It might be, for them, if all the suppositions are tested and the facts are established in a court of law. As would have happened long since, in any other circumstances.
Maybe they just want an explanation from teh person responsible, perhaps even an apology, perhaps closure - is that too much to ask?
It would be all too easy just to let it drop - but why the hell should they?
The death of one’s child is generally not something one just “moves on” from very easily.
Then why do legislature create civil actions for wrongful death? Why do you condemn them for using a legal recourse that is available under both English and American law?
Yeah, i think it’s very hard to let it drop, and easy to chase after the perp. But i suspect that even if they get their day in court, there will still be a giant hole in their hearts where their son used to be. And chasing after her isn’t going to mend that.
I dunno. When it’s the family bread winner or the caretaker of children, there’s a significant financial loss associated with a death, and it seems very reasonable to ask the killer to replace that, though.
I have been very careful NOT to condemn them for it. Grieving people do all sorts of stuff. I just commented that i think it’s weird to celebrate them for it. There is space between “this is despicable” and “this is admirable”. I don’t think the family deserves to be in either of those buckets.
That sounds like a condemnation to me.
Really? You think anything that’s not admirable is condemnable?
Just to keep you up-to-date from this side of the water:
Harry Dunn: Teen’s family can claim against suspect and her husband - BBC News
Harry Dunn: Boris Johnson pledges to do ‘whatever we can’ for justice - BBC News
What I still don’t understand about this case is why the US refuses to waive the immunity. It seems the UK and the US have already agreed to change the rules that applied in this case, so that she would not have immunity if it happened now. So in keeping with that why not waive her immunity?
Its the fear of setting a precedent, just as individuals are not prosecuted for events that took place prior to a change in law - unless the law specifically mandates it (think of holocaust crimes where some nations had to enact specific laws to deal with historic offences)
The problem with doing this with diplomatic immunity is the possibility that certain nations could introduce a law to intimidate diplomatic missions merely for their own political purposes. Neither US not UK wants to set such a precedent.
Letting the case be tried in the US seems like a reasonable compromise. I hope all the relevant evidence is heard, the courts make a reasonable ruling based on whatever that evidence shows, and the family of the victim finds peace.
How is that a compromise? The general rule in common law is that tort cases are tried in the location where the tort was alleged to have occurred. That is England. But the American system gets to dictate that rule does not apply here. Where’s the compromise?
Well, I guess it’s a compromise between hearing the case in the U.K. and not hearing the case at all.
It’s not going to replace the dead…but FFS, it will at least give the family a sense that there’s someone out there that cares about justice. You’re going out of your way to defend a killer. Why?
Yup. The US gets to assert its diplomatic immunity, but the case still gets tried.
How am i defending a killer?
From what I’ve read here, the laws regarding vehicular homicide aren’t very different between the UK and most US states. I expect the investigation, etc., will be similar to what might have happened in the UK. There may be more histrionics, because the US courts can go that way. The jury is going to find the victim and his family more sympathetic than the driver, because who wouldn’t?
You did note that the PM is involved?
This isnt a simple case of a accident anymore, it is a political circus. She will be crucified in the court of Public Opinion.
Modnote: Argue the posts and not the poster. Basic guidance of Great Debates.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
She’s being sued for a civil tort, not being investigated or prosecuted for vehicular homicide. Thanks to the US government, she’s beaten the criminal rap.