It was only “politicized” because she left.
True.
But they still brought criminal charges, due to pressure from the family for revenge.
Why take that risk? Angry jury, dead kid, no defense lawyer in the world would take that risk.
So: A “Cant go back to the UK”
B. Possible five years hard time.
Why the fuck would you take that risk? What possible benefit?
She did the smart thing, the only thing.
She claimed immunity, or the US government claimed it?
The US Government did, she had no choice from what I read.
That’s just your guess, not backed by any facts.
As has been stated multiple times in this thread, the facts of the case have never been released, and will only be released in court.
The CPS wouldn’t have backed a charge of dangerous driving if the facts didn’t support it. They wouldn’t want the case to be ignominiously thrown out of court after all this fuss.
You think that somehow, the Prosecution the UK doesn’t have political pressure?
Pressure or not, they wouldn’t bring a case that had no chance of succeeding.
Why not? Since they know it wont get to the courts, why not look good in the press by bringing it? Including mentions of 14 years in prison, etc.
What an absolutely obnoxious thing to say - you think that its a ‘witch hunt’ to apprehend and test a case in court where a suspect is alleged to have killed another person?
What is your view on apprehending criminals in general, especially when a great deal of effort is involved - is that too a witch hunt?
Your comment is shameful and seems to be full of contempt for the legal system of another nation - is that part of US exceptionalism then?
Worth noting the case is to be persued through US courts - does that satisfy your little nation justice perceptions then?
Your comment and views are contemptable - she has had and still has the choice to face UK courts and she has chosen to do otherwise - this is not some third world podunk little banana republic or some southern US ‘good old boy’ redneck local attorney prosection.
Your actual knowledge of our legal system is sorely lacking, her chances of serving a single day in prison are small, but if the court so determines that she should - can you provide me with a good reason why she should not? Just becuase she iis a US citizen, is that your reasoning?
You seem to lack all compassion for the family of the victim - I suggest you need to review your perspective.
Modnote: This is far too personal. Please bring any further comments about DrDeth to the Pit. You are not attacking the post with this post but the poster.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
That’s the maximum sentence for a charge of dangerous driving in general. The minimum sentence is no prison time at all. So somewhere in that range, depending on the facts.
You do?! I don’t. I think a healthy family would have moved on. Are they looking for vengeance or money? Neither speaks especially well of them.
I mean, I don’t think it’s horrible that they are seeking vengeance. Perhaps that’s natural after an avoidable tragedy with an obvious perpetrator like that. But it’s not admirable. Not in my book.
I also observe that liability damages tend to be higher in the US than anywhere else. So moving the civil case to the US is pretty bad for Mrs. Sacoolas. Not that I feel much sympathy for her. But she has to be pretty alarmed by this outcome.
I think if my son had been killed and there was an identifiable reason and an idenitfiable person to be held to account, I think I would not ‘just move on’ - if that person escaped justice and I could do something through the legal process I think I would keep going, and good on the family for not accepting being treated as just collateral damage.
Especially in this case where it should have been straightforward matter of bringing before competent courts.
Where is the line between justice and vengeance - you speak from the perspective of a nation that still uses the death penalty, to another nation that has not used it in over 2 generations and no longer has it.
Your view that they are getting it heard in US courts with the suggestion that its about compensation really is not very flattering to you - lets clarify this - the ONLY REASON this is going to US courts is because the person responsible has run away from accepting that responsibility in UK courts.
Vengeance is when you take retribution for yourself, this is why we have courts, to determine liability and the extent - do you think that ensuring this person faces the judiciary is an attempt to extract vengeance or perhaps is it far more likely that the family of the deceased would want the accused person to face the normal legal consequencies of their actions.
So I ask you - would you ‘just move on’ if your immediate family member was unlawfuly killed?
So let her come back to the UK, and face justice in the country where she did it.
But not as alarmed as Harry was when he rode his bike round the corner on the right (ie left) side of the road, and saw her coming at him.
My understanding is that the US, as a nation, claimed diplomatic privilege, and she did not have the option of facing the courts in the UK.
I quite respect the UK courts. Chatting with local friends, I recently expressed regret that our courts don’t operate more like the UK courts. But that’s really not relevant, because the US exercised diplomatic immunity and extracted her.
I don’t think it speaks well about her that she tried to get the US case thrown out on jurisdictional grounds. But no, I don’t respect the family of the dead boy for pursuing it, either. Sometimes everyone behaves worse than one would hope.
So why bother having a civil action for wrongful death? Should that be abolished, because it only furthers quest for vengeance and money? Why do each of the states allow actions for wrongful death if they’re so immoral?
She still has the option of returning, do you really think she is not trying to avoid her responsibility? Diplomatic immunity only applies to specific duties and roles, she can return as a private citizen - so why hasn’t she, is this the American view of law, get away with anything that you can?
One question I am interested in having answered is this, imagine you are driving down the road, and something approaches you on your side of the road - would you drive into the obstruction or would you perhaps stop, are US driving standards such that you keep going into any obstacle whenever you have right of way? In the UK if there is anything obstructing your path, you stop, you go around, you do not just drive into it regardless.
Why shouldn’t his parents try to obtain compensation - they have suffered enormous loss? In what way is their behaviour worthy of condemnation - victim blaming, much?
Oh for heaven’s sake, what do you think?
Why yes, it is illegal to mow down pedestrians on most roads in the US, too. There are cases where the driver doesn’t have a realistic chance of avoiding a crash, and I’ve seen cases where a driver on an interstate who killed a person who ran in front of their car was found not guilty of anything. But a driver on the wrong side of road bears and assumption of fault, of course. If this happened in the US, and there wasn’t a diplomatic immunity situation, the driver would almost certainly be found guilty.
Happy?
I don’t think either the driving laws or the courts are all that different in the US vs. the UK for a situation like this. That’s a red herring. Or fake news, if you like.
The reason this isn’t just an ordinary vehicular homicide case is the diplomatic immunity angle. And yeah, that can only happen when the people have different nationalities. But this isn’t because one system is better or worse or different from the other, it’s just because the perpetrator was plucked away due to diplomatic immunity.
It happens all the time. It happens with murders. Like, intentional murders. Not just tragic auto accidents.
Oh, and hey, it looks like based on this incident, the US and the UK have come to and agreement to limit diplomatic immunity (going forward) for people on that US base:
I don’t know enough about the law to know what the driver can do. I certainly think it is unfortunate that she tried to get the US case thrown out. A good person would be trying to do what she can to ease the pain of the family of her victim. I’m guessing she’s not a morally admirable person.
But it totally blows my mind that people think it’s admirable for the family of the boy to keep looking for new venues to prosecute her. I mean, if it makes them feel better, okay. I don’t think they are morally wrong to do this, but I sure as hell don’t think it’s an admirable thing to do. It’s not as if the world will somehow be a better place if she is found civilly liable for an unlawful death.