Foreigner who killed teen in car crash flees the country to evade justice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne Sacoolas is a coward and bad person. I’m just disgusted by her. She is fundamentally selfish, spoiled, stupid, and cowardly.

Her three kids won't be able to attend school or apply for jobs with that name. I'm sure they are already looking into legally changing the family's name. It's a very unique name, but that family is gonna (rightly) get judged for their rest of their lives.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read and that's saying a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne Sacoolas is a coward and bad person. I’m just disgusted by her. She is fundamentally selfish, spoiled, stupid, and cowardly.

Her three kids won't be able to attend school or apply for jobs with that name. I'm sure they are already looking into legally changing the family's name. It's a very unique name, but that family is gonna (rightly) get judged for their rest of their lives.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read and that's saying a lot.

Their mother doesn't know what side of the road to drive on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anne Sacoolas is a coward and bad person. I’m just disgusted by her. She is fundamentally selfish, spoiled, stupid, and cowardly.

Her three kids won't be able to attend school or apply for jobs with that name. I'm sure they are already looking into legally changing the family's name. It's a very unique name, but that family is gonna (rightly) get judged for their rest of their lives.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read and that's saying a lot.

Their mother doesn't know what side of the road to drive on

OK I LOL'd at this

#darkhumor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

Trump didn't need to get involved with this. And they don't need to meet her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

Trump didn't need to get involved with this. And they don't need to meet her.

They just need justice at this point.

Sacoolas should stop running from the law and head back to face the penalties for her fatal actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t feel like the Sacoolases are having much say in any of this.

Much say in what? Trump's attempted photo op? Or the negotiations over how and when she is finally going to return to Britain to take responsibility for her actions?

She’s not ever going back. This is all for show by the U.K. govt to appease the family and say they tried. I’m not sure what the Dunn’s thought would happen by “meeting with Trump.”

The US is not going to extradite her and she’s be insane to go back willingly. I’m shocked this story is even still in the news.

I agree. It was a terrible accident. She did cooperate with the police, and wasn't barred from returning to the U.S. She also left 3 weeks later. A lot of this is trial by media. I'm sure at this point she is doing what her lawyer advises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t feel like the Sacoolases are having much say in any of this.

Much say in what? Trump's attempted photo op? Or the negotiations over how and when she is finally going to return to Britain to take responsibility for her actions?

She’s not ever going back. This is all for show by the U.K. govt to appease the family and say they tried. I’m not sure what the Dunn’s thought would happen by “meeting with Trump.”

The US is not going to extradite her and she’s be insane to go back willingly. I’m shocked this story is even still in the news.

I agree. It was a terrible accident. She did cooperate with the police, and wasn't barred from returning to the U.S. She also left 3 weeks later. A lot of this is trial by media. I'm sure at this point she is doing what her lawyer advises.

Of course she should go back and face the consequences for her actions. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

I'm sure that justice would provide some amount of peace for them.

I don’t think that’s how grief works. Whatever “justice” they get is not going to feel like “enough” or bring back their child.

It’s what they want. I trust them to know what they want more than you.

“'Something is not right. We will not rest until we get the truth. We will not let Harry passing be in vain.'”

Charlotte Charles said: 'She needs to do the right thing and come back and face what she has done. Face our family. Face the UK justice system.'

Why would you refuse them justice?

I'm not refusing them anything, I'm not involved. I'm simply stating that what they want is something I really, truly don't think they are going to get (Sacoolas coming back to the UK and "facing justice") and I think its counterproductive to their grief to spend all of this energy on a losing cause. They've somehow latched on to the diplomatic immunity thing like they think its their loophole. If they can prove she didn't have it, or only had it until she left, then somehow they can "get her." They don't seem to understand that now she is here, the US is not going to extradite her (especially since they told her to leave in the first place) and her immunity status is not even relevant any longer. IMO the US is not going to have this woman fall on her sword just to make the Dunns feel better. This an unfortunate case, of course, but for the sake of diplomats around the world immunity to be unquestioned and absolute. It would be different if she had intent, but it is clear she did not.

But if it makes them feel better to try, so be it. I personally don't like hitting my head against a brick wall and it just makes me feel worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t feel like the Sacoolases are having much say in any of this.

Much say in what? Trump's attempted photo op? Or the negotiations over how and when she is finally going to return to Britain to take responsibility for her actions?

She’s not ever going back. This is all for show by the U.K. govt to appease the family and say they tried. I’m not sure what the Dunn’s thought would happen by “meeting with Trump.”

The US is not going to extradite her and she’s be insane to go back willingly. I’m shocked this story is even still in the news.

I agree. It was a terrible accident. She did cooperate with the police, and wasn't barred from returning to the U.S. She also left 3 weeks later. A lot of this is trial by media. I'm sure at this point she is doing what her lawyer advises.

Of course she should go back and face the consequences for her actions. WTF?

