[quote]makkun wrote:
OK, this is lifted from Wikipedia, but it explains the difference in British and US law and following this a British coroner does exactly that [italics are mine]:
"Jurisdiction
Any person aware of a dead body lying in the district of a coroner has a duty to report it to the coroner; failure to do so is an offence. This can include bodies brought into England or Wales (for example, when Diana, Princess of Wales died in France when her body was returned it was dealt with by a coroner in England). The coroner has an assistant (usually an ex-policeman) who will carry out the investigation on his or her behalf and on the basis of that the coroner will decide whether an inquest is appropriate. When a person dies in the custody of the legal authorities (in police cells, or in prison), an inquest must be held. In England, inquests are usually heard without a jury (unless the coroner wants one). However, a case in which a person has died under the control of central authority must have a jury, as a check on the possible abuse of governmental power.
The coroner’s court is a court of law, and accordingly the coroner may summon witnesses, and people found to be lying are guilty of perjury. […]
United States
Coroners in the United States are often elected officials, usually of a county. As finders of fact, they retain quasi-judicial powers such as the power of subpoena, and in some states they also have the power to impanel juries of inquest, but unlike their British equivalents, they are not judicial officers. [/quote]
Okay so the coroner in England has the authority to say a crime was committed. However, what are the legal recourses available to him when dealing with international and perhaps unidentified suspects?
In the article I read, since the coroner said there was a crime, the family of the deceased is crying out for the heads of the GI’s responsible for his death. This is the hanging out to dry of the Americans. There are a few apparent problems with this,
A. He was in a war zone.
B. There were bullets flying around.
C. He entered a high risk area by his own choice.
D. There is not enough evidence yet.
E. The USMC was conducting their own investigation into the shooting.
F. How can the coroner determine there was a crime commited if he was not there to see the shot for himself.
With people calling for their heads, with all these unresolved issues, when we are allied nations is a problem.
[quote]PS: As for the lack of qualification regarding firearms evidence - that’s really unlikely (and kinda funny).
You see, it’s not like inner city UK is a gun free zone. As much as the UK’s more restrictive gun laws seem to keep gun crime rates down, it’s still enough for trained professionals to be trained and experienced enough to analyse cases like this.
I think it’s quite far fetched to question the competence of the coroner based on the assumption that he is less experienced because there are in general less gunshot wounds in the UK civilian population. For all we know, he could be an expert…
…oh, he is: Andrew Walker has been dealing with military cases since 1998, and lots of them related to Iraq:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/2006/st060605.htm
What also strikes me as funny with the above argument is that he’s responsible for South London - and believe me, there are enough shootings for people to practice with. [/quote]
If you re-read my statement, I said that I believe he is right. However, to those of us over here in the states, we are not familiar with your system, and being that there are so few firearms in the UK, this is a concern that needed to be addressed.
[quote]Look, I understand that this is upsetting - but it’s a normal British legal procedure and it has been conducted by qualified professionals in the appropriate way. Let’s not judge too early which way it will go.
Makkun[/quote]
I’m completely fine with it being conducted by qualified professionals. As long as before there are punishemnts given to American troops that our own team of qualified professionals gets to analyze the data and the situation and that our troops get a fair shake. I will happily prosecute a criminal, however they are American troops and innocent until proven guilty.