Bloody Sunday Killings ''UNLAWFUL''

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
Soldier F would only have to prove that he reasonably believed that there were armed terrorists in his sight. The onus on the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In England there have been several cases where armed policemen wrongly but reasonably believed that their lives were under threat when they opened fire and were thus acquitted.

Are you saying killers should use case law in order to walk.....ie “your honor there was a killer in Hicksville who was bit in the arm by her attacker and he walked, same happened to me”😂😂😂😂


FFS Dave, go for a lie down or something 😂
 


Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
7,755
Soldier F would only have to prove that he reasonably believed that there were armed terrorists in his sight. The onus on the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In England there have been several cases where armed policemen wrongly but reasonably believed that their lives were under threat when they opened fire and were thus acquitted.
You are setting the bar remarkably low there.

His perjury and repeated lies will be very hard to wish away
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
Soldier F would only have to prove that he reasonably believed that there were armed terrorists in his sight. The onus on the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
You don't seem to know a lot about the case, or the circumstances of the murders of which he is accused. I'm not going to prejudice the trial by commenting further, but I know enough to be able to say that the above post is uninformed bullsh1t. The evidence at the actual trial will demonstrate why that is so.
Furthermore the hearing in September is only a preliminary, held before a District Judge. It hasn't yet been finally decided whether the case will be heard before a Diplock court or a jury, so a jury trial remains possible, though the Diplock process is more probable admittedly.
Not that it matters nowadays. The judiciary is a lot fairer nowadays than it was in the past. It isn't top heavy with Orange Order members nowadays. In fact I'd be surprised if the OO has any members of the judiciary in its ranks nowadays, with the possible exception of one or two Lay Magistrates.
It is always a bit stupid to make predictions when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,778
You don't seem to know a lot about the case, or the circumstances of the murders of which he is accused. I'm not going to prejudice the trial by commenting further, but I know enough to be able to say that the above post is uninformed bullsh1t. The evidence at the actual trial will demonstrate why that is so.
Furthermore the hearing in September is only a preliminary, held before a District Judge. It hasn't yet been finally decided whether the case will be heard before a Diplock court or a jury, so a jury trial remains possible, though the Diplock process is more probable admittedly.
Not that it matters nowadays. The judiciary is a lot fairer nowadays than it was in the past. It isn't top heavy with Orange Order members nowadays. In fact I'd be surprised if the OO has any members of the judiciary in its ranks nowadays, with the possible exception of one or two Lay Magistrates.
It is always a bit stupid to make predictions when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I don't think it was unfair to acquit security forces personnel who either shot terrorists dead or shot civilians who they mistook for terrorists or shot civilians by mistake when they were shooting at terrorists.

Testimony given at the Saville Tribunal can't be used as evidence. Therefore, Soldier F's defence is stronger than you may think.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
7,755
I don't think it was unfair to acquit security forces personnel who either shot terrorists dead or shot civilians who they mistook for terrorists or shot civilians by mistake when they were shooting at terrorists.

Testimony given at the Saville Tribunal can't be used as evidence. Therefore, Soldier F's defence is stronger than you may think.
So you are literally giving your army carte blanche to massacre civilians. Thankfully so agencies of British state are a bit more grown up.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
I don't think it was unfair to acquit security forces personnel who either shot terrorists dead or shot civilians who they mistook for terrorists or shot civilians by mistake when they were shooting at terrorists.

