[News] Former Army man to be prosecuted!

[AmexRuislip]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887


A soldier is to be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence over the 1988 killing of a Catholic man at an Army checkpoint.
Aidan McAnespie, 23, was hit by one of three bullets fired from a machine gun in Aughnacloy, County Tyrone. He was on his way to a Gaelic football match.
The soldier who fired the shots was initially charged with manslaughter, but the charge was dropped in 1990.

Absolutely ridiculous decision, after all this time, especially as they were out there to do a job.
How about prosecuting all the terrorists, who accidentally let off bombs in NI

 

[studio150]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887


A soldier is to be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence over the 1988 killing of a Catholic man at an Army checkpoint.
Aidan McAnespie, 23, was hit by one of three bullets fired from a machine gun in Aughnacloy, County Tyrone. He was on his way to a Gaelic football match.
The soldier who fired the shots was initially charged with manslaughter, but the charge was dropped in 1990.

Absolutely ridiculous decision, after all this time, especially as they were out there to do a job.
How about prosecuting all the terrorists, who accidentally let off bombs in NI

Agree, particularly given that the Army dealt with the incident at the time, and the soldier was fined and then discharged. Also the soldier (if I have read the report correctly) was 18 at the time, what will be achieved 30 years on.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Agree, particularly given that the Army dealt with the incident at the time, and the soldier was fined and then discharged. Also the soldier (if I have read the report correctly) was 18 at the time, what will be achieved 30 years on.

Yes - he'd have been just 18 (it was 1988 and the report states he is 48 now). 'The army dealt with it at the time' is not enough for some - perhaps understandably? If they didn't trust the British forces actions, they were hardly going to accept an internal investigation into them.

People are really quick to pass judgement on cases like this - I wouldn't have a clue what to think. From the report, the soldier accidentally fired three shots from his machine gun ('because his fingers were wet'), and one of those shots ricocheted into the victim?

How easy is it to accidentally fire this gun? I guess that's important.
The ricochet element presumably explains why the charge is manslaughter rather than murder - that his actions or negligence resulted in the man's death, but not deliberately so.

Sad story for all concerned.

 

[Two Professors]

Let's hope he gets a fair hearing,as feelings still run very high over there!

 

[Albion my Albion]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887


A soldier is to be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence over the 1988 killing of a Catholic man at an Army checkpoint.
Aidan McAnespie, 23, was hit by one of three bullets fired from a machine gun in Aughnacloy, County Tyrone. He was on his way to a Gaelic football match.
The soldier who fired the shots was initially charged with manslaughter, but the charge was dropped in 1990.

Absolutely ridiculous decision, after all this time, especially as they were out there to do a job.
How about prosecuting all the terrorists, who accidentally let off bombs in NI

Where does the man's religion play into this?

If he had been a Scientologist who gave most of his money to a "church" in California and been shot and killed would there have been any outrage at all? His religion actually played no part in the killing except he was suspected of terrorism for being from a certain religious sect.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44532887


A soldier is to be charged with manslaughter by gross negligence over the 1988 killing of a Catholic man at an Army checkpoint.
Aidan McAnespie, 23, was hit by one of three bullets fired from a machine gun in Aughnacloy, County Tyrone. He was on his way to a Gaelic football match.
The soldier who fired the shots was initially charged with manslaughter, but the charge was dropped in 1990.

Absolutely ridiculous decision, after all this time, especially as they were out there to do a job.
How about prosecuting all the terrorists, who accidentally let off bombs in NI

Absurd. Agree.

 

[Beach Hut]

Why can't he be given immunity like all the other terrorists were who deliberately murdered people ?

 

[alfredmizen]

Why can't he be given immunity like all the other terrorists were who deliberately murdered people ?

This , all that needs to be said

 

[alfredmizen]

Yes - he'd have been just 18 (it was 1988 and the report states he is 48 now). 'The army dealt with it at the time' is not enough for some - perhaps understandably? If they didn't trust the British forces actions, they were hardly going to accept an internal investigation into them.

People are really quick to pass judgement on cases like this - I wouldn't have a clue what to think. From the report, the soldier accidentally fired three shots from his machine gun ('because his fingers were wet'), and one of those shots ricocheted into the victim?

How easy is it to accidentally fire this gun? I guess that's important.
The ricochet element presumably explains why the charge is manslaughter rather than murder - that his actions or negligence resulted in the man's death, but not deliberately so.

Sad story for all concerned.

Do you not think he should have immunity like the terrorists ?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Do you not think he should have immunity like the terrorists ?

Both sides should have had immunity as part of the peace agreement.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Do you not think he should have immunity like the terrorists ?

Honestly, I don't know. If it were a genuine accident, then it is just more hurt on top of existing hurt, to drag him through this now.

If he was at fault (and there would I'm sure be plenty of mitigation - he was a scared kid himself in all probability) then it is not right to deny the victims family a proper investigation.

