Bloody Sunday: Soldier F faces murder charges

[Shadz69]

#irishlivesmatter

 

[Ban-jani]

Depends what you class as unarmed

The same as what the police do.

 

[kinkyblue]

The same as what the police do.

Then a lot of the crowd were armed

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Dya know whats great craic?

Being the son of a member of the British army in Belfast and repeatedly having loaded guns pointed at you by laughing british army soldiers as you walk to PRIMARY SCHOOL.

:-|

Do you know what isn't such a great craic?
Hearing from your daughter, who, at 12 years old, was laughing and giggling with her mates next to the bin
at McDonald's in Warrington, 15 minutes before it exploded, ending the lives of a young lad and a baby.

 

[Ban-jani]

Then a lot of the crowd were armed

Have you got any evidence for this as the mainstream opinion says they weren’t.

 

[The blue phantom]

Have you got any evidence for this as the mainstream opinion says they weren’t.

He obviously knows more than the Saville inquiry, and to think these soldiers are getting defended.


Why did the soldiers open fire?

• "None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey, but he was not a threat at the time). None was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. In no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire," the report said.

• Evidence from soldiers to the inquiry that they had fired after coming under attack was rejected. "We have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday."

• The credibility of the accounts given by the soldiers was "materially undermined" because all soldiers bar one who were responsible for the casualties "insisted that they had shot at gunmen or bombers, which they had not". Saville said: "Many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing".

The role of the state

• Saville rejected the contention that the state had authorised the troops to use "unwarranted lethal force" or sanctioned them "with reckless disregard as to whether such force was used".

 

[kinkyblue]

Have you got any evidence for this as the mainstream opinion says they weren’t.

Have you ever been on the end of a mob throwing bricks, bottles and petrol bombs? Believe me you feel your life is in danger, that is being armed and then you hear shots. What would you have done?
I have been in this situation and it’s such a fine line between panic and opening fire or standing firm and taking all that crap.
We had a lot more training than the lads involved, they weren’t prepared for what happened and were the wrong troops to be sent to the province at the time. It’s the commanders that sent them there that should be prosecuted.
Move forward a few years and think of David Howes and Derek woods, they were armed but didn’t open fire on the crowd! An unarmed crowd and look what happened, the IRA excuse for the execution! We though we were being attacked again like the mill town cemetery attack! Funny how they think that was ok!

 

[The blue phantom]

Have you ever been on the end of a mob throwing bricks, bottles and petrol bombs? Believe me you feel your life is in danger, that is being armed and then you hear shots. What would you have done?

But none of that took place, you need to read up on exactly what happened that day instead of making things up.

You're trying to defend the undefenable.

 

[Ban-jani]

Have you ever been on the end of a mob throwing bricks, bottles and petrol bombs? Believe me you feel your life is in danger, that is being armed and then you hear shots. What would you have done?
I have been in this situation and it’s such a fine line between panic and opening fire or standing firm and taking all that crap.
We had a lot more training than the lads involved, they weren’t prepared for what happened and were the wrong troops to be sent to the province at the time. It’s the commanders that sent them there that should be prosecuted.
Move forward a few years and think of David Howes and Derek woods, they were armed but didn’t open fire on the crowd! An unarmed crowd and look what happened, the IRA excuse for the execution! We though we were being attacked again like the mill town cemetery attack! Funny how they think that was ok!

You’re giving a hypothetical situation as evidence for something that actually happened.

 

[kinkyblue]

But none of that took place, you need to read up on exactly what happened that day instead of making things up.

You're trying to defend the undefenable.

Plenty of film footage shows otherwise

 

[The blue phantom]

Plenty of film footage shows otherwise

Well you need to get the enquiry reopened then if you have some new evidence on these 13 people which were murdered.

 

[Ban-jani]

Well you need to get the enquiry reopened then if you have some new evidence on these 13 people which were murdered.

It’s astonishing how the “us and them” feeling runs so deep.

People cannot be objective due to their politics.

 

[AlexWilliamsGloves]

Do you know what isn't such a great craic?
Hearing from your daughter, who, at 12 years old, was laughing and giggling with her mates next to the bin
at McDonald's in Warrington, 15 minutes before it exploded, ending the lives of a young lad and a baby.

Dya know what isnt great craic?

Having to console 2 friends whose dad was blown up in a car bomb about half a mile from our houses by the IRA, because he was Catholic ex-RUC officer.

What else ya got?...ive a few more if ya want?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

If the soldier is getting investigated then they should reopen cases on a number of people linked to murders who were part of the IRA

 

[kinkyblue]

It’s astonishing how the “us and them” feeling runs so deep.

People cannot be objective due to their politics.

