"UK govt regret at McAnespie killing"

gurramok

You've no answer for Buffy's statement Flutter. Hope you realise now that soldiers can get away scotfree from murder/manslaughter.

FlutterinBantam

gurramok wrote: »

You've no answer for Buffy's statement Flutter. Hope you realise now that soldiers can get away scotfree from murder/manslaughter.

What!!

Of course anyonecan get away scot free from any crime.
That doesn't make it not a crime.

However, I cannot call someone a murderer unless they have been tried and convicted in a court of law.
They may well be a murderer, but until tried and convicted I cant go around calling them a murderer.

We have this quaint system of presumed innocent until proved guilty thing around these here parts.

Ever hear of that quaint concept.;)

gurramok

So you have great faith in the British justice system to try soldiers who shoot to death innocent unarmed civilians?

FlutterinBantam

hah hah ha sorry for laughing but how you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hah hah ha sorry for laughing but how you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

Here:

However, I cannot call someone a murderer unless they have been tried and convicted in a court of law.
They may well be a murderer, but until tried and convicted I cant go around calling them a murderer.

I still think as per my earlier post that your knowledge of NI affairs is pretty abysmally low or you are just taking the mick.
To state again, a few hundred innocent unarmed people...men, women & children have been shot dead by the British Army/RUC with hardly a single conviction for murder/manslaughter.

A person with a grain of cop on would know that that is a cover-up where the wheels of justice did not even move in those circumstances and that is where the normal rules of justice do not prevail.

Its good to see your true colours on this that you condone this travesty. It is not a laughing matter.

FlutterinBantam

Fully agree it's not a laughing matter.

Your misguided attempts to attribute sentiment which you know I don't have on me certainly is.

Please don't attribute stuff to me which is totally opposite to what i am posting.

if you can't argue your point properly, please don't put words into my mouth.

It might work with other posters but sure as hell doesn't work with me.

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Fully agree it's not a laughing matter.

Your misguided attempts to attribute sentiment which you know I don't have on me certainly is.

Please don't attribute stuff to me which is totally opposite to what i am posting.

if you can't argue your point properly, please don't put words into my mouth.

It might work with other posters but sure as hell doesn't work with me.

What?

You have not answered a direct question with a direct answer at all in this thread so what is your contribution?

The following are awaiting answers from Flutter...

Q1
Do you think that in this case(Aidan McAnespie) that it was either murder or manslaughter?

Q2
Do you think there should of been legal action against the offending soldier?

Q3
"So you have great faith in the British justice system to try soldiers who shoot to death innocent unarmed civilians? "

You're reaction of an answer to Q3 was to laugh so is that a yes or a no answer to the question?

Enlighten us and answer the questions.

FlutterinBantam

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hah hah ha sorry for laughing but how you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

Do I really have to keep spelling things out.

Underlined and emboldened.

Buffy the bitch

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hah hah ha sorry for laughing but how you arrive at that conclusion is beyond me.

Threads like these always get derailed for some reason. You and futurehope would get on like house on fire.

Anyways it took 21 years but still claiming its a ricochet is beyond they should at least admit their crimes.

Aidans life had ended it was time for judgement day
The soldier he jumped down from the tower and the coward he slipped away
God´s curse on you Britannia for this cruel deed you´ve done
But god will have his final say when your judgement day it comes

Oh why did you do it?
Have you not the guts to say
You say it was an accident or even a ricochet
But like Loughgall and Gibraltar you´re lies are well renowned
You murdered Aidan McAnespie on his way to the Gaelic ground

To say it was an accident is the greatest crime of all
To his heart-broken family the worst had `er befalled
A cross it marks the lonely spot where Aidan was gunned down
As he strolled on that sunny evening on his way to the Gaelic ground

Oh why did you do it?
Have you not the guts to say
You say it was an accident or even a ricochet
But like Loughgall and Gibraltar you´re lies are well renowned
You murdered Aidan McAnespie on his way to the Gaelic ground


Oh why did you do it?
Have you not the guts to say
You say it was an accident or even a ricochet
But like Loughgall and Gibraltar you´re lies are well renowned
You murdered Aidan McAnespie on his way to the Gaelic ground

I'll sing it loud and proud at every Celtic game, You maybe gone mate but you'll be rememeber I promise you that....

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do I really have to keep spelling things out.

Underlined and emboldened.

That part does not indicate anything.

