Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

24

Comments

  • #52
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    nollaig wrote:
    Sparks,
    What do you think Ward was doing at the house?
    Doesn't matter what I think. Matters what I can prove.


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sparks wrote:
    See, here's the thing. It does not matter how scared Nally was or wasn't. When he decided to kill Ward - and that's what he told the Gardai he'd done on the day - he was committing an act of premeditated murder, not self-defence. That was the moment he crossed the line from justifiable self-defence into murder.
    Theres more of it.
    Quit that immediately Sparks and offer your opinion rather than unproven allegations.
    If you do not state these opinions as being your opinions especially now that the man has been found innocent by a court of law you will be given a one week ban.
    Final warning.


  • #54
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Sparks, you can beleive what you want I'm going with the facts that matter, which imo are:

    Ward was a dangerous criminal with a long record of commiting crimes.
    He was not invited onto Nally's land never mind into his house.

    Nally was and this is an innocent man, who has never been commited of a crime.
    Nally had been robbed and there was a very high rate of burglary in his area.


    Now taking those facts into account imo anyone with any sense of a brain would know Mr Ward was up to no good that day and was infact going to commit a crime against either ward or his property. Nally shot him in a fit of rage which was induced by the fear he was living in, he used force which a jury of his peers had found to reasonable. Case closed.


  • #55
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tristrame wrote:
    You mightn't mind boards being sued as a result of those types of allegations but I do.
    Then stop worrying. I'm reporting on court proceedings (specifically the state pathologists official report), and as I pointed out to civdef earlier, that's specifically exempted from defamation torts in this country.
    You have no evidence to suggest that Nally deliberately lied as opposed to making a best guess,so your use of the word appears objective at best.
    His freedom was at stake; he gave a version of events that was wildly at odds to the physical evidence, as pointed out to the court by the state pathologist.
    Now, shy of developing telepathic powers and reading his mind, no better proof of lying can be found. He had motive to lie; his story didn't match physical evidence. You can't prove lying any more definitively than that anywhere, not just in this case, not even with a confession from the person involved (because if you have a confession, was he lying when he said he lied, or is he lying in the confession? You have no way to prove it either way).

    And if this is being liberal to the point of being apologetic... :rolleyes:


  • #56
    crybaby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 874 ✭✭✭crybaby


    I do have sympathy for Nally in that I can see pretty much why he did what he did out of fear but how in Gods name he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter is beyond me


  • #57
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    Nope, those reports don't constitute proof that Nally was lying - must do better.


  • #58
    tred
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭tred


    Deleted User wrote:
    At least the Wards will now get their chance. Hope they merely sue Nally, maybe get the farm that he was so desperate to protect, but if someone goes a step further and exacts revenge in the old style way...meh...the heart won't bleed for him...

    I read some interesting posts pros and cons, and then this muck above comes along. Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict. What you want to happen?? every time a burglar enters your house, and say cuts his hand on the broken window, you want them to have the right to sue you.

    Get a life and some valid opinions.


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sparks wrote:
    Then stop worrying. I'm reporting on court proceedings (specifically the state pathologists official report), and as I pointed out to civdef earlier, that's specifically exempted from defamation torts in this country.
    Your declations of liar are not.So no more of that,just state opinion please.
    The rest of what you state is your supposition from your own subjective reading of some of the details.
    For instance you harp on about a comment in an RTÉ interview that could easily be just as much interpreted as a mistaken memory in the fog of what happened given the adrenelin fear motivated case that was being made by Nally and accepted by the jury.

    Now I absolutely mean it Sparks.
    You build a case that is your opinion and state it here as fact one more time and you will be getting that one week ban.


  • #60
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    civdef wrote:
    Nope, those reports don't constitute proof that Nally was lying - must do better.
    Really. You'd care to explain how I can do better than showing that Nallys own public testimony as to what happened contradicts the physical evidence as reported by the state pathologist? Bearing in mind that we don't know how to do telepathy, that is.