In general I don't agree with blanket immunity on either side (but accept it for what it is, for the greater benefit of lasting peace).

Sorry - I know that is a crap non-answer. I don't know enough about it to make any bold statements.

 

[alfredmizen]

Honestly, I don't know. If it were a genuine accident, then it is just more hurt on top of existing hurt, to drag him through this now.

If he was at fault (and there would I'm sure be plenty of mitigation - he was a scared kid himself in all probability) then it is not right to deny the victims family a proper investigation.

In general I don't agree with blanket immunity on either side (but accept it for what it is, for the greater benefit of lasting peace).

Sorry - I know that is a crap non-answer. I don't know enough about it to make any bold statements.

yes mate , a crap non answer

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Do you not think he should have immunity like the terrorists ?

Immunity for both sides or not at all. Pisses me off that squadies are apparently fair game but terrorist from both side of the divide are not! Mind you we shouldn’t be surprised. Governments have been treating the armed Forces like sh*t all the way back to Oliver Cromwell’s time.
Mind you, a negligent discharge because of cold hands is really poor. What do you reckon he as carrying? As far as I’m aware in those days the only automatic weapons would have been SMG or GPMG?

 

[Seagull85]

Immunity for both sides or not at all. Pisses me off that squadies are apparently fair game but terrorist from both side of the divide are not! Mind you we shouldn’t be surprised. Governments have been treating the armed Forces like sh*t all the way back to Oliver Cromwell’s time.
Mind you, a negligent discharge because of cold hands is really poor. What do you reckon he as carrying? As far as I’m aware in those days the only automatic weapons would have been SMG or GPMG?

I believe the SLR had a fully automatic option? You're right though to ND because of cold hands is poor, not sure what good bringing this up again will do to anybody.

 

[oneillco]

Agree, particularly given that the Army dealt with the incident at the time, and the soldier was fined and then discharged. Also the soldier (if I have read the report correctly) was 18 at the time, what will be achieved 30 years on.

Just a quick Google search revealed this:

"In October 2008, the Police Service of Northern Ireland investigation concluded that Jonathan Holden's gun (GPMG) required 9 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger, and that the soldier's account of the events was highly unlikely. It described the chances of this occurring, combined with hitting McAnespie by accident from 300m, as "so remote as to be virtually disregarded".

Apparently McAnespie had been regularly harassed by soldiers as he crossed the border to get to get to and from work because as a Catholic he was perceived to be a Republican (there is no assertion that he was involved in any terrorist group).

 

[alfredmizen]

Immunity for both sides or not at all. Pisses me off that squadies are apparently fair game but terrorist from both side of the divide are not! Mind you we shouldn’t be surprised. Governments have been treating the armed Forces like sh*t all the way back to Oliver Cromwell’s time.
Mind you, a negligent discharge because of cold hands is really poor. What do you reckon he as carrying? As far as I’m aware in those days the only automatic weapons would have been SMG or GPMG?

it was a gpmg and he wasnt even carrying it , he was in a sangar , i reckon he was pissing about bored (as you do ) and either he or the bloke on stag before him had cocked it.

 

[alfredmizen]

I believe the SLR had a fully automatic option? You're right though to ND because of cold hands is poor, not sure what good bringing this up again will do to anybody.

The SLR had no fully automatic option , youre thinking of the FN

 

[alfredmizen]

Just a quick Google search revealed this:

"In October 2008, the Police Service of Northern Ireland investigation concluded that Jonathan Holden's gun (GPMG) required 9 lbs of pressure to pull the trigger, and that the soldier's account of the events was highly unlikely. It described the chances of this occurring, combined with hitting McAnespie by accident from 300m, as "so remote as to be virtually disregarded".

Apparently McAnespie had been regularly harassed by soldiers as he crossed the border to get to get to and from work because as a Catholic he was perceived to be a Republican (there is no assertion that he was involved in any terrorist group).

he was harassed because he mouthed off and gave squaddies shit every time he went through the check point , he was an election worker for sinn fein , he was thougt to be a 'dicker' for pira , the republicans have a very good propaganda machine at painting people as "innocents" when theyre anything but , and people like.you believe it as you devour your latest.an phoblact

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

it was a gpmg and he wasnt even carrying it , he was in a sangar , i reckon he was pissing about bored (as you do ) and either he or the bloke on stag before him had cocked it.

It is very easy to be critical after the fact but sighting a weapon on civvy who was 300m away isn’t very bright regardless of whether the weapon is cocked. However If it was deliberate it would have been a much bigger burst than three rounds would it not.

 

[alfredmizen]

It is very easy to be critical after the fact but sighting a weapon on civvy who was 300m away isn’t very bright regardless of whether the weapon is cocked. However If it was deliberate it would have been a much bigger burst than three rounds would it not.

might not , if you tap the trigger lightly on a gpmg you can actually get off a single shot