I may be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here,so apologies to those who know this already.

 

A UK coroner does not allocate blame to an individual insofar as criminal responsibility is concerned, that is a matter for the criminal courts. The job of a coroner is to reach a conclusion on the cause of death, on the basis of the facts at his disposal, which can then be reported to the registrar or births, deaths and marriages. In this case the Coroner has returned a verdict of unlawful killing. This does NOT mean that he found the two US pilots guilty of murder or manslaughter, he has no jurisdiction to reach such a verdict. Further, it is perfectly possible for a UK court to find a suspect not guilty of murder and yet have a subsequent inquest into the death find that the victim was unlawfully killed.

 

It is my contention that it is this discrepancy which has caused a degree of bad feeling about this case in the UK. By not allowing the pilots to attend the inquest and answer questions, the US DOD gives the  impression, rightly or wrongly, that it has something to hide. I wonder whether all US based posters realise that the Coroner would have no power to detain or charge either of the pilots were they to have attended the inquest. In fact attending the inquest would have made the already small chance of charges being filed by the uk, even smaller. It would however have helped the family of L.Cpl Hull gain a fuller undertsanding of the circumstances surrounding his death (the sole purpose behind an inquest in the first place!)

 

I am not a military person, however having viewed the videos, I would be horrified if what we have seen constitutes proper procedure. And I don't want to crucify the US pilots who clearly didn't set out to brass up a load of Brits that  morning (they clearly have to carry a heavy burden and I feel for them). Nonetheless, the unlawfull killing verdict seems understandable to me, someone messed up, either the  pilots or the procedures, this verdict just recognises that fact.

 

And finally, one thing has struck me throughout this sad episode, the immense dignity of L/Cpl Hull's widow, despite all of the rubbish she has had to contend with. A very impressive young woman.

 

I may be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here,so apologies to those who know this already.

 

A UK coroner does not allocate blame to an individual insofar as criminal responsibility is concerned, that is a matter for the criminal courts. The job of a coroner is to reach a conclusion on the cause of death, on the basis of the facts at his disposal, which can then be reported to the registrar or births, deaths and marriages. In this case the Coroner has returned a verdict of unlawful killing. This does NOT mean that he found the two US pilots guilty of murder or manslaughter, he has no jurisdiction to reach such a verdict. Further, it is perfectly possible for a UK court to find a suspect not guilty of murder and yet have a subsequent inquest into the death find that the victim was unlawfully killed.

 

It is my contention that it is this discrepancy which has caused a degree of bad feeling about this case in the UK. By not allowing the pilots to attend the inquest and answer questions, the US DOD gives the  impression, rightly or wrongly, that it has something to hide. I wonder whether all US based posters realise that the Coroner would have no power to detain or charge either of the pilots were they to have attended the inquest. In fact attending the inquest would have made the already small chance of charges being filed by the uk, even smaller. It would however have helped the family of L.Cpl Hull gain a fuller undertsanding of the circumstances surrounding his death (the sole purpose behind an inquest in the first place!)

 

I am not a military person, however having viewed the videos, I would be horrified if what we have seen constitutes proper procedure. And I don't want to crucify the US pilots who clearly didn't set out to brass up a load of Brits that  morning (they clearly have to carry a heavy burden and I feel for them). Nonetheless, the unlawfull killing verdict seems understandable to me, someone messed up, either the  pilots or the procedures, this verdict just recognises that fact.

 

And finally, one thing has struck me throughout this sad episode, the immense dignity of L/Cpl Hull's widow, despite all of the rubbish she has had to contend with. A very impressive young woman.

 

Failing to obey an order, ie a 'lawful command', is a military offence (disobeying an unlawful command is a legal obligation on every member of the armed forces).  When that disobedience of a command results in a death then that death is self-evidently, an unlawful killing because it was the result of an unlawful act by the perpetrator(s).  This is a very simple concept.

 

It is now a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence for a criminal trial.  Now, it may be that its impossible to determine 'beyond reasonable doubt' which pilot fired the fatal shot(s).  In that case I think alternative charges should be sought.

 

We know we can't leave this matter to the US authorities because the USAF has had a whitewashing inquiry, therefore a US court martial seems out of the question.

