The trial of Anne Sacoolas was a complete farce.

[timoc]

This woman didn't have the good grace to come back to Britain, and appear in the court, in person, to face the charge and have sentance passed on her.
The sentance passed by the British Court, 'probably', will not amount to a hill of beans in the US. She will most likely just go and live somewhere where she is not known and live a full life. she has brought shame on herself, but more importantly, the US people.

Anne Sacoolas..... You are a total disgrace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63909559

 

[Pepper]

You're not surprised though. I'm not.

 

[hollydolly]

This woman didn't have the good grace to come back to Britain, and appear in the court, in person, to face the charge and have sentance passed on her.
The sentance passed by the British Court, 'probably', will not amount to a hill of beans in the US. She will most likely just go and live somewhere where she is not known and live a full life. she has brought shame on herself, but more importantly, the US people.

Anne Sacoolas..... You are a total disgrace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63909559

yes she's an absolute disgrace.. she's caused great anger and upset to the family .. she killed their son, and then hid behind diplomatic immunity in the USA, and wasn't forced to return to face the courts... and now she's been given what amounts to a slap on the wrist for killing a boy and running from the law.. I don't know who to be mad at most!!

 

[oldaunt]

I don't know who to be mad at most!!

Probably the US government for not co-operating and sending her back.

 

[Lewkat]

I am shocked that this woman got away with what she has. As a CIA operative, she knew which side of the street she was to drive on in the UK. Why my country protected her, is beyond me.

 

[Been There]

After reading what the family said, it sounds like they believe that justice has been served because she admitted guilt. Or, did I read that wrong?

 

[Nemo2]

Probably the US government for not co-operating and sending her back.

Unlikely that any government would openly reshape Diplomatic Immunity for fear of creating unwanted precedents that might impact them in the future.

 

[oldaunt]

I don't know who to be mad at most!!

Probably the US government for not co-operating and sending her back.

Unlikely that any government would openly reshape Diplomatic Immunity for fear of creating unwanted precedents that might impact them in the future.

Yet they still could have censored her at the very least, instead of doing nothing.

 

[CarolfromTX]

Maybe she knows where some bodies are buried, so to speak.

 

[Wren]

Eight months suspended ??? Why didn’t they just slap her wrists and be done with it ?

I knew she would get away with it the minute she was allowed to leave the U.K.

It’s like Harry Dunn, who’s life was so cruelly and needlessly taken from him, counted for nothing

 

[timoc]

And then, for the UK's part, there was, 'Randy Andy', who should have faced the music in The US.
Perhaps the two countries should have done a swop..... do you catch my drift?

 

[Pepper]

Eight months suspended ??? Why didn’t they just slap her wrists and be done with it ?

I knew she would get away with it the minute she was allowed to leave the U.K.

It’s like Harry Dunn, who’s life was so cruelly and needlessly taken from him, counted for nothing

As part of a diplomatic mission she couldn't be stopped from leaving.

 

[MarkD]

Diplomatic immunity is what needs to go. Without removing that cancer this crap will keep happening.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

I think it probably this was the best way to handle the incident. I doubt Sacoolas caused the death with 'great malice'. Also, there was the concept of diplomatic immunity. By allowing Sacoolas to be subject to UK law, would set the precedent for family members of diplomats to be subject to local laws, which previously has led to blackmail by some nations. There was much more at stake than an auto accident.

 

[Magna-Carta]

I think it probably this was the best way to handle the incident. I doubt Sacoolas caused the death with 'great malice'. Also, there was the concept of diplomatic immunity. By allowing Sacoolas to be subject to UK law, would set the precedent for family members of diplomats to be subject to local laws, which previously has led to blackmail by some nations. There was much more at stake than an auto accident.

Anne's American husband, who worked at the RAF Croughton base, had similar immunity, but only regarding his work at the base. His immunity was pre waivered by the US government in respect of any activity outside the base not related to his work. As laid out in a 1995 UK / US agreement specifically relating to this base.

