trumpy, responding to killing of UK teen, says "it happens."

Post Reply New Topic

Ezra - I don't think they'd have been confused. Previously they'd driven in the Belgian Congo , which I believe was a 'drive on the right hand side of the road' country.

Last edited by firemonkey on 10 Oct 2019, 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

If she doesn't go back she will likely be a pariah for the rest of her life here in the US.

Also why are there 2 of the same threads here,can we move down to one.

I am not seeing anywhere that she fled the scene of the accident.

As a matter of fact I read that; "She has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing at this point."

Like I said, that's good for them. But does that mean the same applies to everyone else?

I thought she fled the scene. If I'm wrong, I'm glad.

All the more reason to forget this "diplomatic immunity" crap.

If she wasn't drunk, the worst thing that will happen to her is the adverse publicity.

I am a slow reader so I have not absorbed it all. But apparently what happened is after she was released from the scene of the accident, some time later on the police went to her home to inform her that the victim had died, and at that time found out she had left the country.

Also appearntly she was urged to do so by someone.

She should still go back and face it. And ask for forgiveness from the teenager's family. And tell the truth about what happened.

I'm not going to be one to pillory her and put on in the stocks. I advocate that true justice be done---without all that publicity crap.

I agree. My saying I read she had been urged to flee was just reporting what I read so far. I was not implying that exonerated her in any way.

Is there "diplomatic immunity" for civil cases, too?

I feel like the outcome of the civil case might be much worse punishment than the outcome of the criminal case.

Even so, for her self-respect, she should go back to England.

it's possible that the outcome of the civil case might be better if she resolves the criminal case.

Again not meaning to give her any kind of pass maybe as the spouse of a diplomat, rather than being one, she is doing what she is being told to do. Like the whole leave the country and diplomatic immunity thing was not her idea.

I understand what you mean.

It might not exactly be under her control.

Being from New York home of the UN we know that diplomats and their entourages get away with all types of crime small and large at New York taxpayers expense due to diplomatic immunity.

On the other hand with no diplomatic immunity diplomats will be jailed on trumped-up charges in other words they will often become hostages in a game of you jailed our diplomats, we will jail twice as many of yours.

There has got to be a happy medium somewhere but I have no clue what it is.

I would never get confused & make the same mistake, namely because I would have to shift with my left hand.

Kraftie, diplomatic immunity is not an absurd concept, it's an essential concept without which the world (in it's present arrangement) would not function very well.
However, that it CAN be used, does not necessitate it MUST be used on every occasion.
What diplomatic immunity is intended for is to stop bad faith nations with corrupt legal systems from pressuring a diplomat to betray his country by threatening either him or his loved ones, with trumped up charges.

What diplomatic immunity is not intended for is letting people flee without consequence when they run someone over.

And in my opinion, mature nations ought not to abuse it in this manner.


However the whole question of diplomatic immunity is moot as this woman DOES NOT, and HAS NEVER HELD, diplomatic immunity.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... -diplomat/

I understand what you mean, SpiceWolf.