"UK govt regret at McAnespie killing"

gurramok

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0727/mcanespiea.html

The British government has expressed its regret to the family of a Catholic man shot dead by a soldier at a border checkpoint in Co Tyrone 21 years ago.

24-year-old Aidan McAnespie was shot in the back by a British soldier at a border checkpoint while on his way to a GAA match.

A statement from British Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said he 'recognised the pain and suffering' of Mr McAnespie's family.
Advertisement

It was a matter of deep regret that Mr McAnespie had been killed by a bullet fired by a soldier which ricocheted from the road, the statement added.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0727/breaking37.htm

It took 21 years. About time.

Is this the first time ever that the British govt has expressed 'regret' as a result of their security force actions?(pending Bloody Sunday inquiry outcome)

Run_to_da_hills

About time.

RIP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsqlRTJhE98

seanybiker

tis about time is right

Bottle_of_Smoke

Very moving speech from Aidan McAnespie's niece. An apology for not charging Jonathon Holden with murder, or Holden admitting the crime would be more appropriate but at least its some closure for McAnespie's family.

sceptre

I've deleted a few sniping posts of silliness from two posters. No sniping posts of silliness please, especially from people who don't intend to be sniping or silly (I assume).

futurehope

Accidental shooting 21 years ago. UK government apologies. Hardly news is it?

I wonder when Irish Republicans will begin their death by death apology to each family concerned for the thousands of deliberate murders they committed?

Still, the details are all on record and this time they won't be able to gloss over them or re-write them.

FlutterinBantam

While not condoning the murder of Mr McAnespie, it was despicable, never heard much apology from the faceless thugs who murdered innocent people in NI on behalf of "Irish Freedom".

Some people seem to think that responsibility is all on one side.

A Dub in Glasgo

There was nothing accidental about the shooting!

gurramok

futurehope wrote:

I wonder when Irish Republicans will begin their death by death apology to each family concerned for the thousands of deliberate murders they committed?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

While not condoning the murder of Mr McAnespie, it was despicable, never heard much apology from the faceless thugs who murdered innocent people in NI on behalf of "Irish Freedom".

Some people seem to think that responsibility is all on one side.

If they are thugs, thugs don't generally apologise as they are thugs and thugs are lawbreakers by nature.

The British army are not supposed to be thugs and they are supposed to uphold the law hence they are accountable to the population they 'guard' and 'serve'.

Unless of course you think the republican side are not thugs or terrorists and it was a real 'war' and both sides are equal.

Hagar

Here's a quote from the BBC

The soldier who fired the fatal shot claimed his hands were wet, causing him to accidentally fire the machine-gun when he was moving it inside a sanger.
However, a PSNI Historical Enquiries Team (HET) report released last year called this the "least likely version" of what happened.

I can only guess at the soul searching that went on in the PSNI before they made that declaration. In one way it's a good omen that the PSNI could bring themselves to admit that, in itself that bodes well for the future. However it says a lot that the British Govt is prepared to go along with the "least likely vesion" of the incident. Can they not face the truth? They still have a long way to go and and a lot to learn about the Irish people. Hopefully they are willing.



The only way forward is for all of us to accept the truth of the horrors that happened regardless of who caused them and forgive them. Not forget them, we don't want to hide what happened in case it happens again. There were atrocities on both sides. Fact, undeniable fact. For one side to keep up the pretence of being squeaky clean would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

futurehope

What's laughable is to compare the thousands of deliberate and pre-meditated murders carried out by Irish Republicans with those deaths (a far smaller number) caused by The British Army, whose presence in Northern Ireland was due to The Republican murder campaign. There is no comparison and never will be, no matter how hard Irish Nationalists try and make one stick.

Not this time lads.

GuanYin

futurehope wrote: »

What's laughable is to compare the thousands of deliberate and pre-meditated murders carried out by Irish Republicans with those deaths (a far smaller number) caused by The British Army, whose presence in Northern Ireland was due to The Republican murder campaign. There is no comparison and never will be, no matter how hard Irish Nationalists try and make one stick.

Not this time lads.

Futurehope, please link sources to that claim before posting here again.

The study I see referenced puts the IRA responsible deaths at ~1,800, which accounts for less than half the total number.

That is a U of Ulster study btw.