Nothing to do with it, having served in the province both overt and covert I always believe we needed to be whiter than white and do things properly, lessons were learned from Bloody Sunday, training techniques were changed dramatically. If nothing else it was a great recruiting tool for the IRA. It’s not about them and us it’s about letting the past be, terrorists on both sides committed shocking atrocities that us veterans have had to learn to let go under the terms of the GFA, this we did but now this is all being dragged up again, there will be no winners.

 

[Ban-jani]

Nothing to do with it, having served in the province both overt and covert I always believe we needed to be whiter than white and do things properly, lessons were learned from Bloody Sunday, training techniques were changed dramatically. If nothing else it was a great recruiting tool for the IRA. It’s not about them and us it’s about letting the past be, terrorists on both sides committed shocking atrocities that us veterans have had to learn to let go under the terms of the GFA, this we did but now this is all being dragged up again, there will be no winners.

Good post but I still disagree about the soldier firing at the civilians.

 

[kinkyblue]

Good post but I still disagree about the soldier firing at the civilians.

I agree he should never have fired at them.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Think I’ve just been called out as a lazy fuck. Fair point I guess :)

Not directed at you Bob.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Nothing to do with it, having served in the province both overt and covert I always believe we needed to be whiter than white and do things properly, lessons were learned from Bloody Sunday, training techniques were changed dramatically. If nothing else it was a great recruiting tool for the IRA. It’s not about them and us it’s about letting the past be, terrorists on both sides committed shocking atrocities that us veterans have had to learn to let go under the terms of the GFA, this we did but now this is all being dragged up again, there will be no winners.

I actually understand that argument and whether this particular soldier should take the fall (as you see it) or not is very much dependent on the evidence that has been collected.
I, like Bob has said numerous times, will reserve personal judgement until the facts are known.

However I see one fundamental difference between the arguments being put forward for the relatives of Bloody Sunday and other tragedies.
I feel The Crown is on trial. And the reason is that unlike other events where innocent civilians have been murdered or soldiers or defence forces have been attacked and killed in the line of doing their duty. Nobody calls their innocence in to question.
The civil rights marchers that were mown down that day have been seen as anything from an angry mob baying for blood to gun and bomb carrying IRA members.
Their relatives firstly fought to clear their names and then to seek justice by bringing the crown to court.

Every life lost is a tragedy but having the names of your dead relatives dragged through the mud cannot help the healing.
Even in this thread, the evidence of 12 years of a tribunal is being trampled on by some, still tarnishing the names of those that fell that day on nothing more than their own anecdotal experience.

Look closer to home and the Hillsborough trial and what the families had to do to get to the truth.
I see more sympathy and compassion in here for the Scousers than I do for NI citizens.

 

[AlexWilliamsGloves]

Different case...

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/...bcm6J_GGYJ6wgeeVs20P_YfkPKChNGr6khc1_9kyS6rDE

"A soldier is to be prosecuted for the murder of a teenager shot dead during the Troubles.

The Public Prosecution Service said the man, identified only as Soldier B, will be prosecuted over the 1972 death of Daniel Hegarty.

He will also be pursued over a charge of wounding with intent in respect of a second youth.

Daniel, 15, was shot and killed by a member of an Army patrol on duty in the Creggan area of Derry on July 31, 1972, during what was known as ‘Operation Motorman’.

He died after being shot twice in the head by Soldier B. His cousin Christopher Hegarty, then aged 17, was also shot and injured in the incident.

In 2016, the Public Prosecution Service said it had decided not to prosecute soldier B. However, in 2018 the High Court quashed that decision saying it was based on “irredeemably flawed” reasoning.


An inquest in 2011 found that Daniel Hegarty posed no risk when he was shot twice in the head close to his home in Creggan.

The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, Stephen Herron, met with members of the Hegarty family to inform them of the decision at a private meeting in Derry today.


Speaking afterwards, he said: “Following the ruling of the Divisional Court last year I conducted a review of this case.

“I have given careful consideration to all of the available evidence. This has included material obtained in the course of the initial investigation; by a later investigation carried out by the Historical Enquiries Team; material generated by Inquest proceedings and a number of expert forensic reports, the most recent of which was provided after the Court ruling in 2018.

“I have concluded that the evidence which can be presented at court is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the Evidential Test for Prosecution is met.

“As with all cases, I have also carefully considered whether the public interest requires prosecution through the courts. Particular consideration was given to Soldier B’s ill health, regarding which an updated medical report was obtained. In line with our Code for Prosecutors, I have concluded, given the seriousness of the charges, that the Public Interest Test for Prosecution is also met.


“I have therefore taken the decision to prosecute an individual identified as Soldier B for the offence of murder in relation to the death of Daniel Hegarty and for the wounding of Christopher Hegarty.

“This decision has been reached following an objective and impartial application of the Test for Prosecution which was conducted in accordance with the Code for Prosecutors and with the benefit of advice from Senior Counsel.”