Parents of U.K. teen killed in crash say they felt ambushed during Trump meeting

[fredtoast]

(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.

How are they being "disingenuous" ?  I am pretty sure they have made their intent very clear from the beginning.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2019, 02:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: You don't think having criminal charges properly filed is therapeutic?

For the family, absolutely.  It's also why we won't send her back, not a precedent the US is going to want to set.  I get the family's position completely, but I also get why they're not going to get what they want.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 02:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For the family, absolutely.  It's also why we won't send her back, not a precedent the US is going to want to set.  I get the family's position completely, but I also get why they're not going to get what they want.

No precedent, her immunity is gone. Under the Vienna convention it ended for her as soon as she got back to the states, her husband however does retain his. Diplomatic immunity is to allow for diplomats to do their jobs, not commit murder without consequences.

[Dill]

(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. 

Pretty sure that diplomats families are protected, and pretty sure they do all kinds of illegal stuff and escape prosecution, even though they are not performing official acts. I lived in DC for three years and every so often there was a hullaballoo in the press about some embassy owing millions in parking violations or a diplomats son running down a pedestrian.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 03:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Pretty sure that diplomats families are protected, and pretty sure they do all kinds of illegal stuff and escape prosecution, even though they are not performing official acts. I lived in DC for three years and every so often there was a hullaballoo in the press about some embassy owing millions in parking violations or a diplomats son running down a pedestrian.

Diplomats families are protected while abroad, however once they return only the diplomat retains residual immunity.

[Dill]

(10-16-2019, 09:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.

(10-17-2019, 10:00 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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.

Agree that Trump was probably trying to be helpful, as doing so would appear to help him.

Bpat has the "ambush" part right, though. Trump set this up because, lacking empathy and the internalized social norms that regulate normal citizen's behavior, he doesn't really see all the ramifications of messing with grieving parents this way. 

This is somewhat similar to other "ambushes"--e.g., bringing four Clinton accusers to a public debate. That was not "trying to be helpful," but it flows from the same sense of PT Barnum/pro-wrestling understanding of shock publicity and an absence of the aforementioned social norms which prevent others from generating and reveling in such spontaneous drama. Reality TV, only this time the EMCEE is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOLKS!

What is a parent supposed to think in this case?  Imagine you've come to the US to get justice for your son. You are exploring the legal/political landscape to see what can be done.  You score a meeting with a "high-level" official. Looks like progress.

SUDDENLY you are in a room with the president of the US, cameras whirring, and he tells you the woman who killed your son is in the next room.  Do you want to meet her with cameras in your face?  In the chaos could you possibly say or do something that hurts your chances of getting justice? Break down in anger? Walk out? Shake hands, "forgive" the woman? Then you're back on the plane to Gatwick watching the news on the back of the seat in front of you--"Trump reconciled grieving parents and . . . etc."  Your claim has been settled. At some level you probably recognized the whole scene is being staged for the president's purposes, not your own. And the memory of your son is turned into a kind of show/PR ploy.

No time to think. Tremendous STRESS. Yes. And, fundamentally, DISRESPECT.  Ambush is the right term.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2019, 02:47 PM)Au165 Wrote: No precedent, her immunity is gone. Under the Vienna convention it ended for her as soon as she got back to the states, her husband however does retain his. Diplomatic immunity is to allow for diplomats to do their jobs, not commit murder without consequences.

You've made this point, I acknowledged it.  You're not addressing mine, that being that the US is not going to set this type of precedent and I don't believe a single modern day POTUS would send her back to the UK.  It would make state department employees in foreign countries extremely reticent to serve.  So, again, while I get the family of this teenager's position they're not going to get what they want and this isn't one you can pin on bad guy Trump.

[Dill]

(10-17-2019, 03:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: Diplomats families are protected while abroad, however once they return only the diplomat retains residual immunity.

So the US could send them home, then work the extradition angle?

Consequences for US diplomat families abroad? Seems like SSF has got this right.

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 03:19 PM)Dill Wrote: So the US could send them home, then work the extradition angle?

Consequences for US diplomat families abroad?

They could if it was worth it. Most the time the crimes are either, not such a slam dunk case or not worth the hassle. The other thing is you'd need an extradition agreement with that particular country. 

While abroad nothing, when they come home it comes down to political discussions behind closed doors. 

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 03:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You've made this point, I acknowledged it.  You're not addressing mine, that being that the US is not going to set this type of precedent and I don't believe a single modern day POTUS would send her back to the UK.  It would make state department employees in foreign countries extremely reticent to serve.  So, again, while I get the family of this teenager's position they're not going to get what they want and this isn't one you can pin on bad guy Trump.

Why, would it make them less likely to serve? If the wife got on the freeway today in the U.S. and killed someone she'd stand trial for it. I'm not trying to pin anything on anyone, I am telling you she has no legal protections and there is no precedent to set as it's not changing any interpretation of immunity. If a tourist did the same thing in the UK and came home we'd send them back. She was not performing any duty when she killed the kid and she has no legal reason not be sent back. This isn't a political persecution issue by a foreign government it is serving justice for someone who was wronged. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2019, 03:24 PM)Au165 Wrote: Why, would it make them less likely to serve?

