Should Trump send Anne Sacoolas back to the UK?

1 AKY · 10-11-2019, 04:32 PM

Discuss.

JustChris · 10-11-2019, 04:58 PM

Yes

wdb · 10-11-2019, 05:08 PM

Whether he does or not most folks won't notice. Kurds, impeachment.

Poiseuille · 10-11-2019, 05:17 PM

Marriage to a diplomat does not immunize her against killing people.
The President needs to convince her to do the right thing, which obviously is return to Britain. Right now.
Waiving Immunity sets a bad precedent and should not be done.

Manivxr · 10-11-2019, 05:24 PM

Waiving immunity doesn't set any precedence. Previous decisions don't bind the POTUS. It needs to determined on a case by case basis.

The UK is not exactly a rouge state but a very close and special ally.

TouringPleb · 10-12-2019, 05:20 AM

Yes

Wills2 · 10-12-2019, 05:25 AM

Send her back, send her back......

Trump supporters were chanting this only the other week....

mikeoz · 10-12-2019, 06:41 AM

Lock her up lock her up...no wait that was Hillary...sorry

NormanConquest · 10-12-2019, 09:06 AM

Didn't hear about this but upon a quick glance on the news story if the police are pursuing her over manslaughter then yes she should face a jury. If it for a civil suit then no.

Poiseuille · 10-12-2019, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manivxr

Waiving immunity doesn't set any precedence. Previous decisions don't bind the POTUS. It needs to determined on a case by case basis.

The UK is not exactly a rouge state but a very close and special ally.

regarding the final portion of your post: what, exactly, in my post made you feel the need to point that out?

regarding the first part of your post: foolishly, i had assumed that 'precedent' carried the same definition in English as it does in American. please allow me to clarify the translation==>
.

Manivxr · 10-12-2019, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poiseuille

regarding the final portion of your post: what, exactly, in my post made you feel the need to point that out?

regarding the first part of your post: foolishly, i had assumed that 'precedent' carried the same definition in English as it does in American. please allow me to clarify the translation==>
.

I am interested in understanding why you think waiving immunity in this case should not be done. You say it sets a bad precedent. Really. Care to expand why this would be a bad precedent?

glennQNYC · 10-12-2019, 07:12 PM

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

TimMcC · 10-13-2019, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

Hitting a man (19) riding a motorcycle and killing them by driving on the wrong side of the road, then leaving the country suddenly after telling the police she would stay is not considered egregious?

Danlnyc88 · 10-13-2019, 03:49 AM

Absolutely.

Manivxr · 10-13-2019, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

You can't be serious.

1 AKY · 10-13-2019, 08:04 AM

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

egregious
/ɪˈɡriːdʒəs/
adjective

1.
outstandingly bad; shocking.....
2.
ARCHAIC
remarkably good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were using the second definition....weren't you?

Why do you apologise?

glennQNYC · 10-13-2019, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimMcC

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

Hitting a man riding a motorcycle and killing [him] by driving on the wrong side of the road... is not considered egregious?

Accidents happen. Egregious would be if she hit the man on purpose.💡

glennQNYC · 10-13-2019, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manivxr

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

You can't be serious.

Completely serious.

glennQNYC · 10-13-2019, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

egregious
/ɪˈɡriːdʒəs/
adjective

1.
outstandingly bad; shocking.....
2.
ARCHAIC
remarkably good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were using the second definition....weren't you?

Why do you apologise?

Thank you for sharing the definition of egregious. I'm clearly using the first example here.

I simply don't find a car accident "outstandingly bad." Accidents happen. I'm not sure I think even a Brit should be prosecuted in this instance. It sounds like a simple accident. Unless we learn the driver purposefully targeted the motorcyclist this is definitely not a case where diplomatic immunity should be waved.

I apologize because it's an unfortunate incident. Nobody is happy this happened.

glennQNYC · 10-13-2019, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poiseuille

Marriage to a diplomat does not immunize her against killing people.
The President needs to convince her to do the right thing, which obviously is return to Britain. Right now.
Waiving Immunity sets a bad precedent and should not be done.

Diplomatic immunity does indeed ensure diplomats aren't prosecuted under the host country's laws. That's simply what diplomatic immunity is. This agreement between nations goes back thousands of years, and is rarely waived. The crime needs to be some intentional act for a waiver to even be considered. This situation doesn't sound intentional. Case closed.

AlanQS · 10-13-2019, 11:01 AM

I think what gives this a particularly foul taste in the U.K. is that she bolted for home at the earliest opportunity after saying she would not do so. There is also a suggestion that she did not really have diplomatic immunity in her own right (maybe yes, maybe no).

But what sticks in British craws is that when it comes to sending citizens from one of the 2 countries back to the other country for some sort of investigation, the USA expects the U.K. to do so, but does not reciprocate and though expecting other countries to do so, will not send their own citizens back to a third country.

It's a bit like a British company taking a US company to court in the U.S. The Jury always sides with the US company, no matter how egregious their actions.

tcphoto · 10-13-2019, 03:57 PM

She lied to the UK Police when she told them, she wouldn’t leave the UK. She didn’t have or need Diplomatic Immunity because of her work but is married to a US Diplomat. Why didn’t the UK Police take her passport? Now, Trump said that we shouldn’t allow US citizens to be tried in foreign courts? Yet another disgraceful example of Trumps way of doing things.

