the road.
If so, perhaps some change in road configuration at the base gates would save forgetful mistakes, if the Yanks cannot manage to drive on the left on their bits of America in Britain. Make a ceremony of it, with a little difficulty or hold up, to jog the memory. Perhaps a set of lights, and slip roads crossing each other would do the trick.
Don't they have guards and barriers where a reminder could be put? A big sign saying "change sides" might help.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 8:34pm
by Vorpal
The bases put signs up, but it's a regular occurrence that folks drive on the wrong side coming off base. I saw it more than once in Suffolk, even though I was a fairly regular, but not frequent cyclist in the area around the American bases there. People I knew who lived in a nearby village said it locals learned to watch out for it.

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 8:34pm
by mercalia
so the yanks are lovers of diplomacy rules? well then send some diplomats to rendition the woman ( the yanks like doing that to other people ) and send her back to the UK in a diplomatic bag ( that they cant tamper with.)

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Posted: 24 Jan 2020, 8:39pm
by Mike Sales
Vorpal wrote:The bases put signs up, but it's a regular occurrence that folks drive on the wrong side coming off base. I saw it more than once in Suffolk, even though I was a fairly regular, but not frequent cyclist in the area around the American bases there. People I knew who lived in a nearby village said it locals learned to watch out for it.


Plainly more than a sign is needed then.

What is the drill when confronted by an oncoming large car? Stop? Move to the right? On a bike I guess you can generally jump for the hedge.