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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The double standard between this thread and the cruise line grandpa thread (off topic) is astonishing. I’m following both.

So many over there think his remorse is enough/no charges needed. Over here, not so much.

In both cases, someone got dead because someone did something careless/reckless. Why the double standard?

He didn’t flee
He has been charged with a crime

[Anonymous]

Her children were in the car when it happened

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The double standard between this thread and the cruise line grandpa thread (off topic) is astonishing. I’m following both.

So many over there think his remorse is enough/no charges needed. Over here, not so much.

In both cases, someone got dead because someone did something careless/reckless. Why the double standard?

He didn’t flee
He has been charged with a crime

I’m talking about the public opinion. People don’t want him charged. People WANT her charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her children were in the car when it happened

So she endangered them as well? Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The double standard between this thread and the cruise line grandpa thread (off topic) is astonishing. I’m following both.

So many over there think his remorse is enough/no charges needed. Over here, not so much.

In both cases, someone got dead because someone did something careless/reckless. Why the double standard?

No, lock him up too.

[Anonymous]

Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

This. I think people misunderstood her choices in any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The double standard between this thread and the cruise line grandpa thread (off topic) is astonishing. I’m following both.

So many over there think his remorse is enough/no charges needed. Over here, not so much.

In both cases, someone got dead because someone did something careless/reckless. Why the double standard?

There is no double standard. More people on that thread think he should be charged. There are of course some who think he shouldn’t, as there are on this thread. But they are not the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

This. I think people misunderstood her choices in any of this.

Oh she had a choice
She could have driven on the right side of the road, travelled by train or bus, Uber or taxi.

She could have told the US government that she had told the police that she is not leaving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

This. I think people misunderstood her choices in any of this.

Oh she had a choice
She could have driven on the right side of the road, travelled by train or bus, Uber or taxi.

She could have told the US government that she had told the police that she is not leaving

The US Govt knew she said that. They did not care, nor did they give her a choice about leaving. Also she legally cannot waive her own diplomatic immunity and they cannot question her otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

Can you provide the link that DOS actually ordered her to leave? This is not how diplomatic immunity works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

This. I think people misunderstood her choices in any of this.

Oh she had a choice
She could have driven on the right side of the road, travelled by train or bus, Uber or taxi.

She could have told the US government that she had told the police that she is not leaving

The US Govt knew she said that. They did not care, nor did they give her a choice about leaving. Also she legally cannot waive her own diplomatic immunity and they cannot question her otherwise.

Diplomatic immunity is not a blanket cover for diplomat overseas. Otherwise, all diplomates can drink and drive, sell drugs overseas and go unpunished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look my heart goes out to her. A tragedy. But she should have stayed. I’m not judging her actions that day—it could have happened to any of us. An accident. I am judging her decision to flee.

To be fair, the US Government told her to leave. When you have diplomatic immunity you have no rights to waive that immunity; only the US Government can waive her immunity.

She doesn't get to question that decision, they will forcibly put her on a plane. Even if she wanted to go back right now, I bet that her passport has been confiscated and she can't leave the US.

That said, I still believe the UK is fully within their rights to file an extradition request. I also think she should be held financially responsible for her actions.

Can you provide the link that DOS actually ordered her to leave? This is not how diplomatic immunity works.

I’ve read it several places over time. Here’s the first one I could quickly find:

“The police went back again Sept. 15 to place Sacoolas under formal questioning in a wrongful death inquiry but she, her husband, Jonathan, and their three children had left the country, claiming diplomatic immunity. The U.S. Embassy in London said they did so on the advice of the U.S. State Department. “

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anne-sacoolas-american-diplomat-wife-fled-england-after-killing-19-year-old-harry-dunn-with-her-car

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The double standard between this thread and the cruise line grandpa thread (off topic) is astonishing. I’m following both.

So many over there think his remorse is enough/no charges needed. Over here, not so much.

In both cases, someone got dead because someone did something careless/reckless. Why the double standard?

You honestly don't get the difference between death by a stranger versus a relative?