Because you're opening up the door for the family and service staff of our ambassadors to be indicted on whatever crime a country chose the minute the came home.  Yeah, that wouldn't make anyone reluctant at all.

Quote:If the wife got on the freeway today in the U.S. and killed someone she'd stand trial for it.

So would her husband.  

Quote:I'm not trying to pin anything on anyone, I am telling you she has no legal protections and there is no precedent to set as it's not changing any interpretation of immunity.

Except there absolutely is as already explained.  You disagree, that's fine, we can stop the back and forth.

Quote: If a tourist did the same thing in the UK and came home we'd send them back.

You state this as a definite when it is far, far from that.

Quote:She was not performing any duty when she killed the kid and she has no legal reason not be sent back. This isn't a political persecution issue by a foreign government it is serving justice for someone who was wronged. 

Fine, we'll send her back after they send McKinnon our way.  Sound good?  She can't receive a fair trial in the UK now anyways with all the media attention this case has received.  See how that works?

[Au165]

(10-17-2019, 04:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except there absolutely is as already explained.  You disagree, that's fine, we can stop the back and forth.

You are locked in on what you want to believe, but it's not based in law. Residual immunity does not extend to family. Her immunity ended by law when she returned home. If they file charges she is the exact same as any other criminal who flees a country. She could have kept her immunity by staying in the country, however she chose to waive it and in doing so should be subject to the crimes any person who doesn't have immunity would be subject to. We extradite people all the time who don't have immunity and are criminals...which she doesn't have and which she has admitted to being.

[Au165]

Turns out he wasn't actually legally registered as a diplomat. Because of this he and his wife are not afforded immunity under the Vienna Convention. He apparently was just an intelligence technician, not an actual diplomat. Guess we can quit with the precedent argument and treat her like any other criminal now?

"Anne Sacoolas was not entitled to diplomatic immunity."

International lawyer Mark Stephens says the husband of the American woman granted diplomatic immunity following a fatal car crash was not registered as a diplomat.

Read more on this story: https://t.co/nVRmCs04pJ pic.twitter.com/pl6wklZEKC

— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 8, 2019

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-17-2019, 04:53 PM)Au165 Wrote: You are locked in on what you want to believe, but it's not based in law. Residual immunity does not extend to family. Her immunity ended by law when she returned home.

My argument isn't based on immunity, hence her not having it doesn't change it.

 

Quote:If they file charges she is the exact same as any other criminal who flees a country. She could have kept her immunity by staying in the country, however she chose to waive it and in doing so should be subject to the crimes any person who doesn't have immunity would be subject to.

No she's not the exact same, for several reason.  She's also a US citizen and we often do not extradite our citizens to other countries.

Quote: We extradite people all the time who don't have immunity and are criminals...which she doesn't have and which she has admitted to being.

We also don't extradite people all the time.  Additionally, killing someone in an car accident is not necessarily a crime, just ask Caitlin Jenner.

[Dill]

(10-17-2019, 04:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: Turns out he wasn't actually legally registered as a diplomat. Because of this he and his wife are not afforded immunity under the Vienna Convention. He apparently was just an intelligence technician, not an actual diplomat. Guess we can quit with the precedent argument and treat her like any other criminal now?

Sounds right, if diplomatic immunity was never in play. 

Here's my question, though. How did she ever make it out of the country? Did she deceive British authorities? You cannot just CLAIM immunity. You'd have to have the right gov ID/passport and immediate State Dept confirmation (e.g., from an appropriate official at Croughton).  If she presented all that something is wrong. British or American error there.  More details needed.  Even if you have a Gov or military ID, the British would sort that out first. We have a SOFA agreement with them.

I don't understand how ALL staff at Croughton could be covered by diplomatic unity. Though it might be possible if a technician has something very direct to do with comms.  

So I am curious what will happen.

I am personally curious about this case as I myself did something similar back in 2006. I didn't kill anyone but I did ram a car full of Brits in Ashford, Kent.  Both vehicles were total losses, but no one was hurt. Had someone been hurt, I'm sure I'd have been detained as the police were on the spot quickly. 

[*michaelsean*]

Like I said, ambushes generally don't involve requests, and I don't know what we should do officially as a country, especially in light of reading about that gut SSF posted, but this woman should return. I think for her own sake as much as anyone else's.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2019, 09:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, ambushes generally don't involve requests, and I don't know what we should do officially as a country, especially in light of reading about that gut SSF posted, but this woman should return.  I think for her own sake as much as anyone else's.

I'm guessing they felt "ambushed" because they had (in their mind) no reason to meet with the woman or to expect that they would be REQUESTED to meet with her out of the blue when they were there to ask the government to do something about her.

She didn't jump out of a closet at them, but it was still unexpected.

[*bfine32*]

The parents have now sued the White House
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-u-officials-wife-050842389.html

Quote:The family said it will accuse the administration of "lawless misconduct" and will also be seeking damages. CBS News reached out to Sacoolas' lawyers and is waiting for a reply.

It's a sad situation