The Golden God Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 British soldier shoots an unarmed civilian in the back, claims it was an accident, judge says he was lying and finds him guilty of manslaughter and he is given a 3 year suspended sentence. What’s the point of even having these trials if there’s going to be no real justice or punishment. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/british-soldier-david-holden-who-killed-catholic-aidan-mcanespie-in-northern-ireland-escapes-jail-sentence-12800831 Also worth noting that there’s actually unionists and veterans claiming that this sentence was harsh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 At least his family now know that a killer has been found guilty, though quite how pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger can be anything other than murder im not sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Sounds like the soldier was trying to scare the victim, the bullet hit the road behind him and ricocheted through his back. The soldier was 18. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 20 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Sounds like the soldier was trying to scare the victim, the bullet hit the road behind him and ricocheted through his back. The soldier was 18. I've always thought that. Still a very reckless action. The fact he was 18 has very little bearing on the matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: The fact he was 18 has very little bearing on the matter. Think that is a little unfair. There should surely be a (albeit small) amount of mitigation placed on that. The issue lies more with putting adolescents into that environment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 Just now, Alert Mongoose said: Think that is a little unfair. There should surely be a (albeit small) amount of mitigation placed on that. The issue lies more with putting adolescents into that environment? Raise the age for joining the army then. Can't have it both ways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 (edited) Should have been peeling tatties between army training stints at that age imo, especially in a mainly civilian environment. Edited February 2, 2023 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: Raise the age for joining the army then. Can't have it both ways. That was the point in my last sentence? You can't retrospectively raise it though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 5 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said: Think that is a little unfair. There should surely be a (albeit small) amount of mitigation placed on that. The issue lies more with putting adolescents into that environment? Just now, welshbairn said: Should have been peeling tatties between army training stints at that age imo. That's maybe a better solution, have them doing other jobs rather than giving them weapons and setting them loose in those sort of situations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said: I've always thought that. Still a very reckless action. The fact he was 18 has very little bearing on the matter. I know the finding was not in Scotland but sentencing policy up here, as imposed by SNP/Scottish Sentencing Policy, is that anyone under 25 should only be jailed as a last resort as their brains have not fully developed. Strange policy given that their brains are mature enough at 16 to marry, get a job, vote etc but not enough to know right from wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 39 minutes ago, Elric said: up here, as imposed by SNP/Scottish Sentencing Policy, is that anyone under 25 should only be jailed as a last resort as their brains have not fully developed. I could be wrong but could you cite this please? Sounds like bullshit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 19 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said: I could be wrong but could you cite this please? Sounds like bullshit. https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2171/sentencing-young-people-guideline-for-publication.pdf I assume it’s this he’s on about, although it doesn’t actually say what he’s said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 19 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said: https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2171/sentencing-young-people-guideline-for-publication.pdf I assume it’s this he’s on about, although it doesn’t actually say what he’s said. Cheers. If only he had told us he was making a clear misinterpretation it would have saved you and I the bother. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 1 hour ago, Elric said: I know the finding was not in Scotland but sentencing policy up here, as imposed by SNP/Scottish Sentencing Policy, is that anyone under 25 should only be jailed as a last resort as their brains have not fully developed. Strange policy given that their brains are mature enough at 16 to marry, get a job, vote etc but not enough to know right from wrong. Is this was the union is all about? No wonder more and more people are wanting out of it and away from the staunch stinking wretches who want to preserve it at any cost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Cawdor Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 4 hours ago, Jacksgranda said: Raise the age for joining the army then. Can't have it both ways. It was only after the three young squaddies were murdered in 1971, one of whom was 17 years old, that the minimum age for service in Northern Ireland was raised to 18. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 I'm with @Jacksgranda on this one. If he's old enough to carry a gun for his work, then he's old enough to understand the responsibilities of carrying a gun for his work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted February 2, 2023 Share Posted February 2, 2023 4 hours ago, Elric said: brains have not fully developed. Erm..... 3 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said: https://www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2171/sentencing-young-people-guideline-for-publication.pdf I assume it’s this he’s on about, although it doesn’t actually say what he’s said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Shotgun said: I'm with @Jacksgranda on this one. If he's old enough to carry a gun for his work, then he's old enough to understand the responsibilities of carrying a gun for his work. He's old enough to be held accountable for what he did, the same way as a joyrider who crashes into somebody should, but I wouldn't give an 18 year old control over a credit card far less a loaded rifle, especially in a complex situation where it was mainly civilians he was dealing with, alongside the small chance of being attacked by armed rebels. Edited February 3, 2023 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 6 hours ago, Shotgun said: I'm with @Jacksgranda on this one. If he's old enough to carry a gun for his work, then he's old enough to understand the responsibilities of carrying a gun for his work. I agree to a certain extent, but surely the question is is an 18-year-old capable of understanding that responsibility? - that decision is above his/her pay grade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted February 3, 2023 Share Posted February 3, 2023 5 hours ago, hk blues said: I agree to a certain extent, but surely the question is is an 18-year-old capable of understanding that responsibility? - that decision is above his/her pay grade. Exactly right, and the reverse of my statement is also true. If at 18, he isn't responsible enough to be carrying a gun, then he shouldn't be put in that situation. Essentially, it comes down to: If he is old enough to carry a gun, then he is old enough to be held accountable for what he does with it. If he isn't old enough to be held accountable for what he does with it, then he isn't old enough to carry a a gun. It's one or the other. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.