So, whats your answers to the questions?

ynotdu

gurramok wrote: »

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



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)

Phew i am exhausted as i HAVE read every post here.
everything has been said,so i wanted to remind people of the OP,s 1st post.
I can only say that the report stated that of the three options the soldiers account of Aidens death was the least likely to be true.in the abscense of witness,s what else could they say?also without proof what else could Gordon Brown say?(they used coded language to say they did not believe a word of the soldiers account)

also Tony Blair when he was PM of UK apologised for how Ireland was treated during the famine.Little things CAN mean a lot in terms of closure.
when South Africa became a Democratic Country,they set up a Peace&reconciliation commitee were the state forces and the ANC could admit to their wrongdoings without fear of retribution.
many used the opportunity to cleanse their conscionce, I know many would argue that they got off light but the IMPORTANT thing is it seems to have brought if not total closure to the relatives of the dead, at least some comfort.
i dunno if that would have helped here,but might have been worth a try?

i suppose to be fair&honest as to how i feel my instinct is that Aiden was murdered.
only possible mitigating circumstances i can think of for the soldier is that he *cracked up*under the almost constant fear of death.
(remember the Irish soldier who riddled three other Irish he was with to death in Lebanon?)

the vast majority of people who join the US or UK army do so to try to escape poverty traps(hoping there will be no war during their time&to get an aprentiship.
of course in some cases Psychos are attracted to killing others and thats the appeal of the army to them:(

Manic Moran

the vast majority of people who join the US or UK army do so to try to escape poverty traps

I cannot speak for the British Army (and I doubt it is), but in my experience that tends not to be the case in the US. Sure there are a number who do, but most are in because it's something they want to do.

NTM

ynotdu

Manic Moran wrote: »

I cannot speak for the British Army (and I doubt it is), but in my experience that tends not to be the case in the US. Sure there are a number who do, but most are in because it's something they want to do.



NTM

I can talk about about the British army and the reason many joined.
unfortunatly they know it would get them court martialed.

Michael Moores Farenheit 9/11 says it all about the US Army and the congressmen and Senators who voted for the Iraq war putting anybody but their own children at risk.

Manic Moran

I can talk about about the British army and the reason many joined.
unfortunatly they know it would get them court martialed.

Educate me. You won't get them court-martialled.

Michael Moores Farenheit 9/11 says it all about the US Army and the congressmen and Senators who voted for the Iraq war putting anybody but their own children at risk

Are you suggesting that children of politicians should be forced to enter the military?
Last I heard, there was no draft.

NTM

ynotdu

Manic Moran wrote: »

Educate me. You won't get them court-martialled.



Are you suggesting that children of politicians should be forced to enter the military?
Last I heard, there was no draft.

NTM

Not my job to educate you.this is not the *I hope maggie thatcher is in pain thread*that descended into a slanging match about the Belgrano,which after i researched what you had to say,i admitted that i was wrong about the Belgrano being sunk was a war crime.you did not give your sources then,you said they "were not to hand"

as i told you two of my cousins who live in the UK served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am not suggesting that anybody should be forced into the military and it is just plain sarcasm of you to bring up the draft.
it is plain evidence of politicians hypocrisy that they think fighting for one,s country is for lesser mortals children.
if you have not seen farenheight 9/11 i suggest you do.
btw one of the two recruitars shown going around malls to find would be soldiers was killed on his next tour in Iraq:(
as i said in the Thatcher thread *may god keep you gently in the palm of his hands*whilst you are in Afghanistan.
it is a *war*that will just continue to produce body bags,the lessons of invading Afghanistan it seems will never be learned,every attempt ends with the invading army leaving with its tail between its legs.

Manic Moran

ynotdu wrote: »

You did not give your sources then,you said they "were not to hand"

Dude, as you know, I'm in Afghanistan. I'm not going to bring my library along with me on the off-chance that I might need it for an internet debate. Even if I wanted to, I am limited to how much room I have. I couldn't even bring my Jane's A&A, let alone my Falklands collection.

I am not suggesting that anybody should be forced into the military and it is just plain sarcasm of you to bring up the draft.

Your statement about Congresscritters sending off 'everyone else's children but their own' appears to imply that you believe they should only send people to war if their own children are in the military. The only way that can be mandated is if they are drafted, unless I'm missing something.

Either way, this is off-topic. Be motivation to join a military be for patriotic, economic, family tradition or just plain 'it's fun' reasons, it has little bearing on just what it takes to send a burst of machinegun rounds downrange.

