Harry Dunn death

biko wrote: »

There is precedent. From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

unhappys10

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

bobbyy gee

She was a illegal spy
No spy has immunity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_spy#:~:text=In%20U.S.%20parlance%2C%20the%20same,as%20from%20his%20country's%20embassy).&text=He%20has%20diplomatic%20immunity%20from,country%20if%20suspected%20of%20espionage.

unhappys10 wrote: »

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

You're right. The lawyers will never give them satisfaction. And they're avoiding grieving which is the only real way to get on with their lives.

I presume they can't really work normal jobs or live a normal life while they're fundraising and doing all the legal stuff. The grieving process is what they need not the legal process.

Maybe they can't stop. If that's the case then that's the saddest part. I just hope it ends quickly. Results like yesterday are trivial in reality but must just serve to make them more angry and prolong the whole thing.

Feisar

unhappys10 wrote: »

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

Better of spending the money on a hitman to be honest. Pissing into the wind with the legal route.

Feisar wrote: »

Better of spending the money on a hitman to be honest. Pissing into the wind with the legal route.

And that might give them satisfaction. The legal system isn't designed to give satisfaction to the victims.

Best case scenario is a deal yer wan admits she did it but isn't sentenced. Like a tribunal. But they already know what happened. She hit Harry and the intelligence service, or whoever, made sure she got out of the UK immediately.

The UK doesn't want a trial as it would upset the American government and both their own a d the American intelligence agencies. And the US doesn't want a trial because it would upset their intelligence agencies. Any president who sends her to the UK will look incredibly weak and appeasing (it might be the right thing to do but you know how these things are spun in america).

It woukd be best for them if the legal routes were exhausted quickly so they can leave it knowing they did all they could.

The UK government has to tell them they're pressing the Americans because what else can they say? But nobody expects them to actually do anything about it.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And they're avoiding grieving which is the only real way to get on with their lives.

How do you know they're avoiding grieving? One can grieve and still do other things. Grieving isn't a process that you go off into a cave and do, and then come out and say "Ok, I'm done, never have to think about them again."

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

How do you know they're avoiding grieving? One can grieve and still do other things. Grieving isn't a process that you go off into a cave and do, and then come out and say "Ok, I'm done, never have to think about them again."

OK. But grieving is partly about accepting that the person is gone and isn't coming back and beginning to move on with your life. That's part of the grieving process. Spending the next few decades engaged in a legal battle is about the worst way in can possibly imagine to grieve and begin to move on with your life.

Most peope who have a family member die are faced with the reality that their loved one is gone. They go through various stages of grief which is painful but they do it because they have no choice.

But the lawyers are offering the Dunnes a choice to postpone the normal process of grief. I'd say most people would take the option to postpone grief if they had such an option. But most peope don't have any option so they grieve and begin to get on with their life.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. But grieving is partly about accepting that the person is gone and isn't coming back and beginning to move on with your life.

I see no indication in anything they've said that they aren't 100% aware that nothing will bring him back. As for "getting on with your life", sometimes life changes significantly after you lose someone, and what you get on with isn't what you left off. Maybe getting justice for Harry is just part of life for them now. Grief is the reaction to bereavement, and despite the "5 stages" theory people often quote (which was based on research on the experiences of people dying, not people who were bereaved, and is now debunked), I would say that seeking justice for someone unlawfully killed is a natural reaction to such an event, and therefore a normal and vital part of the grieving process for them.

I have admiration for them, as I do for the family of Stardust victims, Hillsborough victims, and anyone else who has had to fight to get answers as to why their loved ones died without people being held accountable. I'd hope I had their drive and fortitude in a similar situation, but I fear that I wouldn't. That's not to say that they'll get what they want - the US Government is a formidable opponent - but fair play to them.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I see no indication in anything they've said that they aren't 100% aware that nothing will bring him back. As for "getting on with your life", sometimes life changes significantly after you lose someone, and what you get on with isn't what you left off. Maybe getting justice for Harry is just part of life for them now. Grief is the reaction to bereavement, and despite the "5 stages" theory people often quote (which was based on research on the experiences of people dying, not people who were bereaved, and is now debunked), I would say that seeking justice for someone unlawfully killed is a natural reaction to such an event, and therefore a normal and vital part of the grieving process for them.
...

Yeah, I specifically didn't menton the 5 stages theory. But the nirmal grieving prices has various phases which can be understood.

But the bolded bit is what really stands out. What leads you to believe that they will get what they want through the court system? Why do you think that "justice" as the court system offers it, is going to make things better for them? Is the benefit you think they'll get, from getting justice or from perpetually seeking justice?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But the bolded bit is what really stands out. What leads you to believe that they will get what they want through the court system? Why do you think that "justice" as the court system offers it, is going to make things better for them? Is the benefit you think they'll get, from getting justice or from perpetually seeking justice?

I merely think their search for justice is a natural, normal and possibly inevitable reaction to his death. You are suggesting that they should stop so that they can grieve, I'm saying that it is their grief (more specifically, a part of their grief). It's easy do a cost/benefit analysis from an objective position detached from their lives. But your opinion or my opinion on that has no bearing on what they should do, or how they should do it. I just think it's better to let people grieve than to judge them for how they do it.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I merely think their search for justice is a natural, normal and possibly inevitable reaction to his death. You are suggesting that they should stop so that they can grieve, I'm saying that it is their grief (more specifically, a part of their grief). It's easy do a cost/benefit analysis from an objective position detached from their lives. But your opinion or my opinion on that has no bearing on what they should do, or how they should do it. I just think it's better to let people grieve than to judge them for how they do it.

