UK charges US diplomat’s wife over teen’s death in crash

I think that being invited to the White House by the President who tried to stage manage an empty reconciliation whilst describing the incident as an accident, has made the lady feel immune from actually taking proper responsibility for her actions.
This all getting rather unpleasant and the American authorities would do well to step up.
I mean is it really all about America standing up for and protecting their own, right or wrong? What is to be gained by not sending her to face the music? Loss of face?

 

I would have supported a waiver, but the US is well within their legal rights to deny one.

 

as I recall diplomatic immunity of family/spouse are protect against misdemeanor, police search etc not manslaughter. could be wrong though

 

We were all thinking it but no one had the guts to come right out and say it.

 

I do not think that diplomatic immunity deals with this sort of thing. It has more to do with what one does within their embassy and the right to travel between his own country and his host country unmolested.

 

If she did not know how to drive in Britain.......she should not have been driving at all. She was driving on the wrong side of the road (in Britain) She cannot claim stupidity, or ignorance.......if she is the wife of a diplomat. They should know the rules of the country they are are in. She killed a young person.......and very soon afterwards took off back to the US where she could hide under some legal loophole ........or protection by the inner circle............just like Trump is being protected by his inner circle.......

The REAL LAW and even vehicular homicide does not seem to matter..........as long as they get off........and have to pay no consequences.

There is no evidence of empathy/ for the family that lost their son........who had his whole future ahead of him..........but folks are more concerned about quibbling over the legal loopholes that could be her defense. DEFENSE of MURDER. what kind of culture has these kind of prioritises.?? would these same arguments apply if a Brit diplomat killed a young american youth in America?? and took off back to Britain?? Seems the US would have apoplexy and make all kinds of THREATS and demands ........Wouldn't they????

No....NO one is exceptional...............regardless of what some might believe of themselves.......... and the law applies to everyone...... When exceptions are allowed.......then the nation (any nation) cannot be trusted . and belongs in the same category as Saudi Arabia.......

and then bring in the fact that Trump LIKES the Saudi Prince.........and his methods........So we are dealing with a different US now.

 

so the uk doesn't want diplomacy for diplomats...

interesting, very interesting indeed...

 

I would imagine the UK wants both diplomacy for diplomats, and to bring to book an individual who killed a 19 year old in the road and then ran away.

 

Dont think losing face is a factor.......as America is losing face. respect, credibility by protecting her. By doing so it is announcing to the world that laws only apply to certain people.......while others are exempt........... and these laws are defined by some upper level biased gov't types.............If ever a nation must handle a case ethically and by the law is a high profile case like this. Fact: she ran back tothe US for protection like a coward. ......Sure it would have been hard to stay and own up .......but that is what genuine responsible people do.....even if there is a loss to them. She KILLED d someone........let's not lose sight of that fact in the murky language of legalese.

Would there be any argument if she were an ordinary black person?? ........The law is the same for everyone.......or SHOULD be.

Even Prince Phillip paid in consequences of surrendering his license when he was involved in an accident. No one was killed. He lost his precious independence.......So the law applies to him too.....

 

But should we protect someone who through at the least through negligence caused the death of another person. She would be looking at jail time here.

 

happens everywhere there's a diplomat... it's the reason for the immunity, no one would become one otherwise...

why, ye asks... because the country that a diplomat is in, could easily persecute them if not for the immunity

 

NO.....we should not. There should be no immunity for MURDER.

Lesser crimes.....should be evaluated on an individual basis.Immunity is not a get out of jail free card.



This is an abuse of immunity ....

 

No same ting. She is a guilty scumbag trying to circumnavigate her guilt and her punishment. Trump is being protected by his innocence and the law.

 

I agree, that's why I support a waiver. However, there is a very good reason why the US is within their rights to not provide one.

 

Can you detail the 'good reason' in this case? Are you talking precedent and principle?
Or is it because she is a US citizen?

 

I am not a US citizen, I have no bias in that regard.

The good reason is that the treaty signed permits them to do so, because otherwise hostile nations could leverage ambassadors for political gain.

 

Yes as I noted earlier to prevent a foreign government from harassing our officials or even blackmailing us. But then waivers set a precedent. It's clear in this case that the UK which I don't think is trying to harass does have a legitimate probable cause. Perhaps the whole diplomatic immunity thing needs to be addressed on an international scale as I noted earlier I've read forb years stories about about diplomats abusing such protections.

 

I like that if a waiver is not provided it effectively becomes a political issue between the two nations.

 

Just an eye for an eye. That's a form of justice that is accepted rather well.

 

I thought an eye for an eye was about equivalence and justice. Like you don't imprison somebody for life for stealing a loaf of bread.
This case is tragic, but not as simple as a life for a life. There are factors that the judicial process has to weigh up hopefully to come to a just and appropriate conclusion.
I don't think the lady is facing an unjust system in Britain that would condemn her as soon as look at her. However the longer this drags on the worse it looks, and the whole appalling story would be well served if the lady immediately returned to face the music whatever 'advice' she may be getting.
She is a sentient person after all, can think for herself.

 

I dunno why Donald is protecting this person who killed somebody. He can send her back to the UK. Criminals are frequently handed over to friendly foreign governments to find due process in a court of law.

 

She is presumed innocent until found guilty. No to be described as a criminal. She has an issue to confront and ought to do so.
The longer this goes on the worse it gets.

 

If she is innocent, why does she act like she's guilty before charges were even laid? Why didn't she cooperate with the authorities to explain what happened and why she is innocent? Actions often have consequences.

 

The UK government helped her flee the country.

Meanwhile, they are keeping Assange locked up, drugged up, and tortured for the crime of doing real journalism.

The UK government is wholly corrupt.

 

What do you expect with Tories led by a racist?
Not only the government.
People voted for them, suggests to me Tory voters are questionable in the extreme.
Back to the lady.
Will she face the music any time in 2020?