NTM

Fratton Fred

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Right so if I go out tonight and murder someone and don't get brought before a court it isn't murder

you have just said murder, so it would be murder.

however, if you go out tonight and have a few drinks and kill someone whilst driving home is it murder? The family of the dead person may seem to think it is, but the courst may view it differently.

Therefore, it is not murder until it is proven to be murder.

As I and Manic have said, if the british Army wanted to kill someone, why not do it a lot subtly? why not just put on civilian clothes and drag him out of bed one night?

jonsnow wrote: »

They picked on and harassed lots of nationalists out of the blue because the troops on the ground viewed them as the enemy.The soldier just happened to kill this one.He fired the shot to frighten him but it flukely ricocheted.I,d say the soldier had no intention of killing him and was just a bored ###hole.Still manslaughter though.

People I know who served in NI all say that they knew exactly who the players were and gave them grief accordingly. Self preservation is a pretty strong insticnt and I would guess that when you spend most of your day acting like a walking figure 11 target you would revert to some pretty underhanded methods to try and keep yourself alive.

That said, I think the same as you. One possible scenario I would put forward is that Aidan walked past the checkpoint on a regular basis and often made comments to the soldiers, one noght one of them thought he would scare him a bit, but one of the bullets ricocheted and hit him.

Criminal? yeah, firing your gun in the direction of an innocent person is a criminal offence, Murder? not sure, only a court could decide that.

Hagar

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

We have this quaint system of presumed innocent until proved guilty thing around these here parts.

Ever hear of that quaint concept.;)

Apparently that system can be over-ridden with no consequences by a soldier with a machine gun.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Apparently that system can be over-ridden with no consequences by a soldier with a machine gun.

i think it would be fair to say that that particular system was over-ridden fairly frequently in NI during the troubles, by all parties involved.

Hagar

Not really, none of the other protagonists in the conflict claimed to be upholding the law of the land.

FTA69

This board is f*cking gas. A youngfella is shot dead crossing a checkpoint on the way to a game of football, and still you have people here bending over backwards with mad explanations as to how a jimpy could be dropped etc and kill someone 300 metres away with a richochet, when even the cops of all people wouldn't try and say that and keep a straight face. Like many other civilians in Ireland, McAnespie was shot by a trigger-happy Brit; it's an open and shut case to be honest. You'd swear the Brits never tortured people, set attack dogs on internees, shot demonstraters, killed children with plastic bullets etc the way some characters here went on. The thought that someone would deliberately shoot a young man (whom they had threatened repeatedly) obviously cannot be entertained, because to do so would entail them having to acknowledge that the British Army and the occupation which it maintains is actually not the bastion of civility and law they make it out to be.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Ok, explain what you think my opinion is.

As I've already stated, you attempted to pass a faux-context in an attempt to justify the killing of McAnespie. You have since continuously backpedaled on it. I'd rather not go around in circles on this issue with you.

You either find the killing to be an unjustifiable, and morally disgusting act - or you don't. By trying to give context, in an attempt to lessen the responsibility of the soldier - you are justifying McAnespies death.

So which is it? You've been talking in riddles for the last 10 pages, and not one poster in this thread can keep up with you, because you flat out refuse to answer very simple questions.

So save us going around in circles for another 10 pages, and explain to us exactly your thoughts, in a clear and sensical manner.

Fratton Fred

Hagar wrote: »

Not really, none of the other protagonists in the conflict claimed to be upholding the law of the land.

One side claimed to be upholding the law of the land all the time, the other cliamed it when it suited them.

Why were drug dealers regularly knee capped?

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

One side claimed to be upholding the law of the land all the time, the other cliamed it when it suited them.

Why were drug dealers regularly knee capped?

Not regularly, twice at most.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

This board is f*cking gas. A youngfella is shot dead crossing a checkpoint on the way to a game of football, and still you have people here bending over backwards with mad explanations as to how a jimpy could be dropped etc and kill someone 300 metres away with a richochet, when even the cops of all people wouldn't try and say that and keep a straight face. Like many other civilians in Ireland, McAnespie was shot by a trigger-happy Brit; it's an open and shut case to be honest. You'd swear the Brits never tortured people, set attack dogs on internees, shot demonstraters, killed children with plastic bullets etc the way some characters here went on. The thought that someone would deliberately shoot a young man (whom they had threatened repeatedly) obviously cannot be entertained, because to do so would entail them having to acknowledge that the British Army and the occupation which it maintains is actually not the bastion of civility and law they make it out to be.