Where are your sources from?

leincar

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There was nothing accidental about the shooting!

I suppose every murder by the I.R.A. was?

When are people ever going to let go? If you want to move on and build a just society that is exactly what you have to do.

A Dub in Glasgo

leincar wrote: »

I suppose every murder by the I.R.A. was?

Of course not... what a strange thing to ask

Hagar

leincar wrote:

If you want to move on and build a just society that is exactly what you have to do.

Isn't that what's happening? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, wants violence and death and suffering. The only way forward IMHO is for every body to accept that there is right and wrong on both sides. None of us are perfect, none of us are beyond reproach. But for me to really let my guard down and accept my frailties I must believe that all sides will do the same. For anybody in the process to continue to pretend that they are divinely right and have done no wrong... well it's going to undermine the whole thing isn't it?

Fratton Fred

I would hazard a guess and say there is more to come on this, which is possibly why the minister was relatively reserved over the apology.

dresden8

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would hazard a guess and say there is more to come on this, which is possibly why the minister was relatively reserved over the apology.

Yes, normally guns are kept cleared and safe unless under attack.

Somebody either fncked up large scale or they intended to kill him.

There is no middle ground.

Bottle_of_Smoke

futurehope wrote: »

What's laughable is to compare the thousands of deliberate and pre-meditated murders carried out by Irish Republicans with those deaths (a far smaller number) caused by The British Army, whose presence in Northern Ireland was due to The Republican murder campaign. There is no comparison and never will be, no matter how hard Irish Nationalists try and make one stick.

Not this time lads.

Why bring up the IRA in this thread? McAnespie wasn't in the IRA, he was going to a sports game. He was a civillian murdered by the security forces of his country when he was walking through a checkpoint. He wasn't causing trouble, he wasn't carrying weapons, he wasn't protesting for civil rights, he was simply going to a sports game. You're free to start a thread on IRA atrocities any time you want, why bring it up in a thread about a man who had no connection to the IRA? Is it that scary to you that one British Army man might have been a bad person?

I'm getting really sick of you approaching every topic as if every boards poster is a die hard republican. Its almost as if you want that to be the case so you can justify your bitterness. No one mentioned the IRA, no one suggested this kind of incident is what encouraged people to join republican terrorist groups. It was simply a thread about a government doing the decent thing and apologising to a family over wrongdoing by its forces.

Just get it into your head - being Irish does not mean you support the IRA and their murder campaign!

Theres a site called www.pulseresources.org you might enjoy. Recent topics include posters discussing why Kevin McDaid deserved to die.

dlofnep

What ahs the IRA to do with this thread?

This thread is about a possible cold-blooded murder of an innocent man by the British army. The evidence suggested that the accounts made by the soldier were near impossible, and that it was the least likely possibility.

All evidence suggests that this man was murdered, and the British Government should do more than just offer regret - They should apologise for the murder of an Irish civilian, and while they are at it - apologise for the murder of further civilians in Derry & Ballymurphy.

pablomakaveli

The difference between this incident and the IRA murders was that the man who killed McAnespie was a professional soldier in the British army who's duty is to protect people like the man he shot.

The IRA are terrorists and terrorists rarely apologize. By right they should but generally don't.

However if a professional soldier in any national army killed an innocent civilian the least that should be expected is an apology or admission of wrong-doing. It's good to say a statement of regret made in this case.

Erin Go Brath

The British Govt will have a lot more 'regret' to express in the coming years i suspect. Expressing regret at MI5 security force involvement and collusion with the UVF in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings is one i'm looking forward to if we ever see the day. :rolleyes:

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would hazard a guess and say there is more to come on this, which is possibly why the minister was relatively reserved over the apology.

It wasnt an apology.

It was an expression of regret. Two very different things.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

What ahs the IRA to do with this thread?

This thread is about a possible cold-blooded murder of an innocent man by the British army. The evidence suggested that the accounts made by the soldier were near impossible, and that it was the least likely possibility.

All evidence suggests that this man was murdered, and the British Government should do more than just offer regret - They should apologise for the murder of an Irish civilian, and while they are at it - apologise for the murder of further civilians in Derry & Ballymurphy.

Has anyone been convicted of murder in this event??

What "murders" should they apologise for in 'Derry and Ballymurphy.?