Actually, the US Government/Embassy advised her and the family to leave and are advising her not to return to the UK. So what she "should" do is a lot more complicated than your feelings on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t feel like the Sacoolases are having much say in any of this.

Much say in what? Trump's attempted photo op? Or the negotiations over how and when she is finally going to return to Britain to take responsibility for her actions?

She’s not ever going back. This is all for show by the U.K. govt to appease the family and say they tried. I’m not sure what the Dunn’s thought would happen by “meeting with Trump.”

The US is not going to extradite her and she’s be insane to go back willingly. I’m shocked this story is even still in the news.

I agree. It was a terrible accident. She did cooperate with the police, and wasn't barred from returning to the U.S. She also left 3 weeks later. A lot of this is trial by media. I'm sure at this point she is doing what her lawyer advises.

Of course she should go back and face the consequences for her actions. WTF?

Actually, the US Government/Embassy advised her and the family to leave and are advising her not to return to the UK. So what she "should" do is a lot more complicated than your feelings on the matter.

Not "my feelings" - just basic ethics and morality. Sorry you struggle to see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

I'm sure that justice would provide some amount of peace for them.

I don’t think that’s how grief works. Whatever “justice” they get is not going to feel like “enough” or bring back their child.

It’s what they want. I trust them to know what they want more than you.

“'Something is not right. We will not rest until we get the truth. We will not let Harry passing be in vain.'”

Charlotte Charles said: 'She needs to do the right thing and come back and face what she has done. Face our family. Face the UK justice system.'

Why would you refuse them justice?

I'm not refusing them anything, I'm not involved. I'm simply stating that what they want is something I really, truly don't think they are going to get (Sacoolas coming back to the UK and "facing justice") and I think its counterproductive to their grief to spend all of this energy on a losing cause. They've somehow latched on to the diplomatic immunity thing like they think its their loophole. If they can prove she didn't have it, or only had it until she left, then somehow they can "get her." They don't seem to understand that now she is here, the US is not going to extradite her (especially since they told her to leave in the first place) and her immunity status is not even relevant any longer. IMO the US is not going to have this woman fall on her sword just to make the Dunns feel better. This an unfortunate case, of course, but for the sake of diplomats around the world immunity to be unquestioned and absolute. It would be different if she had intent, but it is clear she did not.

But if it makes them feel better to try, so be it. I personally don't like hitting my head against a brick wall and it just makes me feel worse.

That is completely up to them to decide how they want to focus their energy and deal with their grief.

It's a shame that Trump was such a manipulative a-hole to them. THAT made things worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

I'm sure that justice would provide some amount of peace for them.

I don’t think that’s how grief works. Whatever “justice” they get is not going to feel like “enough” or bring back their child.

It’s what they want. I trust them to know what they want more than you.

“'Something is not right. We will not rest until we get the truth. We will not let Harry passing be in vain.'”

Charlotte Charles said: 'She needs to do the right thing and come back and face what she has done. Face our family. Face the UK justice system.'

Why would you refuse them justice?

I'm not refusing them anything, I'm not involved. I'm simply stating that what they want is something I really, truly don't think they are going to get (Sacoolas coming back to the UK and "facing justice") and I think its counterproductive to their grief to spend all of this energy on a losing cause. They've somehow latched on to the diplomatic immunity thing like they think its their loophole. If they can prove she didn't have it, or only had it until she left, then somehow they can "get her." They don't seem to understand that now she is here, the US is not going to extradite her (especially since they told her to leave in the first place) and her immunity status is not even relevant any longer. IMO the US is not going to have this woman fall on her sword just to make the Dunns feel better. This an unfortunate case, of course, but for the sake of diplomats around the world immunity to be unquestioned and absolute. It would be different if she had intent, but it is clear she did not.

But if it makes them feel better to try, so be it. I personally don't like hitting my head against a brick wall and it just makes me feel worse.

First, diplomats don't have the right to waive their own immunity. The US government will decide that on behalf of the diplomat.

TBH, what the USG did on behalf of the Sacoolas family puts our diplomats (and their families) in more danger. Host countries will now be more apt to seize American diplomat family members over trivial grievances, since the US now has a reputation of diplomats fleeing from justice in cases unrelated to state craft.

The entire point of diplomatic immunity is to allow foreign diplomats to represent their government on a foreign soil without being subject to pressure by that foreign government (ie, to hold a diplomat's wife in detention to force him to reveal state secrets). The USG should be waiving immunity on this matter and, in fact, Mrs. Sacoolas should be pressing for that publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, I don’t feel like the Sacoolases are having much say in any of this.

Much say in what? Trump's attempted photo op? Or the negotiations over how and when she is finally going to return to Britain to take responsibility for her actions?

She’s not ever going back. This is all for show by the U.K. govt to appease the family and say they tried. I’m not sure what the Dunn’s thought would happen by “meeting with Trump.”