OK, lets cut to the chase. I'll tell you what's gas. the same people who regularly defend the actions of the IRA, the same people who will tell you that "They tried to phone through a warning" or "It was an Army device that set off the bomb" are getting a hard on over the fact a British Army soldier shot a civilian.

The same people who are quite happy to call it a war and defend the murder of innocent people, are now suddenly outraged by the death of an innocent man.

That's gas.

Manic Moran

FTA69 wrote: »

mad explanations as to how a jimpy could be dropped etc and kill someone 300 metres away with a richochet, when even the cops of all people wouldn't try and say that and keep a straight face.

Explain to me what's mad about the concept. NDs happen, even with a MAG/240/GMPG. They are usually caused by stupidity or negligence on the part of the operator, but they happen. Once bullets start going downrange, it's generally not safe to be anywhere within line of sight of the thing. (After checking the manual, the surface danger zone is 4,100m). Now, you can nail the Guardsman for being an idiot and negligent all you want and you won't hear a wit of complaint from me. That's a different issue to a deliberate killing.

(And I'm not surprised the cops wouldn't try it, PSNI probably has pretty limited experience with being on the user end of belt-fed weapons)

NTM

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, lets cut to the chase. I'll tell you what's gas. the same people who regularly defend the actions of the IRA, the same people who will tell you that "They tried to phone through a warning" or "It was an Army device that set off the bomb" are getting a hard on over the fact a British Army soldier shot a civilian.

The same people who are quite happy to call it a war and defend the murder of innocent people, are now suddenly outraged by the death of an innocent man.

That's gas.

Who are these people?

The relatives of Aidan McAnespie along with the SDLP want justice, does that make them terrorists too? :mad:

MikeC101

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, lets cut to the chase. I'll tell you what's gas. the same people who regularly defend the actions of the IRA, the same people who will tell you that "They tried to phone through a warning" or "It was an Army device that set off the bomb" are getting a hard on over the fact a British Army soldier shot a civilian.

The same people who are quite happy to call it a war and defend the murder of innocent people, are now suddenly outraged by the death of an innocent man.

That's gas.

Just to point out, and you can check my posting history if you like, I do not, and never have supported the IRA or Sinn Fein, or defended any of their actions.

Much as people on both sides would like to turn this event into a convenient political football, for me it's very clear - an innocent man was killed by the security forces of the state, through negligence or incompetence at the least, and outright murder at the worst. Regardless of which - someone should have been punished.

Fratton Fred

MikeC101 wrote: »

Much as people on both sides would like to turn this event into a convenient political football, for me it's very clear - an innocent man was killed by the security forces of the state, through negligence or incompetence at the least, and outright murder at the worst. Regardless of which - someone should have been punished.

very true. I would not dispute that foir a minute.

My reference was to the football match, not the killing.

Manic Moran

If I recall correctly, he was fined and discharged. A little light, but not unusually so. The tank commander of the tank whose loader's head ended up on one of my tanks got six months and busted to Private for failing to clear his machinegun, a conscious error. The legal maximum imprisonment in the US military for negligent homicide is 36 months, and that requires some pretty egregious safety violations. (Such as one incident where a soldier deliberately aimed at another soldier's head and pulled the trigger to prove the weapon was clear. That got him the full three years)
In the absence of any legal evidence to the prove something greater than 'accident' such as 'lost grip', it would be difficult to expect more than a short imprisonment at most.

Since I had a little free time at work this evening, I had a look up the manual for ricochet dangers from a 7.62mm MG. Off concrete, the closest thing in the manual to tarmac, the Ricochet Danger Zone (i.e. if someone enters it, all shooting stops due to the danger of his getting hit by ricochets) is as follows. (The manual notes that these are minimum safety requirements, with all safety precautions in place and trained crews)

Take the gun-target line. Add 5 degrees dispersion to each side. Add a further 20 degrees to each side for the ricochet danger. The RDZ (from the dispersion area) is 861m wide, and 4,053m long. Again, please note that anyone entering this box is considered sufficiently at risk from ricochets that we have to stop shooting. Yet some would say that a ricochet at 300m is 'amazingly unlikely.' (Despite the example of the video I posted earlier as a case in point of chance). If it's that amazingly unlikely, why should I worry about someone 4km away from me when I'm running a shooting range?

If you want to look up the figures yourself, Dept of the Army Pamphlet 385-63 is publicly available on a number of sites.

NTM