Seems to be a lot of one sided debate in this thread.

gurramok

DUP reaction: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0728/1224251488538.html

However DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds insisted the British army had nothing to apologise for.

“As far as the DUP is concerned, the army and the security forces generally have no apology to make as organisations for what they did in Northern Ireland. On the contrary, we believe the army deserves praise for their actions in fighting terrorism.”

Unreal. Hope it does not reflect the general view of the average Unionist person.

If that was a NI soccer supporter from the Unionist community shot by the Irish army at a border crossing, you'll certainly hear the condemnation and calls for apologies.

Joey the lips

I would have never guessed at the start of this thread that the IRA would end up in it. Its good to see the usual suspects save the face of the british goverment.

There is more to come on this and we are just being drip fed! Now me personally I would have said as a subject " British govemet apologies for the solder who shot a man becuase he was wearing a GAA gersey!"

But then I would ask why the gun could not now still be determined as surly all the evidence would have been stored on this, If the gun is determined then the shooter could be determined then a conviction could be made. But then again an apology is worth more!" It also give people a chance to change the subject

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Has anyone been convicted of murder in this event??

What "murders" should they apologise for in 'Derry and Ballymurphy.?

Seems to be a lot of one sided debate in this thread.

Do you know anything about NI deaths(unarmed innocents) at the hands of the security forces?

Maybe you are too young to remember, here's one murder where accountability is needed for closure. http://www.crossexaminer.co.uk/archives/2028

Its just one of many including those in Derry and Belfast where there was no acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the professional soldiers of the British Army who after all are supposed to have the 'moral upper ground'.

Fratton Fred

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes, normally guns are kept cleared and safe unless under attack.

Somebody either fncked up large scale or they intended to kill him.

There is no middle ground.

On the assumption that Aiden was not in the IRA, I find it hard to believe that a British soldier would kill him for no apparant reason. my guess is that there was a serious **** up, a negligent Discharge or something like that and it was covered up to save the soldiers arse.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It wasnt an apology.

It was an expression of regret. Two very different things.

yeah, that was kind of my point. An apology would be an admission of guilt which would prejudice any further investigation and possible compensation claims.

Joey the lips

Fratton Fred wrote: »

On the assumption that Aiden was not in the IRA, I find it hard to believe that a British soldier would kill him for no apparant reason. my guess is that there was a serious **** up, a negligent Discharge or something like that and it was covered up to save the soldiers arse.
quote]

With respect the fact that you keep mentioning the IRA is affiring guilt by association.

Folks the IRA had nothing got to do with this. It was a murder plane and simple and the british govt if was the Iranian govt would be condemed by the internatioal govt for not acting and investigating this properly.

I can just see it know. "In Iran today an accidental miss fire of a gun lead to a bullet bouncing of the ground and striking an innocent bystander who was wearing an america football gersey"

Yes! It would be seen as innocent i am sure of it.... Jesus folks! a little logic on this one!

Instant Karma

Fratton Fred wrote: »

On the assumption that Aiden was not in the IRA, I find it hard to believe that a British soldier would kill him for no apparant reason.

Not sure why you would find it so hard to believe Fred, since soldiery began it has attracted a certain element who, lets be honest about it, enjoy killing.

Fratton Fred

The Army claim it was an accident, the family claim it was cold blooded murder. I was guess the truth is somewhere in between.

if a soldier was trying to kill Aidan, firing one shot off the ground from a heavy machine gun 300 yards away is not a very good way of doing it.

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

Do you know anything about NI deaths(unarmed innocents) at the hands of the security forces?

Maybe you are too young to remember, here's one murder where accountability is needed for closure. http://www.crossexaminer.co.uk/archives/2028

Its just one of many including those in Derry and Belfast where there was no acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the professional soldiers of the British Army who after all are supposed to have the 'moral upper ground'.

Would question the logic of that statement in view of the fact that "the opposition" seemed to have little or no access to "moral high ground" as you refer to it as.
They seemed to think that blowing away innocent civilians was part of the "war".
Now I realise we are discussing a particular event here and what happened was wrong, but one can't isolate events like this without looking at the total context and events of the period and the septic mindset which was generated by both sides.

Apologists for terror groups always love to play the high moral ground card when it suits them, but discerning people easily see through that bluff and bluster.