 

I don't accept that it was an accident, Hull's death was the result of negligence at best (if you argue that comms were difficult, the pilot(s) were confused, thought they had approval to attack, weren't sufficiently trained for the situation, etc, etc, all the normal bullshit that a defence counsel will spruik - particularly a well-funded one).  Negiligent driving causing death gets a stint in prison where I live, I cannot see why a pilot causing death having disobeyed his orders should be treated any more leniently.  Of course in this case it would have to the the pilot commanding the mission, who happens to be the junior in rank.

 

I also take a Voltairian view (remember when the Britsh court martialled and shot Admiral Byng for stuffing up at Minorca Voltaire said words to the effect that the British have shot one to encourage the others). The USAF has form, a stop has to be made to their track record of attacking allied troops and whitewashing the guilty pilots, this is for the good of future coalition operations.  Tossing a couple of pilots into the slammer amidst lots of publicity seems to be a good move in this respect.  You can rest assured that if a RAF pilot had acted similarly he would be doing time by now.

Just as a side note, contrary to Sofa's apparent beliefs, the military does have its own laws, namely the UCMJ. Also, crimes against British subjects is prosecutable in UK courts, no matter where the crime happens. From the video footage, it is clear that the pilots were acting in an inappropriate manner, and were not following orders, which is a (military) crime. I am intrigued by the fact that you (Sofa) do not seem to see that there are laws governing the actions of the military, which would be a very disturbing idea.

We all agree it was 'horrible'.

 

Being outraged by something doesn't make it against the law.

 

Can you cite an applicable law to justify your accusation that it was 'unlawful'?

 

Specifically, which law?

 

In another post you refer to a ... "corrupt whitewash that was the USAF's own 'inquiry'".

 

Neither you nor the coroner cite a law, but keep insisting it's "unlawful".

You do not have details of the US inquiry or actions taken, but refer to it as a "corrupt whitewash".

You refer to members of the US military as "hoons".

 

Your posts have not been burdened with facts or logic.

But reflect that foolhardy and flippant manner characteristic of a "hoon".

 

Quit being boorish. I was hoping you could provide information I didn't have, or an interesting argument, or illuminate some aspect of this horrible situation for us all.

 

Do you have a basis for your "unlawful" assertion? The coroner offerred none.

 

In essence all killing is unlawful.  The obvious exception is in self-defence when the killing is proportionate to the threat faced by the killer.  This covers police killing people in the course of their police duties, and would cover a private citizen in a similar position, although UK and some other courts take a hardline on this.  The other obvious exception is a member of HM Armed Forces on duty and in action.  This too is not simple.  It's governed by the laws of war which means actions have to be proportionate to the situation, 'overwhelming' force may be illegal.  Obviously killing civilians is a crime and ordering a soldier to kill civilians is an unlawful command.  Similarly ordering soldiers (or airmen) to kill allies is an unlawful command.   The obvious criteria is whether or not it was an accident, disobeying lawful orders and causing death is not an accident.  Killing by negligence is unlawful killing.

 

Having read the UK BoI findings, I'm clearly and strongly of the view that 'whitewash' is the only alternative to gross incompetance on the part of the USAF inquiry.  Note that the UK BoI pointed out a logical flaw in the USAF findings that has been accepted by the USAF convening authority.  Furthermore 'hoon' admirably describes the antics of the USAF pilots involved, particularly the more senior one.

You're saying there ought to be, based on general principles.

 

Can you support the accusation of "unlawful" by citing an actual law with jurisdiction?

Peculiar that the coroner made the accusation but didn't cite a law.

The coroner didn't. You haven't.

 

With no legal basis, the accusations look like grandstanding with an anti-us agenda.

 

 

 

Google and BBC online provide interesting info about Mr Walker -

 

Statements made by the coroner Andrew Walker in a number of high profile cases have been quoted in the British media. He has been particularly critical of the actions of the British Ministry of Defence and United States Department of Defense. He has sought to summon several high profile witnesses, including Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, and has been critical of the policy of the position of the government of the United States.

 

Legal hooliganism.

 

Furthermore Andrew Walker espouses the concept of universal jurisdiction - that an offence committed abroad can be tried in a British court.

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

Reciprocity would therefore make sharia law legally binding in England.

Lefty Hooliganism.