If her husband was driving he would have had no immunity from prosecution. Anne had immunity out side of the base due to a loophole. This loophole has now being closed. Now anyone in a similar situation in the UK (relating to RAF Croughton) can potentially be prosecuted.

 

[Indiana Joe]

This woman didn't have the good grace to come back to Britain, and appear in the court, in person, to face the charge and have sentance passed on her.
The sentance passed by the British Court, 'probably', will not amount to a hill of beans in the US. She will most likely just go and live somewhere where she is not known and live a full life. she has brought shame on herself, but more importantly, the US people.

Anne Sacoolas..... You are a total disgrace.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-63909559

I rode bikes for most of my life, from age 15 to 80, and head-on crashes, with some fool coming right over the line at me, was always a big worry. Matter of fact, I have the same worry while driving a car. My wife has a habit of driving much to close to the center dividing line. I keep telling her to move away from it. If some oncoming jerk is driving the same, just his front fender or bumper grazing your vehicle could cause you to lose control.

I'm not going to go into it, but I and my wife when on the bike had some people deliberately try to put us down. More often than not, it was some driver with a handicap license plate.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman got away with manslaughter.

 

[timoc]

I rode bikes for most of my life, from age 15 to 80, and head-on crashes, with some fool coming right over the line at me, was always a big worry. Matter of fact, I have the same worry while driving a car. My wife has a habit of driving much to close to the center dividing line. I keep telling her to move away from it. If some oncoming jerk is driving the same, just his front fender or bumper grazing your vehicle could cause you to lose control.

I'm not going to go into it, but I and my wife when on the bike had some people deliberately try to put us down. More often than not, it was some driver with a handicap license plate.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman got away with manslaughter.

Spot on correct, Sir, I couldn't have put it better.

 

[MarkD]

As far as I'm concerned, this woman got away with manslaughter.

Agreed except it doesn’t depend on anyone’s concern, definitionally it was at least (but probably only) manslaughter and would have been even if she’d stayed to face trial.

 

[Magna-Carta]

Agreed except it doesn’t depend on anyone’s concern, definitionally it was at least (but probably only) manslaughter and would have been even if she’d stayed to face trial.

Anne Sacoolas was charged with Death by Carless Driving. I’m not sure what the definition of manslaughter is in the US. In the UK manslaughter is the Killing with the intent for murder, but where a partial defense applies. It would seem then that the UK police had no evidence of intent to murder. Can someone tell me what the definition of manslaughter is in the US. I get the impression there might be a significant difference between the two countries.

 

[MarkD]

Google says.

Section 1112 of Title 18 defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Manslaughter is of two kinds: voluntary and involuntary.Jan 17, 2020

I assumed but don’t really know if that applies in all cases of killing without intent even through negligence. Criminal negligence is a term wheat overhear.

 

[Magna-Carta]

Google says.

Section 1112 of Title 18 defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Manslaughter is of two kinds: voluntary and involuntary.Jan 17, 2020

I assumed but don’t really know if that applies in all cases of killing without intent even through negligence. Criminal negligence is a term wheat overhear.

So if in the US its the unlawful killing of a human being without malice, but in the UK it's the Killing with the "intent" for murder, but where a partial defense applies. This would seem to sugest that in the UK charge of "manslaughter" in itself, is the same as the US voluntary manslaughter? Or at least at the moment thats how it seems to me, based on the wording -- I'm no exspert on this.

We also have the lesser involuntary manslaughter, "where an unlawful killing is done without intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm".

For a vehicle incident / collision we have separate / specific charges (part of the Road Traffic Act 1988, s.1):
* Causing death by dangerous driving. Maximum 14 years’ custody.
* Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, etc. Maximum 14 years’ custody.
* Causing death by carless or inconsiderate driving. Maximum 5 years’ custody.

I suppose in the UK, if a driver used a vehicle with the intent of killing, that would be a murder charge (independant of any Road Trafic Act). With the appropriate higher sentence.