Joey the lips

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Army claim it was an accident, the family claim it was cold blooded murder. I was guess the truth is somewhere in between.

if a soldier was trying to kill Aidan, firing one shot off the ground from a heavy machine gun 300 yards away is not a very good way of doing it.

Yes I suppose the enquiry finding this not to be the case ie "an accidental shot was fired from such a heavy machine gun" has no bareing on your comments.

The enquiry came to the conclusion that the shot was not fired by accident so this is not in dispute. What should be in dispute is why the british goverment did not establish why the solder fired it and why they did not prosacute. But its far easier for you to make your own chain of events.

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Army claim it was an accident, the family claim it was cold blooded murder. I was guess the truth is somewhere in between.

if a soldier was trying to kill Aidan, firing one shot off the ground from a heavy machine gun 300 yards away is not a very good way of doing it.

That's assuming you accept the word of the soldier and the finding of the RUC and British Army at the time. I don't, nor would any reasonable person.

The Garda investigated the killing at the time but their report was never released to the public - you don't have to guess why.

This is what the PSNI had to say last year.

In October 2008, a Police Service of Northern Ireland investigation concluded that "the likelihood of a British Army's version of events is so remote that it should be disregarded." The report stated that the gun required 9lbs of pressure to pull the trigger, and that the soldier's account of the events were highly unlikely. It further stated that the chances of this combined with hitting McAnespie by accident as "so remote as to be virtually disregarded".

Fratton Fred

Joey the lips wrote: »

Yes I suppose the enquiry finding this not to be the case ie "an accidental shot was fired from such a heavy machine gun" has no bareing on your comments.

The enquiry came to the conclusion that the shot was not fired by accident so this is not in dispute. What should be in dispute is why the british goverment did not establish why the solder fired it and why they did not prosacute. But its far easier for you to make your own chain of events.

that's not what i'm saying at all and i don't think the HET said that either, I believe they used the term "Least likely explanatin". none of us know the truth so we are all jumping to conclusions to an extent.

My opinion is that based on the claims of constant intimidation, the soldier fired towards Aidan to scare him and a bullet bounced up and hit him. If he fired directly at him, he would have hit him directly and probably more than once.

Lets face it, if the army wanted to kill him, there were a lot less public ways of doing it than at an army checkpoint.

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Would question the logic of that statement in view of the fact that "the opposition" seemed to have little or no access to "moral high ground" as you refer to it as.
They seemed to think that blowing away innocent civilians was part of the "war".
Now I realise we are discussing a particular event here and what happened was wrong, but one can't isolate events like this without looking at the total context and events of the period and the septic mindset which was generated by both sides.

Since when did terror groups protect and serve the community to uphold the law and have the moral upper ground?

We are talking about security force killings of unarmed innocents here. In case you didn't know soldiers are supposed to be accountable to rules of law, not 'terrorists'.

If they are not accountable, they are just as bad as the terrorists themselves and lose respect. You just cannot seem to grasp that.

Apologists for terror groups always love to play the high moral ground card when it suits them, but discerning people easily see through that bluff and bluster.

Who?

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

We are talking about security force killings of unarmed innocents here. In case you didn't know soldiers are supposed to be accountable to rules of law, not 'terrorists'.

If they are not accountable, they are just as bad as the terrorists themselves and lose respect. You just cannot seem to grasp that.

I am well aware of the laws in regard to Armies and soldiers.

I have acknowledged that several times.

However, like everything else, things evolve and change and what was fine for WW1 and WW2 has no place in todays wars.

Nowadays it's 360degree war we are dealing with, a totally different concept.

Apologists for terror groups love to ignore the transgressions of "their side ",
and put pressure on the forces of the state when they react.

All this has to be taken in context, and sensible people realise that to try to fight terrorism by conventional means is futile.

Now in case of any misunderstanding, the Mr. McAnespie killing was wrong ,very wrong, but context plays a huge part in these tragic events.

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I am well aware of the laws in regard to Armies and soldiers.

I have acknowledged that several times.

However, like everything else, things evolve and change and what was fine for WW1 and WW2 has no place in todays wars.

Nowadays it's 360degree war we are dealing with, a totally different concept.

Apologists for terror groups love to ignore the transgressions of "their side ",
and put pressure on the forces of the state when they react.

