Protests Erupt In Syria Over Christmas...
News2 mins ago
Shouldn't Our Brave Troops Have Been Granted An Amnesty From Prosecution, Just As The Terrorist Were?
20 Answers
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a very thorny issue.
The greater part of me believes that the soldiers should not face prosecution. I deeply believe that there *must* be a reciprocal arrangement where if 'our' easily identifiable soldiers are to face the law, then the less easily identifiable 'volunteers' on the other side should be similarly held to account.
I have trouble squaring it all with the fact that innocent civilians were killed and wounded on that day.....and that doesn't match the high esteem in which I hold 'our' soldiers.
The greater part of me believes that the soldiers should not face prosecution. I deeply believe that there *must* be a reciprocal arrangement where if 'our' easily identifiable soldiers are to face the law, then the less easily identifiable 'volunteers' on the other side should be similarly held to account.
I have trouble squaring it all with the fact that innocent civilians were killed and wounded on that day.....and that doesn't match the high esteem in which I hold 'our' soldiers.
I believe jack has a point.
The discipline and standards expected and demanded of our armed forces means that it would not be appropriate that they escape the force of the law they are employed to defend.
But as jack has said, the fact that they arfe identifiable, and therefore able to be brought to book, has to be balanced against the fact that the 'other side' in the conflict have not faced legal sanction for their part - and every conflict takes two sides.
My hope is that the government will see that no useful purpose is going to be served by legal action against this gentleman, and others, and that in the interest of maintaining the peace that was so hard-won, this should be left alone.
The discipline and standards expected and demanded of our armed forces means that it would not be appropriate that they escape the force of the law they are employed to defend.
But as jack has said, the fact that they arfe identifiable, and therefore able to be brought to book, has to be balanced against the fact that the 'other side' in the conflict have not faced legal sanction for their part - and every conflict takes two sides.
My hope is that the government will see that no useful purpose is going to be served by legal action against this gentleman, and others, and that in the interest of maintaining the peace that was so hard-won, this should be left alone.
AOG - // From what I can gather, the soldier allegedly fired his weapon which dislodged a piece of masonry which struck the victim on the head. //
If that is the case, then I wonder how the government could possibly be thinking of taking that to court as evidence of a deliberate attempt to harm another person, hostile or not.
That sort of scenario does not exist outside a Hollywood spy thriller!
If that is the case, then I wonder how the government could possibly be thinking of taking that to court as evidence of a deliberate attempt to harm another person, hostile or not.
That sort of scenario does not exist outside a Hollywood spy thriller!
jackthehat
/// I have trouble squaring it all with the fact that innocent civilians were killed and wounded on that day. ///
The problem being jack is the fact that in a riot situation such as it was, is the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between 'innocent' civilians and murderous terrorists.
/// I have trouble squaring it all with the fact that innocent civilians were killed and wounded on that day. ///
The problem being jack is the fact that in a riot situation such as it was, is the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between 'innocent' civilians and murderous terrorists.
AOG - // The problem being jack is the fact that in a riot situation such as it was, is the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between 'innocent' civilians and murderous terrorists. //
I would not wish to make light of what must have been an absolutely terrifying situation, but surely as a general rule, men with masks on, hurling petrol bombs and rocks, are the enemy, and the remainder must be given the benefit of the doubt - ?
I would not wish to make light of what must have been an absolutely terrifying situation, but surely as a general rule, men with masks on, hurling petrol bombs and rocks, are the enemy, and the remainder must be given the benefit of the doubt - ?
There have been two investigations already into the events of "Bloody Sunday". Surely a third is not necessary. And how can it possibly be determined that a bullet from this particular soldier's weapon struck a certain structure and caused a piece of that structure to fly off and hit a certain individual at that precise time in the mass confusion that must have been occurring that day?
andy-hughes
/// but surely as a general rule, men with masks on, hurling petrol bombs and rocks, are the enemy, and the remainder must be given the benefit of the doubt - ? ///
I don't think that all rioters wear masks, and when petrol bombs and rocks are being hurled at one, one has no time to select out the 'enemy'. If they don't want to take the risk of being hurt then the 'innocent' civilian, should keep away.
I had an Uncle who served in the Irish early 20s troubles, he and his fellow service man were walking in the street, when his pal decided to pop in a nearby 'innocent civilians' shop to buy a packet of cigarettes, he never came out alive.
/// but surely as a general rule, men with masks on, hurling petrol bombs and rocks, are the enemy, and the remainder must be given the benefit of the doubt - ? ///
I don't think that all rioters wear masks, and when petrol bombs and rocks are being hurled at one, one has no time to select out the 'enemy'. If they don't want to take the risk of being hurt then the 'innocent' civilian, should keep away.
I had an Uncle who served in the Irish early 20s troubles, he and his fellow service man were walking in the street, when his pal decided to pop in a nearby 'innocent civilians' shop to buy a packet of cigarettes, he never came out alive.
For the sake of peace this ought to be out to bed once and for all equitably, if we're not careful it'll all kick off again. No-one should have died but plenty did on both sides, the most important thing is that we don't revert to that scenario again by either side becoming disaffected enough to meaningfully consider it. They should be left in peace whatever wrong they have done, soon enough the people concerned will die of old age and hopefully then there's a permanent end to it, this is unnecessary.
"Sergeant O is accused of injuring two men who were wounded by flying debris.
One of the men he is accused of attempting to murder was Pius McCarron, then aged 30, who suffered a gash to the head caused by a piece of cladding that had fallen from a block of flats.
Mr McCarron, who developed a brain haemorrhage 18 months later, died in 2004.
His family insist he was a victim of the Bloody Sunday shootings. Sergeant O’s second alleged victim, Patrick McDaid, then aged 24, suffered a ‘glancing’ wound to his back, also caused by a piece of flying debris."
How can someone be charged with attempted murder when the victims were hit with flying debris from a building which had been hit with a bullet? Doesn't murder have to be premeditated? How can anybody premeditate that?
One of the men he is accused of attempting to murder was Pius McCarron, then aged 30, who suffered a gash to the head caused by a piece of cladding that had fallen from a block of flats.
Mr McCarron, who developed a brain haemorrhage 18 months later, died in 2004.
His family insist he was a victim of the Bloody Sunday shootings. Sergeant O’s second alleged victim, Patrick McDaid, then aged 24, suffered a ‘glancing’ wound to his back, also caused by a piece of flying debris."
How can someone be charged with attempted murder when the victims were hit with flying debris from a building which had been hit with a bullet? Doesn't murder have to be premeditated? How can anybody premeditate that?
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Editor's Blog8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.