[QatzelOk]

Even if she was, how does that make a difference for her guilt concerning the accident ?
I said accident, because surely she did not intend to kill that young man.
Some people call it murder, they definitely have lost their minds.

Killing someone with your car could happen to any one of us who has their drivers' license.

Drivers need to stick together to defend their chosen lifestyle from criticism. We can't let 'killing someone with your car' be seen as something callous, or socially-inept.

In fact, "killing someone with your car' is actually a sign of successful lifestyle choices because... you have chosen to be the killer instead of being the loser kill-ee.

[snapdragon]

I agree that there are circumstances that warrant punishment, like driving whilst drunk, texting whilst driving, driving whilst drugged, and so on.
The American woman did none of those things. She was a very recent arrival in the UK and was confused on which side of the road to drive on. There is no criminal intent here or even criminal carelessness.

What a piss poor excuse. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable reason for breaking it.

Driving on the wrong side has happened to me a few times when I had to switch sides when visiting other countries, although fortunately no accidents resulted from it.
Even if she would go to jail or have to pay a heavy fine, that would not alleviate the victim's family and friends. Why are you so adamant to get that woman in a court room ?
What purpose would be served to bring that woman to a court in the UK?

You were indeed bloody lucky. How careless of you.

She should face justice. She isn't facing it in the USA.

[Drlee]

What would you consider justice @snapdragon ?

Life in prison? Death? 10 years?

What purpose would all of this serve except to say to others, be careful.

[Big Steve-1]

What a piss poor excuse. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable reason for breaking it.

Then send her a citation in the mail.

After all, the law she broke was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Hitting the kid was a totally unintended accident.

[Rancid]

Then send her a citation in the mail.

Politically speaking that's a really really bad move. It's like giving a $.01 tip at a restaurant. You're better off not giving a tip at all because it just makes you look stupid.

Hit and run is generally illegal all by itself. Even if it's just a fender bender.

Hitting the kid was a totally unintended accident.

Unintended accidents can still be punished criminally. It's all about the context and circumstances of course.

[Big Steve-2]

Politically speaking that's a really really bad move. It's like giving a $.01 tip at a restaurant. You're better off not giving a tip at all because it just makes you look stupid.

Actually, I've found that leaving a shitty tip really catches the server's attention. I left a 25¢ tip on a $40 tab one night because the service was probably the worst I've ever experienced. If I left nothing, she might've thought I just forgot. But she chased me out in the parking lot because of that quarter!

Hit and run is generally illegal all by itself. Even if it's just a fender bender.

True, but this wasn't a hit and run.

[snapdragon]

What would you consider justice @snapdragon ?

Life in prison? Death? 10 years?

That's up to the court to decide.

That is the purpose of a trial.

What purpose would all of this serve except to say to others, be careful.

That would be a good outcome, wouldn't it?, but that's by the by.

She hasn't faced justice.

Harry Dunn was 19 years old. His family deserve to see justice done for him.

[Big Steve-2]

That's up to the court to decide.

That is the purpose of a trial.



That would be a good outcome, wouldn't it?, but that's by the by.

She hasn't faced justice.

Harry Dunn was 19 years old. His family deserve to see justice done for him.

What would you charge her with?

[snapdragon]

What would you charge her with?

Causing death by dangerous driving.

I believe some US states refer to it as vehicular homicide.

[Big Steve-2]

Causing death by dangerous driving.

I believe some US states refer to it as vehicular homicide.

Hmmm. Okay.

Why did the police let her go?

[snapdragon]

Hmmm. Okay.

Why did the police let her go?

As far as I know, because she was initially cooperating.

She assured investigating officers she was not going to leave the country.

[Rich]

As far as I know, because she was initially cooperating.

She assured investigating officers she was not going to leave the country.

She couldn't get a fair trial in Britain because, the right to silence has been abolished. If America was to allow her to be tried, they must insist on Britain changes its laws to give defendants proper protection.

[Big Steve-2]

As far as I know, because she was initially cooperating.

She assured investigating officers she was not going to leave the country.

They let her go because she enjoys diplomatic immunity. Whether she cooperated with the police or not isn't relevant.

She can't be charged. If she was, that would put ever British diplomat in the United States at risk.

