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

[bitemyshinymetalass]

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?

Travellinglighter thank you for your post. If all our service personnel were like you then the world would be a better place

I'm sorry but I can't shed any tears for the death of an IRA member. It's a shame more weren't taken out - the fewer polluting this planet the better

And does that go for the unarmed teenagers as well?

And its "suspected IRA member". It's for a judge and jury to determine guilt, not for soldiers to dispense their own justice.

I wonder if you'd think the same if a British solider shot dead a member of ISIS

I wonder if you'd think the same if your unarmed teenager was shot in the face on a UK street because a soldier decided they might be a member of ISIS?

Remember that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter

Exactly. I presume all of you pleased at the IRA suspect being shot by a soldier would also have been delighted to see Nelson Mandela executed without trial? He was a "terrorist" too, and a killer, responsible for many many deaths.

Bet thats different somehow, isn't it?

"I'm not going to get worked up over one less IRA terrorist."

It's not just about this one person, it's about what we allow to happen on our streets, can't you see that?

We cannot allow soldiers to be judge, jury and executioner. Not unless you are comfortable with innocent people being gunned down in the street. Are you?

And does that go for the unarmed teenagers as well?

Soldiers acting outwith their rules of engagement is wrong whomever is shot.
It hasn't been judged yet whether or not this was the case on this occassion.
However, Joe McCann wasn't an unarmed teenager.

I wonder if you'd think the same if your unarmed teenager was shot in the face on a UK street because a soldier decided they might be a member of ISIS?

Again you are conflating different things.
The soldier didn't 'decide he might be' anything - he was ordered by the police to get involved in an ongoing situation.
Joe McCann wasn't a teenager.
Joe McCann was known to be an active member of the IRA & a murderer.

Nothing was proven in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of British justice. Unless, apparently, you're on the streets of Belfast, in which case a soldier can shoot you dead without a trial?

I'm not conflating anything at all. Soldiers shot McCann, soldiers shot unarmed teenagers, soldiers shot other people. Soldiers murdered civilians, and got away with it.

It hasn't been judged yet whether or not this was the case on this occassion. However, Joe McCann wasn't an unarmed teenager

He was an unarmed man, and he was shot dead in the street. There is no other way to judge it.

It's depressing to think that people think that this killing was justified.

It doesn't matter who or what the man was, it was not the job of that soldier to end his life. He took it upon himself to kill him and should be held accountable. If the court decides he's innocent, that the killing was justified then he'll be exonerated. The IRA man was denied the right to have his trial.

Unless, apparently, you're on the streets of Belfast, in which case a soldier can shoot you dead without a trial?

No, they can't.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread there are rules of engagement that an armed service person has to abide by, by law.

The IRA themselves claimed that their actions against Britain were "a war".

I haven't read the details - I don't know what the situation was, but I do think that any soldier doing his/her job, in a war situation, ought not to be prosecuted.

As for the IRA man - you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

The IRA themselves claimed that their actions against Britain were "a war"

And the British governement always said it wasn't. Can't call it that when it suits you, and not when it doesn't.

I don't know what the situation was, but I do think that any soldier doing his/her job, in a war situation, ought not to be prosecuted

Shooting unarmed people is not a soldiers job. And it wasnt a war situation.

As for the IRA man - you live by the sword, you die by the sword

Guns . And again, thats not how justice is supposed to work.

For people defending this case, do you think the soldiers who shot unarmed teenagers on Bloody Sunday were also "only doing their job" and should be respected for it? Straight answer please, if you would?

I asked that question too, Walter, funny enough no-one could answer. It seems some terrorists should be murdered, and some should be sainted and given the nobel peace prize.
If only someone with a strong opinion could tell us why?

They won't do, though.

I'm always infuriated but never surprised at the anti-Irish sentiment on here.

Let's get rid of the no trial guarantee and prosecute the person who killed the soldiers and horses in the Hyde Park bombing too, then.

Let's get rid of the no trial guarantee and prosecute the person who killed the soldiers and horses in the Hyde Park bombing too, then

Not the same thing. The British government gave that away as a bargaining chip, to suit themselves.

No opinions on Mandela, or Bloody Sunday? Shocking.

OP YANBU. Thankfully things have moved on from them and actually other than to remind ourselves just how awful it was it is better as much as possible keeping it in the past.

However that said soldiers need to be held to a higher standard. When a friend of mine was serving in Afganistan well over a decade back he was abjectly horrified by the stunts at that time US soldiers were pulling. He was military through and through (not UK) but he nearly left after what he had witnessed the Americans soldiers getting away with. The same talk of attrocious behaviour was detailed from a female officer who spoke about her time serving in overseas peace keeping missions about huge numbers of the military personnel she worked with (Irish) using prostitutes in dirt poor countries and how there was a blind eye being turned from every direction.

If you don't hold soldiers to a high standards then don't expect them to behave to high standards because they don't no matter who they are fighting to defend.

How can you make a comparison between the man this soldier killed, and innocent young people on Bloody Sunday, or Nelson Mandela for that matter? That's disgusting in my view. No one was in doubt about who this man was or what he had done.

How can you make a comparison between the man this soldier killed, and innocent young people on Bloody Sunday, or Nelson Mandela for that matter? That's disgusting in my view. No one was in doubt about who this man was or what he had done

How can you NOT compare it Nelson Mandela? He killed a lot more people than this man, you do realise that?

And even if he was the worst person in the world, he shouldn't be killed in the street by a soldier. Thats now how its supposed to work.

Do you know anything about Nelson Mandela??

Some of the British soldiers in the north were the lowest forms of humanity I've ever heard of and each of their deaths was a triumph over their particular brand of evil.

The irony of that sentiment compared with the notion that Joe McCann was undeserving of his fate would be funny if the whole situation, including all lives lost wasn't so tragic & sad.

But you don't think ALL lives lost was tragic and sad at all, as you've said. You think SOME of the lives lost was tragic and sad, and you think other people should be summarily executed in the street.
It's not irony, its you being a hypocrite who doesn't understand the situation.

The fewer IRA terrorists polluting the planet the better. We've drawn a line under this war how far would you like reopening it to go?. I save my sympathy for the victims of his crimes, the soldier had every reason to believe he was a danger it's easy to use hindsight and call him an unarmed civilian shame on you.

It wasn't a war.

If it was ok to shoot this guy, then it would have been a good idea for someone to kill Mandela then, rather than give him the peace prize?

I haven't read the details - I don't know what the situation was, but I do think that any soldier doing his/her job, in a war situation, ought not to be prosecuted.

I think the question being asked is did he do his job? Even in wars / conflicts/riots/civil unrest professionals have rules to follow.

Atrocities happen, war crimes happen the only way to stop that is for soldiers not to get away with things.

If there is enough evidence for this to go to trial then it should.

All circumstances of the case should also be taken in to account. The man who was shot wasn't armed but did the RUC and soldiers think he was? Was that a reasonable belief?

What training had the soldier been given? What orders was he given at the time?

whatever he had done (and remember the only thing he was convicted of was possession of a bayonet at age 17), McCann was unarmed and running away from soldiers, when they chased him down and shot him ten times at close range.
Is that a soldiers job?