Because, as I read it, that's the only other option. Remember, your definition of unlawful may well be different to another country's.

So, sofa, are you stating that it was a lawful killing?

 

 

I'm no barrister, but it seems odd to record the verdict as unlawful without citing an applicable law.

 

What makes it unlawful, as compared to accidental, or open? Information 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that a law was broken.  That's the threshold for recording a verdict for the inquest.  (google, wikipedia, bbc  online legal help)

 

How can it be unlawful, when it doesn't violate a specific law?

 

So which law?

Another line of reasoning could be that everything which is not specifically legal, is then inherently "unlawful".

 

My bowl movements are not specifically regulated in a specific law, so they would be "unlawful", by this line of reasoning.

 

You may argue that everything is unlawful except those things which have been specifically made legal.

But that reasoning is shhite.

 

 

"Unlawful" requires that a specific law was violated, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

So which law?

 

 

All armed forces have rules about obeying commands with sanctions for not doing so, western ones (at least) also apply the caveat about lawful commands because the legal situation is that obeying an unlawful command is also illegal (Nuremburg 1945).  Give me the URL for the online version of the Uniform Code and it will take me about 30 secs to find the relevant section, this is all military law 101 stuff.

 

The Coroners determination was that the killing was not accidental, not natural causes, and an open verdict was clearly impossible because the cause of death was abundantly clear.  Remember this coroner has experience with situations needing real snap decisions (ie less than 1 sec), to him the pilots had a minute or more but still failed to follow procedures - this is negligence.  If I have a motor incident causing a death through my negligent driving then the victim has been unlawfully killed, there is no fundamental legal difference between this and the actions of the A10 pilots.  Depending on the circumstances, jurisdiction and prosecution authority this 'unlawful killing' in a motor vehicle would translate into a charge of  'causing death by negligent driving', 'causing death by dangerous driving', 'causing death by reckless driving', etc.  However, I suspect there isn't yet a specific offence of  'causing death by reckless piloting of an A10' so manslaughter or perhaps murder would have to do.

 

Of course the attack might have been excusable if the HCR were shooting at the A10s without provocation - I'd guess the AD control state was 'Weapons Tight' so shooting first at an aircraft not positively identified as hostile and turned out to be friendly would also be unlawful!  

The difference between accidental and unlawful, AFAICT and remembering that I am not a lawyer, is that accidental results despite the best efforts to the contrary. Unlawful involves some kind of negligence, but doesn't necessarily apportion blame.

So the law violated is murder or manslaughter (I forget the US analogue to that). It's the caveats that determine the legality.

Which law? Well, killing someone is illegal, barring some set reasons, like them being the enemy in war or in self-defence. If the criteria for those caveats are not met, then it is unlawful.

Murder or manslaughter laws: Which law in which jurisdiction? US, UK, Iraq, Sharia?

Which law did the coroner cite? None.

 

Acknowledging that US military rules form the reference for this issue, then you should accept that the investigation was conducted by the cognizant authority, and matters resolved within those rules/procedures.

I know bugger all about US law, except that if you are rich enough you can get a very expensive lawyer who will probably get you off having handpicked a biased jury.

 

However, a Brit Coroner is not a judge, not a prosecutor, not something like a grand jury.  The job is to investigate the matters surrounding any death that is not clearly natural causes and certain others.  The Coroner does not decide what law has been broken and does not lay charges.  If a Coroner determines that a death was unlawful then it becomes a matter for prosecuting authorities (and the police if more evidence is needed to lay charges).  As has been pointed (several times), an unnatural death may have been caused by lawful or unlawful actions, or be a genuine accident or misadventure.  In UK if someone kills another person, by whatever means then either there has to be a lawful reason or extenuating circumstances.  If not then it is unlawful killing.  I suspect it's the same in the US although the terms might be different.  Note that in UK when there is clear evidence of a crime then a Coroner's inquest is automatically suspended if the prosecuting authority lays charges.  Of course the whole point of terms like 'unlawful killing'  is that they do not pre-judge any subsequent legal action, the determination of the actual offence (assuming alternative charges were laid) and guilt or innocence is a matter for the courts not the coroner.

 

There's not doubt that a USAF Inquiry was convened by the appropriate authority in the pilots chain of command.  Whether that inquiry was rigorous is another matter.  Given that the UK BoI pointed out a logical error in the findings then simple people like me are forced to doubt the thoroughness of the USAF inquiry (assuming the Inquiry members weren't just thick).

 

I'm still waiting for someone to quote the statistics on the percentage of sorties with USAF fratricide attacks on US and on allied forces. 

Well that's about 60% of it right there.  The rest are only details, stuff that comes into play if you aren't rich and actually have to muddle through the legalities and logic of your case.

 

But much of our homicide laws have to do with the perpetrator's "state of mind", and in this case, since the "state of mind" at the time was clearly "those are legitimate targets", even if the state of mind was screwed up, manslaughter and not murder is the charge.

 

For an insight into how American juries perceive state of mind, consider a recent case in Texas.  Man (armed) surprises Wife and Lover.  Wife, thinking creatively, cries "Rape!".  Man shoots, kills, Lover.  Wife charged with manslaughter.  Man not charged with anything, because in his mind, on the basis of what was known to him at the time, he was justified in shooting.

 

SGTObvious

Yes, after I'd made my previous post I realised I'd forgotten to add what happens if you're among the seriously less affluent and find yourself in the justice system.

 

In UK I think its a reasonable believe, however, the courts will probe this with some vigour.  In jurisdictions where sidearms are part of the police uniform its a big issue, when someone is killed and the policeperson believes they were a threat.  In UK this is less of problem because smallarms are mainly in the hands of specialists.  However, it has been an issue for the Army in N Ireland, a few soldiers have been convicted after the court found that their belief was a bit too liberal (and paras were convicted as a result of 'enthusiasm' in Pristina (Kosovo) when the court didn't believe their story).  However, the circumstances for these usually involve snap decisions and the courts tend to recognise these difficult circumstances.  For pilots with a minute or two for reflection and checking then snap decisions are not a reason for mistakes, I think it is these circumstances that contributed to the coroner's determination.