10-11-2019, 04:32 PM	#1
1 AKY Major 310 Rep 1,207 Posts Drives: E90 330D MSport Auto Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UK iTrader: (1)	Should Trump send Anne Sacoolas back to the UK? Discuss.
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

10-11-2019, 04:58 PM	#2
JustChris Lieutenant General 8274 Rep 17,468 Posts Drives: BMW Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Uk iTrader: (0)	Yes __________________ BMW X3 M40d Performance Auto Sophisto Grey Metallic with Oyster Leather Comfort Package + M Sport Plus Package + Technology Package
	Appreciate 1 Poiseuille3208.00 Quote

10-11-2019, 05:08 PM	#3
wdb dances with roads 1578 Rep 2,478 Posts Drives: '07 Z4MC, '07 E93 328i Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: the perimeter iTrader: (4)	Whether he does or not most folks won't notice. Kurds, impeachment.
	Appreciate 1 Lups10933.00 Quote

10-11-2019, 05:17 PM	#4
Poiseuille Colonel 3208 Rep 2,706 Posts Drives: 2016 M4 DCT Tanzanite/Amaro Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Princeton iTrader: (0)	Marriage to a diplomat does not immunize her against killing people. The President needs to convince her to do the right thing, which obviously is return to Britain. Right now. Waiving Immunity sets a bad precedent and should not be done.
	Appreciate 2 MKSixer15734.50 CTinline-six2945.50 Quote

10-11-2019, 05:24 PM	#5
Manivxr Lieutenant 171 Rep 569 Posts Drives: 435d EB Join Date: May 2017 Location: Staffordshire iTrader: (0)	Waiving immunity doesn't set any precedence. Previous decisions don't bind the POTUS. It needs to determined on a case by case basis. The UK is not exactly a rouge state but a very close and special ally.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-12-2019, 05:20 AM	#6
TouringPleb Colonel 2295 Rep 2,856 Posts Drives: SRB 440i GC Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Cambs iTrader: (0)	Yes
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-12-2019, 05:25 AM	#7
Wills2 Barge driver 5482 Rep 9,769 Posts Drives: G11 740d/X3M Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: West Yorkshire iTrader: (0)	Send her back, send her back...... Trump supporters were chanting this only the other week.... __________________ G11 740d xdrive/X3M/Z4C, Gone F80 M3/F10 M5/F31 335d/e92 M3 x 2/F10 520d x 2/997 C2S/e46 M3/e46 320d/SL320/Touareg 3.2V6/Audi allroad 2.7TDi
	Appreciate 3 TouringPleb2294.50 MKSixer15734.50 Captain Blood8235.00 Quote

10-12-2019, 06:41 AM	#8
mikeoz Brigadier General 1219 Rep 3,529 Posts Drives: BMW X3 M40i Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: cambs iTrader: (1)	Lock her up lock her up...no wait that was Hillary...sorry
	Appreciate 1 Wills25482.00 Quote

10-12-2019, 09:06 AM	#9
NormanConquest Colonel 1539 Rep 2,389 Posts Drives: 340i Join Date: May 2017 Location: Earth iTrader: (0)	Didn't hear about this but upon a quick glance on the news story if the police are pursuing her over manslaughter then yes she should face a jury. If it for a civil suit then no.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-12-2019, 07:12 PM	#12
glennQNYC 2006 TIME Person Of The Year 5632 Rep 5,052 Posts Drives: M Sport 335i Join Date: May 2013 Location: North Jersey iTrader: (0) Garage List 2014 335i [4.87]	Without evidence of some egregious act, this is a textbook case for NOT waiving diplomatic immunity. Sorry. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-13-2019, 03:49 AM	#14
Danlnyc88 Private 46 Rep 76 Posts Drives: 2020 M4 Join Date: Jun 2019 Location: Orange County iTrader: (1)	Absolutely.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-13-2019, 11:01 AM	#21
AlanQS Colonel 131 Rep 2,702 Posts Drives: Jaguar XE P250 HSE Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Glasgow iTrader: (0) Garage List 2016 430i m-sport G ... [0.00]	I think what gives this a particularly foul taste in the U.K. is that she bolted for home at the earliest opportunity after saying she would not do so. There is also a suggestion that she did not really have diplomatic immunity in her own right (maybe yes, maybe no). But what sticks in British craws is that when it comes to sending citizens from one of the 2 countries back to the other country for some sort of investigation, the USA expects the U.K. to do so, but does not reciprocate and though expecting other countries to do so, will not send their own citizens back to a third country. It's a bit like a British company taking a US company to court in the U.S. The Jury always sides with the US company, no matter how egregious their actions.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-13-2019, 03:57 PM	#22
tcphoto Major 582 Rep 1,109 Posts Drives: E92 335i MT Coupe Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Nashville, TN iTrader: (0)	She lied to the UK Police when she told them, she wouldn’t leave the UK. She didn’t have or need Diplomatic Immunity because of her work but is married to a US Diplomat. Why didn’t the UK Police take her passport? Now, Trump said that we shouldn’t allow US citizens to be tried in foreign courts? Yet another disgraceful example of Trumps way of doing things. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search