Professional Soldiers ® - Victoria Cross Soldier Was 'Unlawfully Killed'

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Victoria Cross Soldier Was 'Unlawfully Killed' (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42980)

Victoria Cross Soldier Was 'Unlawfully Killed'

RIP L/Cpl Ashworth , Vaya con Dios..

Quote:

An inquest has found that a soldier who won a Victoria Cross for bravery in Afghanistan was unlawfully killed.

L/Cpl James Ashworth 23, of 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, was fatally injured by his own grenade after he was hit by a Taliban bullet just as he went to throw the explosive device into an compound in June last year.

At L/Cpl Ashworth's inquest today Anne Pember, the Northamptonshire Coroner, said a post mortem had revealed cause of death as blast injuries caused by an explosion.

She recorded a verdict of unlawful killing while he was serving on operations in Afghanistan.

L/Cpl Ashworth died after crawling along being peppered with bullets to throw his last grenade at a sniper who had his team pinned down.

He was attempting to clear Taliban compounds in the Nahr-e-Saraj district of Helmand Province.

The citation for the Victoria Cross which he won postumously in March this year said the 6ft 8ins Grenadier guardsman had needed to expose himself to enemy fire to get his grenade away and in doing so he pushed himself into full view.

The inquest at Kettering Magistrates Court heard that there had been a four man Taliban sniper team that had been picking people off that the Nato forces had been desperate to neutralise.

Before he could release the grenade, he was hit in the chest by a round from another sniper.

Disabled from the bullet's blow, which hit his body armour, he was killed when the enabled grenade went off next to him.

continued:

Could someone explain why the UK does these inquest??

Does this mean they are rescinding the award? I'm not sure of the point...

Was he already awarded the Cross and then the there was the inquest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu (Post 517514)

Does this mean they are rescinding the award? I'm not sure of the point...

Was he already awarded the Cross and then the there was the inquest?

Join the crowd,,

I think they do inquest on all deaths, in this case they are using the award docs as input??

I am curious as to the terminology "unlawfully killed"? If as according to the citation and subsequent autopsy the cause of death was the explosion from his own grenade that he could not throw after being hit by a round to the chest. The manner of death was a fire fight in a war zone. So what was "unlawful" here?:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapper John (Post 517521)

Perhaps it was done in case one or more of the Taliban are caught on the battlefield at some later date which would allow the crown to prosecute them for murder instead of labeling an enemy combatant? It any event it seems bizarre to hold an inquest in a death related to enemy fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubberneck (Post 517526)

Is that even possible under the Geneva Convention? Now I am really confused. :confused: Perhaps one of the JAG guys could clarify. This all seems very, very odd to me.

AFG is not "international armed conflict". The Muj operating there are not "privileged belligerants". They have no lawful "purpose/rationale" to kill. There is no "just war" and they are not "lawful combatants". Therefore, some muj shithead killing our guys is not privieged or immunized for warlike actions. The fact that we don't summarily prosecute these guys and then hang them from the gates of our outposts is yet another subject (that I will sidestep before my head exploedes in anger).

Doesn't seem to stop us from prosecuting our OWN guys though.....:mad:

Thank you JimP, I thought as much but wanted to here it from JAG Brother. Now The "unlawful killing" makes perfect sense. And yes, it makes me wonder why we don't just summarily hang the bastards. Would send the right message IMO.

But we must prosecute anyone that pisses on a dead Muj....ok, we prosecute him not for the actual pissing part but for taking pictures and having a couple leak to the press...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapper John (Post 517521)

1) I think in UK law, one must get a "unlawful death" finding before you can attempt to go to trial. Not unlike our grand jury findings.

2)The UK does the inquest for all tragedies, to include war time deaths. Kinda like a sitting kangaroo court of bureaucrats??

3)They seem to relish publishing the results in all the papers with family interviews.. This is the part I do not understand at all..

:confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK (Post 517550)

1)

3)They seem to relish publishing the results in all the papers with family interviews.. This is the part I do not understand at all..

:confused:

It is the new British hippy anti war movement.

Just like during VN when our own press started putting out pictures and death counts and started up the anti war movement. Of course, they still do it but if you noticed, they backed down quite a bit since zero has been in the White House.

WTF? Suppose they get into a situation and have a couple hundred KIAs? Inquests for all?