"UK govt regret at McAnespie killing"

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.

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

There is no such immunity in the GFA.

Last year a man was arrested and charged for the execution of Captain Robert Nairic all the way back in 1977. Prisoners released where not granted immunity but are out "on license" as they say.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

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

The murders of the 14th people that were killed as a result of their actions on bloody sunday, and the further 11 people during the ballymurphy massacre.

They should apologise for every single one of them.

lostexpectation

not enough

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

*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.

The PSNI’s Historical Enquiries Team considered three possible scenarios: that the soldier accidentally discharged the machine gun as he had claimed; that he was tracking a man he considered a paramilitary suspect and inadvertently shot him as he was unaware the gun was cocked and ready to fire; or that he deliberately shot at Mr McAnespie.

Guardsman Holden denied he was tracking Aidan McAnespie or deliberately fired shots at him.

The team questioned the likelihood of an accidental and random discharge of shots which struck the road less than a metre from Mr McAnespie from a point more than 280 metres away.

“The statistical odds . . . are strongly against the accidental discharge account,” it said.

It added: “When the facts that the victim of this alleged random shot was a subject that the soldiers had kept under observation, and was perceived by them as a potential terrorist suspect, are added to the equation, then the likelihood that it was a random shot is even less. Add to this the minimum 9lb pressure required to pull the trigger and the probability of ‘accidental killing’ recedes even further.”

The inquiries team concluded it was unable to judge definitively whether the fatal shot was fired deliberately or unintentionally, but it did decide: “Guardsman Holden’s version of events, however, can be considered the least likely” and that is was unlikely the machine gun “was discharged in the circumstances, or in the manner, described by guardsman Holden.” Following the killing the soldier was interviewed, arrested and charged with manslaughter.

All nonsense aside, the soldier doesn't have a very strong case for him, and has a very strong case against him.

johnathan woss

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As they say

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

Everyone can "see" your argument they just don't agree with you because you are WRONG.

FlutterinBantam

Explain how I am "wrong" Jonnie.

Manic Moran

The team questioned the likelihood of an accidental and random discharge of shots which struck the road less than a metre from Mr McAnespie from a point more than 280 metres away.

What's the likelihood of a round bouncing back from 200m away and knocking off your ear protectors?

If you can put a link to the report, instead of snippets from it, I'd appreciate it. I've not been able to find it yet, even on the HET website. Am I correct in understanding that Mr McAnespie was walking up the road, passed through the checkpoint, continued walking up the road, and was then shot in the back?

If this is true, what I find interesting is that my 'first thought' as to what might have happened, (and with the benefit of a little practical experience on the subject), is none of the three scenarios above, and is something of a mix of #1 and #2. I also don't see why they're so focused on the 9lb trigger weight. A GPMG (Presumably the weapon in question, civilians may call it a heavy machinegun but I doubt he had a .50 cal) is a 24lb gun, so if it did slip as claimed and the trigger caught, there's a fair bit of momentum to result in a discharge.

There's little doubt in my mind from the facts as I understand them that Guardsman Holden was negligent and failed a pretty basic weapons-handling rule, but that just puts him in company with a whole hell of a lot of other soldiers who have killed either themselves or others without meaning to. Avoidable death? Absolutely. Worthy of the whole 'conspiracy' thing? I've seen enough weapons stupidity in the Army to think not.

NTM

DoireNod

gurramok wrote: »

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


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.

Yeah, I'd say you're completely right there - I wonder if it was a unionist shot by the same soldier who shot McAnespie; would they still think the same? The DUP and many loyalists sicken me with their attitudes. It's right up there with the flying of the Israeli flags - they've no idea why, they just pick a side contrary to that of Nationalists, just for the sake of it. It's also strange that people don't get annoyed by the DUP's failure to condemn these acts, while the same people are outraged that groups like Sinn Féin do not condemn certain acts.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As they say

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

Who's they? The British Government?

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

There's little doubt in my mind from the facts as I understand them that Guardsman Holden was negligent and failed a pretty basic weapons-handling rule, but that just puts him in company with a whole hell of a lot of other soldiers who have killed either themselves or others without meaning to. Avoidable death? Absolutely. Worthy of the whole 'conspiracy' thing? I've seen enough weapons stupidity in the Army to think not.

Conveniently overlooking this are we?

“When the facts that the victim of this alleged random shot was a subject that the soldiers had kept under observation, and was perceived by them as a potential terrorist suspect

Could it just so happened, that he murdered the man? Why does this possibility not seem feasible to you? You seem awfully protective. There is no conspiracy anywhere - just people seeking for clarity on the issue. The report finds the official story as the least likely scenario.

FlutterinBantam

No Sir

Bigots Sir, People who just see one side of a cause and condemn the other side,yet fail to realise they are doing exactly the same themselves.

People who expect, say,people like the Israelis, to accept rockets into their territory without taking action.

If people were shooting rockets into my back yard i would expect my country to protect me.

There are too many people out there who can only see one side of the coin and ignore cause and effect.

They are referred to as bigots