All this has to be taken in context, and sensible people realise that to try to fight terrorism by conventional means is futile.

Now in case of any misunderstanding, the Mr. McAnespie killing was wrong ,very wrong, but context plays a huge part in these tragic events.

I see you say its wrong, what was the 'context' of this border crossing to shoot at a man going to a football match?

Where do you draw the line where conventional means are discarded?

In this case, it was simply a soldier on guard firing the shots from behind a civilian, not a soldier on an undercover mission or engaged in a firefight to have that 'collateral' damage.

In my view, there is no excuse for soldiers to kill unarmed innocent civilians.

As in this case and a few hundred others(there will be more in the future due to HET investigations), there was no conviction for murder or manslaughter and that there is where the army loses its moral high ground.

FlutterinBantam

I see you are misinterpreting my argument, and putting words into my mouth that I patently didn't say or mean.

I have no interest in circular arguments.

getz

gurramok wrote: »

I see you say its wrong, what was the 'context' of this border crossing to shoot at a man going to a football match?

Where do you draw the line where conventional means are discarded?

In this case, it was simply a soldier on guard firing the shots from behind a civilian, not a soldier on an undercover mission or engaged in a firefight to have that 'collateral' damage.

In my view, there is no excuse for soldiers to kill unarmed innocent civilians.

As in this case and a few hundred others(there will be more in the future due to HET investigations), there was no conviction for murder or manslaughter and that there is where the army loses its moral high ground.

there is proof that the RUC was at times in collusion with loyalist groups,it is also certain that the guardia was at times helping the IRA in the same way, ex IRA members have admitted to such,best close this thread

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I see you are misinterpreting my argument, and putting words into my mouth that I patently didn't say or mean.

I have no interest in circular arguments.

No. You're argument is the following:

but one can't isolate events like this without looking at the total context and events of the period and the septic mindset which was generated by both sides.
All this has to be taken in context, and sensible people realise that to try to fight terrorism by conventional means is futile.

You are trying to find an excuse for the murder using 'context' and 'mindset' as an excuse.

Do you think that in this case(Aidan McAnespie) that it was either murder or manslaughter?
Do you think there should of been legal action against the offending soldier?

Simple questions, what are your answers?

gurramok

getz wrote: »

there is proof that the RUC was at times in collusion with loyalist groups,it is also certain that the guardia was at times helping the IRA in the same way, ex IRA members have admitted to such,best close this thread

Yes, there was collusion, whats that got to do with this incident?

Was their collusion in this incident?(it wasn't reported as such by the HET unless i missed that part)

Close thread? Why?

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

No. You're argument is the following:


You are trying to find an excuse for the murder using 'context' and 'mindset' as an excuse.

perfect example of what you are trying to do.

Some people are intelligent enough to see those tactics.

Instant Karma

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

perfect example of what you are trying to do.

Some people are intelligent enough to see those tactics.

What are you talking about?

Your arguement may be valid if Aiden McAnespie was involved in anything even approaching terrorism, but he wasn't. Why anyone is bringing up terrorism or the IRA in ths thread is beyond me as it's totally off topic.

What we are talking about here is the killing of a civilian by the very people who should have been there to protect him.

FlutterinBantam

Instant Karma wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Your arguement may be valid if Aiden McAnespie was involved in anything even approaching terrorism, but he wasn't. Why anyone is bringing up terrorism or the IRA in ths thread is beyond me as it's totally off topic.

What we are talking about here is the killing of a civilian by the very people who should have been there to protect him.

Incorrect sir.

Why was that soldier there in the first place??

To suppress terrorism,that's the nub of my argument.

Of course it was wrong to kill Mr mcAnespie of course it was,but to isolate that from the history of what went on before, the army involvement, the training the soldier received, the casualties suffered by the security forces and his army colleagues at the hands of terrorists.

No intelligent person can isolate an incident and not look at the greater context.Take the Brazilian person who was shot on the London tube for example.
That's not excusing it or condoning it, just basically putting it in it's proper context.

Instant Karma

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Incorrect sir.

Why was that soldier there in the first place??

To suppress terrorism,that's the nub of my argument.

Of course it was wrong to kill Mr mcAnespie of course it was,but to isolate that from the history of what went on before, the army involvement, the training the soldier received, the casualties suffered by the security forces and his army colleagues at the hands of terrorists.