[snapdragon]

They let her go because she enjoys diplomatic immunity. Whether she cooperated with the police or not isn't relevant.

Nope.

She can't be charged. If she was, that would put ever British diplomat in the United States at risk.

Nonsense.

[Big Steve-2]

Nope.

"Nope" what?

You're saying she didn't have diplomatic immunity? Well, you should know that the United Kingdom disagrees with you.

Nonsense.

You'll have to explain how.

[Drlee]

That would be a good outcome, wouldn't it?, but that's by the by.

She hasn't faced justice.

Harry Dunn was 19 years old. His family deserve to see justice done for him.

You are mistaking revenge for justice.

She couldn't get a fair trial in Britain because, the right to silence has been abolished. If America was to allow her to be tried, they must insist on Britain changes its laws to give defendants proper protection.

It is inconceivable that she could get a fair trial. You are quite correct. For this reason, diplomatic immunity or not, the US would be wrong to extradite her to the UK.

There is nothing stopping the UK from charging her. There is nothing they can do to extradite her however. I suppose you could get your special air service to kidnap her and take her to Britain. Try it and let me know how you like the trade embargo and end to diplomatic relations with the US. If I recall you tried to bully the US back in 1812 and it did not end well for anyone.

The UK granted diplomatic immunity to this lady. I suggest you take your pleas for justice up with the Home Office.

[snapdragon]

You are mistaking revenge for justice.

How am I? She killed somebody because she was driving on the wrong side of the road.
She should therefore face the courts.

It is inconceivable that she could get a fair trial. You are quite correct. For this reason, diplomatic immunity or not, the US would be wrong to extradite her to the UK.

What nonsense. Why should she not receive a fair trial?

She would very likely plead guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.

Any punishment given would down to the courts in accordance with the law.

There is nothing stopping the UK from charging her. There is nothing they can do to extradite her however. I suppose you could get your special air service to kidnap her and take her to Britain. Try it and let me know how you like the trade embargo and end to diplomatic relations with the US. If I recall you tried to bully the US back in 1812 and it did not end well for anyone.

Oh, for god's sake. What twaddle.

Just send the woman back.

The UK granted diplomatic immunity to this lady. I suggest you take your pleas for justice up with the Home Office.

No, she was not granted diplomatic immunity by the FO.

[snapdragon]

"Nope" what?

You're saying she didn't have diplomatic immunity? Well, you should know that the United Kingdom disagrees with you.

No, she didn't have diplomatic immunity.

The FO confirmed that neither she nor her husband was on the list.

You'll have to explain how.

No, I don't. I've answered your questions.

[Big Steve-2]

No, she didn't have diplomatic immunity.

The FO confirmed that neither she nor her husband was on the list.

Yes, she did and she did, too. Diplomatic immunity extends to the families of diplomats.

Also, ask yourself this: If she didn't have diplomatic immunity, why were there requests for a waiver of that diplomatic immunity?

No, I don't. I've answered your questions.

And all you've "explained" is that this is all nonsense. She had diplomatic immunity.

[Paddy14]

You are mistaking revenge for justice.



It is inconceivable that she could get a fair trial. You are quite correct. For this reason, diplomatic immunity or not, the US would be wrong to extradite her to the UK.

There is nothing stopping the UK from charging her. There is nothing they can do to extradite her however. I suppose you could get your special air service to kidnap her and take her to Britain. Try it and let me know how you like the trade embargo and end to diplomatic relations with the US. If I recall you tried to bully the US back in 1812 and it did not end well for anyone.

The UK granted diplomatic immunity to this lady. I suggest you take your pleas for justice up with the Home Office.

She has a much better chance of a fair trial in the UK, than if the situation were reversed, because Americans are the most nationalistic people on earth, and they seem to believe they are exceptional.

And if you read your history (from anything other than an American book) you will see that it was the USA who declared war on Britain while she was engaged in war with both France and Spain (in the hopes of an easy victory, I guess) and it was the USA who made several unsuccessful attempts at invading Canada. So who was doing the bullying is open to question.

In fact, neither side won the War of 1812, and the USA failed to achieve any of their war aims, but if anyone can be said to be successful, it was the Canadians. A handful of Brits and Canadian settlers saw off at least two full scale American invasions.