My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

to think the Daily Mail couldn't have got this more wrong?

135 replies

bitemyshinymetalass · 30/07/2016 09:42

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3715451/A-bloody-outrage-decorated-Para-facing-prosecution-44-years-shooting-dead-IRA-killer-blood-soaked-men-terror-know-ll-never-face-justice-thanks-Blair-s-squalid-peace-deal.html

A british soldier shot an unarmed man in the back 44 years ago, is now outraged that he may be prosecuted. The only outrage is that he wasn't prosecuted at the time.
Was the man responsible for other crimes, including killings? Probably. But that was for a judge and jury to decide, not for soldiers to take him out on the street.
Aibu?

OP posts:
Report
acasualobserver · 30/07/2016 09:58

Meh.

Report
bitemyshinymetalass · 30/07/2016 10:39

Insightful.

OP posts:
Report
Ekini · 30/07/2016 10:41

I agree with you

Report
ConfuciousSaysWhat · 30/07/2016 10:53

I don't agree with soldiers being prosecuted for doing their job

Report
ilovetoloveyoubaby · 30/07/2016 11:01

confucious

You agree that a soldier can shoot an unarmed civilian?

My god, you're charming.

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:10

I'm not convinced this is a case of a soldier 'doing his job'. I thought the aim was generally peace-keeping, not killing unarmed civilians?

Report
StarryIllusion · 30/07/2016 11:18

He wasn't a civilian, though was he? He was an IRA terrorist and didn't surrender. I agree with confucious, man was doing his job.

Report
Emmaroos · 30/07/2016 11:20

The DM don't believe soldiers in British uniforms are ever incapable of doing anything wrong, and they generally believe that only 'foreigners' should have to account for their actions.
If he's charged, a judge and jury will decide whether or not his actions were reasonable or not. What's tough on him is that there was a constant army brutality against the Catholic population at the time, so shooting an IRA suspect in cold blood was probably considered quite normal as a Para. Bloody Sunday was around the same time and there was no suggestion that the 14 people murdered there were IRA or were in any way armed or dangerous, but they were gunned down by soldiers anyway.
It's tough when a bit of time and distance shines a light on an action that doesn't seem so acceptable today, but it's equally tough on families who still grieve loved ones and they deserve to know that their husband/brother/son has had full justice. YANBU.

Report
HarpyFishwifeTwat · 30/07/2016 11:23

I have little sympathy for the death of an IRA terrorist (or any other terrorist). And what is it with the "peace process" that means murderers are being released all over the place but British soldiers are still being investigated? Either draw a line on all sides or continue to investigate and prosecute on all sides.

Report
acasualobserver · 30/07/2016 11:23

And the IRA was/is comprised of evil, murdering cunts. Anyway, this isn't the best time to be asking for sympathy for terrorists.

Report
GruffaloPants · 30/07/2016 11:26

You are right. Summary executions aren't "doing his job".

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:28

I doubt he'll be prosecuted anyway. Not while the biggest terrorist of all time is walking free and enjoying the vast sums of cash he's made from making 'after-dinner speeches'.

Report
Becky546 · 30/07/2016 11:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LadyMaryofDownt0n · 30/07/2016 11:33

One less IRA terrorist.. petty he didn't shoot more of them.

Report
HoneyDragon · 30/07/2016 11:36

It can be worded to suit like your op

Solider shoots man

Man shoots man

Solider shoots terrorist

Man shoots terrorist

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:37

Because soldiers never kill unarmed civilians..... Read some descriptions of Kristallnacht during WW2 - was that 'doing their job' or an act of terrorism?

Report
Samcro · 30/07/2016 11:38

crazy
the man the blew up the grand hotel. killing innocent people and causing life changing injuries is let free....
yet a soldier could be prosecuted.
one rule for terrorist and one for soldiers it seems.

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:40

But how does 'an eye for an eye' make it 'right'?

Report
blinkowl · 30/07/2016 11:45

YANBU. I see no one here who thinks this guy was "just doing his job" has addressed the point on Bloody Sunday.

If we allow the army to go round being judge, jury and executioner and gunning down unarmed civilians on the streets then innocent people will be shot dead.

It doesn't matter if the victim was guilty as hell. It's the principle - this was on the streets in the UK.

And how do we know innocent people will get shot too? Well beside the very real risk of mistaken identity, and of the falsely accused being shot (e.g. the Guildford Four - what would this gunman have done with them?) there's also the culture it built which led to soldiers taking it upon themselves to gun down innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.

Please think about this, if you're saying it's OK for them too shoot a known IRA member then you're also saying you condone innocent people to be shot down on UK streets, because that's this kind of murderous action has been proven to lead to.

Report
Brandonstarkflakes · 30/07/2016 11:46

The DM don't believe soldiers in British uniforms are ever incapable of doing anything wrong, and they generally believe that only 'foreigners' should have to account for their actions.

This.

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:48

blink Exactly.

Report
Emmaroos · 30/07/2016 11:49

@Samco: Because terrorists are murderous bastards doesn't give the military the right to shoot people in the back willy nilly. Soldiers are supposed to follow set rules of engagement. They know what they are. If they don't, no matter who the enemy is, there have to be consequences. It could one day be your child on a protest march who gets shot by a soldier who doesn't like her politics.
I'm not naive. I get that there are people in the SAS and SBS who do all sorts of unsavoury things (including executing IRA and other terrorists), but they are at least properly trained and even they act under clear instructions within defined parameters. Random soldiers with guns but a lot less training HAVE to know that there are consequences for not following protocols when they shoot people.
This isn't a discussion about whether the man was in the right or the wrong. but whether he should have to defend his actions in court if they were questionable. I think that's reasonable. If his actions were reasonable he'll be publicly acquitted.

Report
misspym · 30/07/2016 11:52

Civil rights - heard of them?

Report
LoreleiGilmoreIsMyBFF · 30/07/2016 11:54

Emma Yes. Regardless of if you are wearing uniform; if you take someone's life, you should be prepared to, at the very least, explain your actions in a court of law.

Report
ExtraHotLatteToGo · 30/07/2016 12:00

For the love of all things holy.

Read. Use your brain. Understand the time this happened.

Then support the people that kept your families safe at that time.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.