The US is not going to extradite her and she’s be insane to go back willingly. I’m shocked this story is even still in the news.

I agree. It was a terrible accident. She did cooperate with the police, and wasn't barred from returning to the U.S. She also left 3 weeks later. A lot of this is trial by media. I'm sure at this point she is doing what her lawyer advises.

Of course she should go back and face the consequences for her actions. WTF?

Actually, the US Government/Embassy advised her and the family to leave and are advising her not to return to the UK. So what she "should" do is a lot more complicated than your feelings on the matter.

Not "my feelings" - just basic ethics and morality. Sorry you struggle to see that.

I don't struggle to see that. I am capable of having empathy for both parties here. The woman made a horrible horrible mistake and I have no doubt that she knows this and will live with it for the rest of her life. She stayed for 3 weeks after the accident and was cooperative. She ultimately left under the strong advice and instruction of the US Government who sent her family to the UK in the first place. They are advising her now not to return to the UK. Was she supposed to refuse them? Is she supposed to openly defy them now? They provide her housing and her family's livelihood. To vilify her over this one aspect of the situation without acknowledging the complex circumstances is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

Trump didn't need to get involved with this. And they don't need to meet her.

They just need justice at this point.

Sacoolas should stop running from the law and head back to face the penalties for her fatal actions.

She's not. She cooperated with authorities, and left the country 3 weeks later to return home.

What did I miss? It's a terrible accident, but still a accident. Has a prosecutor ordered her back? No. Currently she's under no order to return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:w.t.f.

https://www.apnews.com/43a868c4b91746f5a5a74df751a08df3?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

Donald Trump’s national security adviser heaped pain and grief on the parents of a British teenager killed in a car crash by trying to hold a meeting at the White House between them and a U.S. diplomat’s wife who was involved, the parents’ lawyer said.

Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn were invited to a surprise meeting with the U.S. president at his office on Wednesday where they were further shocked to learn that Anne Sacoolas, the American woman involved in the fatal crash, was in the building.

Mark Stephens, the lawyer for Charles and Dunn, said national security adviser Robert O’Brien had the idea of overseeing a coming together of the families before they would then hug in front of an assembled media.

“(O’Brien has) heaped grief and pain on the family by making them go through this but not allowing them to get the closure they need by talking to Mrs Sacoolas before they can go onto the grieving stage,” Stephens told BBC radio on Thursday.

The parents are in pain. They have also been begging to speak with the woman. This was a poor idea. They cannot have what they really want: their son back. Painful situation for all.

They want to meet the woman in the UK, not be ambushed in the White House with a photo op.

I still fail to see how they think any of this is going to make them feel better. It isn’t.

I'm sure that justice would provide some amount of peace for them.

I don’t think that’s how grief works. Whatever “justice” they get is not going to feel like “enough” or bring back their child.

It’s what they want. I trust them to know what they want more than you.

“'Something is not right. We will not rest until we get the truth. We will not let Harry passing be in vain.'”

Charlotte Charles said: 'She needs to do the right thing and come back and face what she has done. Face our family. Face the UK justice system.'

Why would you refuse them justice?

I'm not refusing them anything, I'm not involved. I'm simply stating that what they want is something I really, truly don't think they are going to get (Sacoolas coming back to the UK and "facing justice") and I think its counterproductive to their grief to spend all of this energy on a losing cause. They've somehow latched on to the diplomatic immunity thing like they think its their loophole. If they can prove she didn't have it, or only had it until she left, then somehow they can "get her." They don't seem to understand that now she is here, the US is not going to extradite her (especially since they told her to leave in the first place) and her immunity status is not even relevant any longer. IMO the US is not going to have this woman fall on her sword just to make the Dunns feel better. This an unfortunate case, of course, but for the sake of diplomats around the world immunity to be unquestioned and absolute. It would be different if she had intent, but it is clear she did not.

But if it makes them feel better to try, so be it. I personally don't like hitting my head against a brick wall and it just makes me feel worse.

First, diplomats don't have the right to waive their own immunity. The US government will decide that on behalf of the diplomat.

TBH, what the USG did on behalf of the Sacoolas family puts our diplomats (and their families) in more danger. Host countries will now be more apt to seize American diplomat family members over trivial grievances, since the US now has a reputation of diplomats fleeing from justice in cases unrelated to state craft.

The entire point of diplomatic immunity is to allow foreign diplomats to represent their government on a foreign soil without being subject to pressure by that foreign government (ie, to hold a diplomat's wife in detention to force him to reveal state secrets). The USG should be waiving immunity on this matter and, in fact, Mrs. Sacoolas should be pressing for that publicly.

I never said she could waive her own immunity. Quite the opposite. What I've said, and I've been saying all along, is that she is doing and has done precisely what the US Government is advising her to do. If she returns to the UK, it will be against the government's advice/wishes.