No intelligent person can isolate an incident and not look at the greater context.Take the Brazilian person who was shot on the London tube for example.
That's not excusing it or condoning it, just basically putting it in it's proper context.

You know what, I remember this incident happening, and I can tell you it was as wrong then as it is now. I remember well what NI was like back in those days as I lived through it all, so i'm afraid your context arguement won't wash.

Also, the 'Brazilian' you refer to was Jean Charles de Menezes and he was flat out murdered.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Why was that soldier there in the first place??

To suppress terrorism,that's the nub of my argument.

Well, that's a terrible argument - because he killed an innocent civilian, without cause. That's not suppressing terrorism, that IS terrorism.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of course it was wrong to kill Mr mcAnespie of course it was,but..

Excuses.

FlutterinBantam

As they say

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"

dlofnep

You should probably take heed to your own advice.

MikeC101

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My opinion is that based on the claims of constant intimidation, the soldier fired towards Aidan to scare him and a bullet bounced up and hit him. If he fired directly at him, he would have hit him directly and probably more than once.

Lets face it, if the army wanted to kill him, there were a lot less public ways of doing it than at an army checkpoint.

It's obviously very difficult to try and work out exactly what happened, but if he was being constantly intimidated by the army that adds a very sinister element to the whole thing. Assuming the shot wasn't an accidental discharge, even if it was just intended to "give him a scare" it's a totally unacceptable thing to do - intentionally firing in the direction of an innocent civilian which results in his death, be it from a ricochet or not, is surely manslaughter?

Even if we were to accept the "least likely" explanation of an accidental discharge, the soldier would surely have been aiming at McAnespie for the bullet to hit him at a distance of 300 yards - isn't that in itself gross negligence resulting in manslaughter?

Fratton Fred

MikeC101 wrote: »

It's obviously very difficult to try and work out exactly what happened, but if he was being constantly intimidated by the army that adds a very sinister element to the whole thing. Assuming the shot wasn't an accidental discharge, even if it was just intended to "give him a scare" it's a totally unacceptable thing to do - intentionally firing in the direction of an innocent civilian which results in his death, be it from a ricochet or not, is surely manslaughter?

Even if we were to accept the "least likely" explanation of an accidental discharge, the soldier would surely have been aiming at McAnespie for the bullet to hit him at a distance of 300 yards - isn't that in itself gross negligence resulting in manslaughter?

I don't think the term accidental discharge is used anymore, all discharges of this nature are negligent. this puts more pressure on the soldier to control his weapon. therefore, I don't understand how manslaughter charges were not brought in the first place.

I presume now though, the soldier in question would be immune from prosecution (or does the GFA agreement not apply to soldiers?) so for the sake of reconciliation, he should be able to come forward and explain fully what happened.

It would also be interesting to hear why they felt the need to harrass McAnespie in the first place.

Manic Moran

MikeC101 wrote: »

Even if we were to accept the "least likely" explanation of an accidental discharge, the soldier would surely have been aiming at McAnespie for the bullet to hit him at a distance of 300 yards - isn't that in itself gross negligence resulting in manslaughter?

Weirder things have happened. There's a youtube video going around of a guy on a shooting range shooting a .50cal rifle at what looks like 200 yards which ricochets and hits the shooter's head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc That's pretty damned bizarre.

I've seen NDs from anything from rifles through tank cannons. I've personally had to investigate an ND from a 40mm machinegun. We've scraped bits of US soldier off one of our tanks after an ND from a .50 cal blew his head off, literally. We were bloody lucky last week with an ND from a 155mm cannon. At 20km, it just missed a house. NDs, and deaths therefrom, are anything but unusual.

I would very much like to read the PSNI report. The possibility of an ND down a road is, in my experience, extremely feasible. I don't know what the other options were that make it 'less likely' than the others, but to say that an ND is unlikely* is, I think, a little detached from reality.

I don't think the term accidental discharge is used anymore, all discharges of this nature are negligent.

It is. The difference between an AD and an ND is the operator. ADs can still occur, be they cook-offs, slam-fires, or some other reason which is independent of a requirement for the operator to screw up.

NTM

*I know, that's not what the HET report says. It says 'least likely', but that's not 'unlikely', which is, I think, how many people are reading this.