5 ms·

I read about this story a while back, very sad. However, she not only had diplomatic immunity, but a foreign government was saying she should be thrown in jail

by jb775 7y ago

I read about this story a while back, very sad. However, she not only had diplomatic immunity, but a foreign government was saying she should be thrown in jail for up to 14 years for an accident. How can you blame her for returning to her own country and claiming that immunity?

favorited 7y ago
The claim of diplomatic immunity was tenuous at best. Her husband was not listed as an official diplomat (the claim was that she had immunity via her husband). The victim's family recently accused the driver of working for the CIA, and if she was in fact a spy she absolutely doesn't have immunity. That's just an accusation, of course.
- beerandt 7y ago
  If your country backs up your claim for diplomatic immunity, it's pretty much good. There's no other measure of quality that matters in a practical sense. If the host country wants to dispute that, their recourse is expulsion. And CIA and other agencies certainly do act under the auspices of diplomatic protection. Barring any movie-like treasonous behavior, why wouldn't they? They're government officials working in an official capacity while abroad. Besides, being ex-CIA doesn't disqualify spousal immunity. Even if the host country had a problem with that, the recourse is... expulsion.
roel_v 7y ago
"she should be thrown in jail for up to 14 years for an accident." This is such an American-centric view of the world. If you don't want to abide by the moral standards of another country, maybe... uh... don't go there?
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  On top of that, it is VERY easy to write what JB775 did above if you read about this in the news. If it was his/her child though the sentiment of the comment would be very different. Laws and courts are there for all. The fact that this lady killed a child, and chose to flee the country, says a lot about her character. All this would have probably been resolved with a generous compensation (by the US gov to the victim's family)(all except bringing the child back). She didn't do anything on purpose until she flipped the finger to UK justice and the victim's family and ran away like the rat she is (let's not forget that she killed a child). US gov on the other hand protects its citizens (even those who kill children and flee justice - great job USA)(she was in the UK, she would have a fair trial). It's a messed up sorry that only has pain, sorrow, and anger.
  - jb775 7y ago
    My sister was killed 5 months ago as a result of injuries from a car accident where someone was negligent. That person is currently in prison. My family had the opportunity to make the penalties much harsher for that person, but we decided against it. It reached a point where we didn't see the point in causing even more pain to an already excruciating situation. Not to mention they need to go about the rest of their life living with what they've caused. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any compensation or repercussions, but the possibility of 14 years for an accident is absurd. If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story. And what precedent would the US gov be setting by turning over gov employees working abroad (or their families)? Now that you know I basically have gone through this, maybe you should re-think your sentiment.
    - roel_v 7y ago
      That's not the point. If the law in some place says so and so, and you break it (even if involuntarily), you can't say 'oh I disagree with that law so I'm going to flee the country and that's morally ok because in my country we have different ideas about responsibilitiea of car drivers'.
    - ajscanlan 7y ago
      > That person is currently in prison. But isn't Anne Sacoolas walking free? You haven't "basically gone through this", since person that killed your sister was held accountable for their actions. Anne Sacoolas was not held accountable, that family has no closure unlike yours. > If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story She is to be charged with "causing death by _dangerous_ driving", not an accident. All that being said I'm sorry about your sister and I hope you're doing OK.

by jb775 7y ago

favorited 7y ago

The claim of diplomatic immunity was tenuous at best. Her husband was not listed as an official diplomat (the claim was that she had immunity via her husband). The victim's family recently accused the driver of working for the CIA, and if she was in fact a spy she absolutely doesn't have immunity. That's just an accusation, of course.

beerandt 7y ago
If your country backs up your claim for diplomatic immunity, it's pretty much good. There's no other measure of quality that matters in a practical sense. If the host country wants to dispute that, their recourse is expulsion. And CIA and other agencies certainly do act under the auspices of diplomatic protection. Barring any movie-like treasonous behavior, why wouldn't they? They're government officials working in an official capacity while abroad. Besides, being ex-CIA doesn't disqualify spousal immunity. Even if the host country had a problem with that, the recourse is... expulsion.

roel_v 7y ago

"she should be thrown in jail for up to 14 years for an accident." This is such an American-centric view of the world. If you don't want to abide by the moral standards of another country, maybe... uh... don't go there?

HenryBemis 7y ago
On top of that, it is VERY easy to write what JB775 did above if you read about this in the news. If it was his/her child though the sentiment of the comment would be very different. Laws and courts are there for all. The fact that this lady killed a child, and chose to flee the country, says a lot about her character. All this would have probably been resolved with a generous compensation (by the US gov to the victim's family)(all except bringing the child back). She didn't do anything on purpose until she flipped the finger to UK justice and the victim's family and ran away like the rat she is (let's not forget that she killed a child). US gov on the other hand protects its citizens (even those who kill children and flee justice - great job USA)(she was in the UK, she would have a fair trial). It's a messed up sorry that only has pain, sorrow, and anger.
- jb775 7y ago
  My sister was killed 5 months ago as a result of injuries from a car accident where someone was negligent. That person is currently in prison. My family had the opportunity to make the penalties much harsher for that person, but we decided against it. It reached a point where we didn't see the point in causing even more pain to an already excruciating situation. Not to mention they need to go about the rest of their life living with what they've caused. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any compensation or repercussions, but the possibility of 14 years for an accident is absurd. If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story. And what precedent would the US gov be setting by turning over gov employees working abroad (or their families)? Now that you know I basically have gone through this, maybe you should re-think your sentiment.
  - roel_v 7y ago
    That's not the point. If the law in some place says so and so, and you break it (even if involuntarily), you can't say 'oh I disagree with that law so I'm going to flee the country and that's morally ok because in my country we have different ideas about responsibilitiea of car drivers'.
  - ajscanlan 7y ago
    > That person is currently in prison. But isn't Anne Sacoolas walking free? You haven't "basically gone through this", since person that killed your sister was held accountable for their actions. Anne Sacoolas was not held accountable, that family has no closure unlike yours. > If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story She is to be charged with "causing death by _dangerous_ driving", not an accident. All that being said I'm sorry about your sister and I hope you're doing OK.