The parents of British 19-year-old Harry Dunn, who was killed in a traffic accident involving American Anne Sacoolas, tells "CBS This Morning" they rejected President Trump's surprise offer to meet with Sacoolas during a White House meeting on Tuesday.
After offering them his condolences, "it didn't take long for [Mr. Trump] to then drop into the conversation that Anne Sacoolas was in the building," mother Charlotte Charles said in her first U.S. TV interview since the meeting.
Dunn's father, Tim, said when he first heard the offer to meet with Sacoolas, it took his breath away.
"He did ask two or three times," Tim said, adding, "It was a bit pressure, but we stuck to our guns."
Charles said it was the "wrong setting."
"We've said all along that you know we are willing to meet her. We are still willing to meet her. But it needs to be on U.K. soil, you know, and with therapists and mediators," Charles said. "And that's not just for us. That's for her as well."
Sacoolas' lawyer told CBS News that Sacoolas was invited to the White House, but wasn't aware of the circumstances of the meeting.
"To be thrown into a room together with no prior warning, that's not good for her mental health, it's certainly not good for ours… You know, none of us know how we were going to react to have that sprung on us," Charles said.
"I think the family feels a little ambushed, to say the least," the parents' lawyer, Radd Seiger, told the BBC.
Charles and Dunn said Mr. Trump did not seem responsive to their request to have Sacoolas return to the U.K. to face justice. Sacoolas, who is reportedly married to a U.S. intelligence official, left the U.K. after the crash claiming diplomatic immunity. Police said Sacoolas struck Dunn in August after she was driving on the wrong side of the road near a U.S. military base.
Charles said she asked Mr. Trump who allowed Sacoolas to return to the U.S., but did not get an answer to the question.
"At the end of the meeting, we all shook hands, and I ended up at the back of our little family queue and President Trump actually grabbed hold of my hand. So I squeezed it tight, and I just said to him, 'Please, you know, just do the right thing. You know, if you had a son, you'd be doing the same. You've said that.' And he said, again, he said, 'I absolutely would.' And he said that he would maybe now look at the possibility of looking at it from a different angle."
While unclear what that meant exactly, Charles said it gave her "just a little bit of hope that he might actually carry that through."
Getting Sacoolas back to the U.K. is still the parents' "main aim."
"She's held her hands up again in a statement this week saying that it was entirely her fault, she made a mistake. So stand up to your mistakes. Take ownership of them," Charles said.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
When was this meeting where they were ambushed? It is my understanding that a meeting was proposed, they family was told who would be there, and they declined.
Of course no one can blame them for declining and I hope they receive justice for their son.
(10-16-2019, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When was this meeting where they were ambushed? It is my understanding that a meeting was proposed, they family was told who would be there, and they declined.
Of course no one can blame them for declining and I hope they receive justice for their son.
(10-16-2019, 06:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Tuesday.
And DJT said it was a beautiful meeting...in a way.
He is such a moron.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(10-16-2019, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When was this meeting where they were ambushed? It is my understanding that a meeting was proposed, they family was told who would be there, and they declined.
Of course no one can blame them for declining and I hope they receive justice for their son.
I think the "ambush" part was first meeting with Trump (NPR said they were told it would be with a senior official) and then being told that the person who killed their son was in the next room and they could bring her into the room. I guess the family was not ready to see her on a whim, especially not with staff photographers in the room.
An ambush would be if they brought her in the room without asking, but she should be sent back. If it were a simple mistake (I don't know one way or the other) of driving on the wrong side because we drive on opposite sides of the road, I can't imagine she's going to have the book thrown at her.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
Personally I think if I was going to meet with a high level official to discuss the case of my son's death and out of the blue they said they had his killer in the next room and asked if I wanted to meet them I'd consider it inappropriate at least and an ambush at worst based on how the person I was meeting with presented it to me.
But it was the parents in the room who used the word "ambush" so I'm gonna go with their reaction this time.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
I think this is a scenario where Trump was trying to be helpful. He just doesn't seem to understand human interactions and what is and is not appropriate.
But I give him points for at least trying to do the right thing - getting these two parties to meet, even if he did it in one of the most absurd and inappropriate ways you could think of.
If I'm the lady I'd just want to get it over with. Face the consequences, which I really doubt will be overly harsh, or spend your life as the woman that ran away from it.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
I read BBC news everyday so I've been aware of this story for a long time. I'm actually shocked it just came up, Vox must have finally become aware of it. The thing about this case is that it has implications far beyond this one incident. If we surrender diplomatic immunity on this case then it opens the door for other cases. If you have issue with this particular instance then your issue is really with the concept of diplomatic immunity in general. Not remotely on the same level I know, but here in Los Angeles we have numerous embassies and there are some that are infamous for routinely breaking traffic and parking laws and then flaunting their immunity. I feel horrible for the kid's parents and it's very apparent that this was a horrible accident, but I don't think any POTUS would be returning this woman to UK soil.
(10-17-2019, 10:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I read BBC news everyday so I've been aware of this story for a long time. I'm actually shocked it just came up, Vox must have finally become aware of it. The thing about this case is that it has implications far beyond this one incident. If we surrender diplomatic immunity on this case then it opens the door for other cases. If you have issue with this particular instance then your issue is really with the concept of diplomatic immunity in general. Not remotely on the same level I know, but here in Los Angeles we have numerous embassies and there are some that are infamous for routinely breaking traffic and parking laws and then flaunting their immunity. I feel horrible for the kid's parents and it's very apparent that this was a horrible accident, but I don't think any POTUS would be returning this woman to UK soil.
Actually, now that they have returned to the states the question becomes residual immunity. The reality is though residual immunity most likely won't help her because it only protects diplomats from official acts and she most likely wasn't performing any official acts. I think what will happen is the UK will basically put out an extradition request and Trump will tell them not to grant it. When that happens she will basically be locked into the country because if she travels anywhere else she will be arrested and extradited. In the mean time the UK will then refuse to extradite people we need as a tit for tat over this obviously guilty and no longer immune person.
(10-17-2019, 12:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually, now that they have returned to the states the question becomes residual immunity. The reality is though residual immunity most likely won't help her because it only protects diplomats from official acts and she most likely wasn't performing any official acts. I think what will happen is the UK will basically put out an extradition request and Trump will tell them not to grant it. When that happens she will basically be locked into the country because if she travels anywhere else she will be arrested and extradited. In the mean time the UK will then refuse to extradite people we need as a tit for tat over this obviously guilty and no longer immune person.
I think you'll find the UK has already done so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon, in the past. We should feel no obligation in this regard based on the McKinnon case alone.
Honestly, this family and the UK are being a bit disingenuous. While I utterly sympathize with their situation they don't want her to return to the UK so they can have a therapeutic meeting with her, they want her criminally charged. That being the case there isn't a single POTUS in recent history who would return her to the UK.
(10-17-2019, 10:00 AM)Crazyjdog Wrote: But I give him points for at least trying to do the right thing - getting these two parties to meet, even if he did it in one of the most absurd and inappropriate ways you could think of.
How is it "the right thing" to have these people to meet?
I see it as a form of torture for the parents to tell them "The person who killed your son and will never be punished for it is here. Would you like to see her walking around freely defying justice?"
(10-17-2019, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, this family and the UK are being a bit disingenuous. While I utterly sympathize with their situation they don't want her to return to the UK so they can have a therapeutic meeting with her, they want her criminally charged. That being the case there isn't a single POTUS in recent history who would return her to the UK.
You don't think having criminal charges properly filed is therapeutic?
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