Testimony given at the Saville Tribunal can't be used as evidence. Therefore, Soldier F's defence is stronger than you may think.
You don't know what you are talking about. The murders that Soldier F is accused of were killings of unarmed people at point blank range in the small courtyard of Glenfada Park. One of those victims was shot in the back.
Unlike you, I'd guess, I lived in Derry in that era and knew numerous people who witnessed the event, or the aftermath, including a doctor involved in the autopsies.
Bloody Sunday was an exercise in mass murder. Unarmed people were shot at random. Of that I am 100% certain.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,778
You don't seem to know a lot about the case, or the circumstances of the murders of which he is accused. I'm not going to prejudice the trial by commenting further, but I know enough to be able to say that the above post is uninformed bullsh1t. The evidence at the actual trial will demonstrate why that is so.
Furthermore the hearing in September is only a preliminary, held before a District Judge. It hasn't yet been finally decided whether the case will be heard before a Diplock court or a jury, so a jury trial remains possible, though the Diplock process is more probable admittedly.
Not that it matters nowadays. The judiciary is a lot fairer nowadays than it was in the past. It isn't top heavy with Orange Order members nowadays. In fact I'd be surprised if the OO has any members of the judiciary in its ranks nowadays, with the possible exception of one or two Lay Magistrates.
It is always a bit stupid to make predictions when you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
Judges from Unionist backgrounds still convicted Loyalists as well as Republicans during the Troubles.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
This article by Spectator editor, Douglas Murray, gives an insight into how the case against Soldier F will likely be pursued.
The article is all the more remarkable considering that Murray sits on the far right on a number of issues in terms of British politics.
But because, having watched all of the Bloody Sunday shooters testify, I can say with certainty that they include not only unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars.
As one soldier after another appeared before Lord Saville, it became clear that the soldiers of 1 Para were intent on spurning this last effort to get to the truth of what happened that day. Almost without exception they stonewalled, sticking to the testimony they had given in 1972, repeating claims that had been repeatedly disproven and, when in difficulty, pleading forgetfulness. Not a plausible forgetfulness, but a highly selective, implausible type. Their evidence was evasive, frustrating and self-damning.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.
In 1972 Dave — F — committed perjury in front of Lord Chief Justice Widgery. He perjured himself again before Lord Saville in 2003.
Barney McGuigan was an eminently respectable family man, and nobody who knew him would have believed for a moment that he would ever have been mixed up in the IRA. Michael Kelly was a young shop assistant who worked in the Derry branch of the now defunct British clothing chain, John Collier. He wasn't in the IRA either.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,778
So you are literally giving your army carte blanche to massacre civilians. Thankfully so agencies of British state are a bit more grown up.
The armed policemen who mistook Jean Charles de Menezes for a suicide bomber were not prosecuted. Most people didn't think the decision not to prosecute them was giving carte blanche to armed police.
 

Buchaill Dana

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
7,755
The armed policemen who mistook Jean Charles de Menezes for a suicide bomber were not prosecuted. Most people didn't think the decision not to prosecute them was giving carte blanche to armed police.
Its not the same situation
F claimed he fired all his bullets at a window. Not one hit the building.

When they took his gun he remembered he shot a guy in the head.

When forensics came back he remembered he shot a guy in the arse when he was crawling away.
 

Pyewacket

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
2,458
I don't think it was unfair to acquit security forces personnel who either shot terrorists dead or shot civilians who they mistook for terrorists or shot civilians by mistake when they were shooting at terrorists.

Testimony given at the Saville Tribunal can't be used as evidence. Therefore, Soldier F's defence is stronger than you may think.
That is the whole point. David Cameron himself, that English shitbob, admitted British soldiers did not act according to British law.

I won't even go into the fact that it was English law he was speaking of. I know a partitionist turd when I see one.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
You said the NI judiciary is a lot fairer now than it was in the past. That means you were accusing past NI judges of unfairness.
Yes, and I stand by that. Can't you see that you're pursuing a non sequitur?
Why are you determined to talk down the prospects of a conviction in this case? It's almost as if you wish to see it happen. Surely not?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,778
Yes, and I stand by that. Can't you see that you're pursuing a non sequitur?
Why are you determined to talk down the prospects of a conviction in this case? It's almost as if you wish to see it happen. Surely not?
How was the NI judiciary unfair in the past?
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
You said the NI judiciary is a lot fairer now than it was in the past. That means you were accusing past NI judges of unfairness.

Do you think a government minister in the old one party unionist junta that ruled the six counties (aided and abetted by the Brits) should be appointed to Lord Chief Justice or any judicial high office?
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040

sgtharper

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
10,750
You really do need to read some history.

This is just one example.
Judges sided with the security forces when it was obvious that there was a case to answer.
Yes, one of criminal negligence, but not murder or manslaughter. Williams obviously had an ND, a Negligent Discharge, (and his GPMG should never have been cocked in the first place of course). He should have had the decency and integrity to own up and admit his appalling mistake and to take what punishment was coming to him, which I doubt would have been too onerous, a suspended sentence probably. Instead, he and his mates lied about what had happened and the Judge in turn gave him the benefit of considerable doubt, which he didn't deserve.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top