Ok. You've repeated why you think they're doing it. But what about the questions I asked?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok but what about the questions I asked?

I don't have an answer to them, because I'm not engaging in a cost/benefit analysis of their grief.

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I don't have an answer to them, because I'm not engaging in a cost/benefit analysis of their grief.

Yes you are. How else could you characterise your endorsement of their approach?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes you are. How else could you characterise your endorsement of their approach?

"live and let live".

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

"live and let live".

Sure. I think they'd be well advised to drop it and get on with their lives. No lawyer is going to tell them the reality that they'll almost certainly never get what they want and even if they do, it's not what they need.

They need the normal time and support (from family and friends, not lawyers and sky news and paparazzi) to grieve and begin to get on with their lives without Harry.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. I think they'd be well advised to drop it and get on with their lives. No lawyer is going to tell them the reality that they'll almost certainly never get what they want and even if they do, it's not what they need.

They need the normal time and support (from family and friends, not lawyers and sky news and paparazzi) to grieve and begin to get on with their lives without Harry.

what makes you think they are not getting those things? they are not mutually exclusive. they can fight for justice and grieve at the same time.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes you think they are not getting those things? they are not mutually exclusive. they can fight for justice and grieve at the same time.

International fight for justice, constantly fundraising and legal wrangling, meeting politicians who have to look into their eyes and lie to them, and news in their face at every step, is not in any manual of beat practice for grieving.

They might be grieving as normal, but given how abnormal their lives have been since his death, it's really unlikely they can grieve.

Anyone who's been through grief knows that the grief really starts after the fanfare of the funeral. It's when you try go back to normal life without the person who died that grief really kicks in. The adjustment to the reality that life is going on without the person who died. They aren't getting that.

For the Dunn family the fanfare of the funeral has never really ended. It has only intensified beyond anything any normal family will ever face and it is being extended due to the trial.

Do you think it's possible to grieve normally in such an abnormal situation?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

International fight for justice, constantly fundraising and legal wrangling, meeting politicians who have to look into their eyes and lie to them, and news in their face at every step, is not in any manual of beat practice for grieving.

They might be grieving as normal, but given how abnormal their lives have been since his death, it's really unlikely they can grieve.

Anyone who's been through grief knows that the grief really starts after the fanfare of the funeral. It's when you try go back to normal life without the person who died that grief really kicks in. The adjustment to the reality that life is going on without the person who died. They aren't getting that.

For the Dunn family the fanfare of the funeral has never really ended. It has only intensified beyond anything any normal family will ever face and it is being extended due to the trial.

Do you think it's possible to grieve normally in such an abnormal situation?

I'm familiar with grief, thanks. Having a sense of purpose can be very useful in difficult situations. that doesn't mean they dont have time for nrmal grieving, whatever "normal" grieving is.

ChikiChiki

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

**** that. Keep fighting to the end to get justice for their son even in the face of ruin. Not a chance I would drop it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm familiar with grief, thanks. Having a sense of purpose can be very useful in difficult situations. that doesn't mean they dont have time for nrmal grieving, whatever "normal" grieving is.

A focus on something else might well be a good thing while grieving. But not if it's a focus back on the very subject of the grief. Thats not a way to move on - it's a way to prevent them moving on by redoubling focus back on the event.

In all serious, do you not see the difference between a normal process of grief and what the Dunn family is going through? I mean, for the sake of the argument you might pretend the Dunne family experience is normal or you might pretend you don't know what the normal grieving process involves, but how can you think this is a sensible way to grieve?

ChikiChiki wrote: »

**** that. Keep fighting to the end to get justice for their son even in the face of ruin. Not a chance I would drop it.

Nobody is asking you or the Dunn family to drop it. On the contrary, they're being actively encouraged and milked by lots of vested interests including the lawyers, the media who both make good money from their quest, and the well meaning public who enjoy following the drama and the quest for justice.

It would take a good friend to encourage them to take another route.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A focus on something else might well be a good thing while grieving. But not if it's a focus back on the very subject of the grief. Thats not a way to move on - it's a way to prevent them moving on by redoubling focus back on the event.

In all serious, do you not see the difference between a normal process of grief and what the Dunn family is going through? I mean, for the sake of the argument you might pretend the Dunne family experience is normal or you might pretend you don't know what the normal grieving process involves, but how can you think this is a sensible way to grieve?

of course they are not going through anything normal, of course they are not. forgetting what happened isnt going to help them though. It is perfectly normal to seek justice for a loved one.

[Deleted User]

What exactly is the charge for this woman?
It wasn't a hit and run, I believe she stayed with the lad until the ambulance arrived.
As far as I can see the only charge would be careless driving which is very hard to prove without witnesses.
Maybe avoiding arrest, but that's far too complex a legal and political issue to hold out any hope of a conviction.

From her perspective, what would going back to face the charges solve for anyone?