    And would someone care to tell me why I must prove Nally was lying, when not one person here has been asked to prove their unfounded allegations that:
    • Ward was there to rob Nally.
    • Ward would have come back to do Nally harm.
    • Ward did steal from Nally.
    • Ward stole from Nally in the past.
    • Anyone stole from Nally in the past.
    • Travellers are generally criminals.
    • Ward's son was lying.
    And probably a few others that I've forgotten.
    What's the difference between what I've listed and what Civ is saying I've alleged without foundation, other than that (a) I've given proof, and (b) the above list isn't popular?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    tred
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭tred


    Hi all, I can see why this topic is causing so much debate and discussion.

    However in the context of what happened, I suppose, maybe I give you a story of my own. In the mid 80's, a traveler gang wreaked havoc in the west of Ireland. Particularly the Galway, south Mayo area. At the time, they targeted Old defenseless men, as they were easy pickings; however they used brutality to get what they wanted. At the time, the older people in my village lived in fear. One Sunday morning, my father’s uncle heard a knock on the back door, he looked out the front curtains window, and saw a car idling over with a driver in the front, and it would be strange to get visitors to an area that you didn’t know. He got scared, they were 2 members of the traveling community. At the same time, my neighbor was hunting in the back fields, and spotted the car. (Before neighbor watch), he and his mate made his way, and asked what they were doing, they made a run for it. My neighbors knocked on back door, and called out Sonny, are you ok. My fathers uncle was sitting in the rocking chair, with his back to the wall, facing the door, with a loaded shotgun. He would have shot my neighbor for sure, only he identified himself. Shortly after this episode, the traveler gang, murdered an old man in Shrule county Mayo, and they were found and jailed. Still in prison. We all know this story, and even my father to this day, would be apprensive of strangers entering his yard. Padraig Nally would have known of these storys, and lived in the fear, that we has going to be next. I dont excuse what happened, but I can relate to the area, and environment. I don’t think many of you guys in the Pale and its surrounds can. Its no different if u ask me, to any of you guys finding a burglar in ur house in Dublin, you apprehend him and defend ur home, he falls down the stairs and dies, are you liable for manslaughter? In the eye of the law after this, you may not.


  • #62
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tristrame wrote:
    You build a case that is your opinion and state it here as fact one more time and you will be getting that one week ban.
    *reads back over thread*
    Looks to me like I should expect a great deal of company so.
    Or are you saying only Nally is permitted to sue boards.ie? Are the Wards not permitted to sue on the above-listed grounds?


  • #63
    tred
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭tred


    latenia wrote:
    This is only going to go the same way as the other thread so I'll leave it there. I challenge anyone to come on and name one single posession of theirs that's worth killing someone for.

    My childs life, my wifes life. my familys life, and my life.


  • #64
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    tred wrote:
    Its no different if u ask me, to any of you guys finding a burglar in ur house in Dublin, you apprehend him and defend ur home, he falls down the stairs and dies, are you liable for manslaughter? In the eye of the law after this, you may not.
    In the eyes of the law, both before and after this case, you are not. You'll go to court to show you didn't deliberately throw the man down the stairs when he was unconcious or some similar abuse, but for a genuine case as you describe, no, you aren't liable.

    Shoot the man, beat him nearly senseless, break his arm, expose his skull a few times, then reload and chase him down the street and shoot him while he's on his hands and knees in the road, however, and that's a whole other ball game.


  • #65
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    tred wrote:
    My childs life, my wifes life. my familys life, and my life.
    Those aren't possessions.
    Well.
    Not since the abolition of slavery anyway.


  • #66
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭civdef


    Really. You'd care to explain how I can do better than showing that Nallys own public testimony as to what happened contradicts the physical evidence as reported by the state pathologist?

    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports, this is not proof that Nally lied. It may indicate all sorts of things such as Nally's recollecton could have been mistaken, the pathologists findings may have been incorrect, RTE could have reported incorrectly.

    It doesn't prove your repeated and serious allegations that Nally perjured humself.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports
    Quoting the RTE reports was the easiest and fastest way to point out the evidence. In the actual interview, broadcast again yesterday on RTE Radio One just after the verdict was announced, Nally himself clearly states that he shot Ward from ten yards away while both of them were standing (and Ward was walking away) and that he didn't mean to kill him. This is not only at odds with the testimony of the state pathologist, it is also at odds with his later testimony in court, where he said he shot him because he thought his life was in danger. You can listen to it for yourself:
    http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2201808.smil

    And tell me civ, if that doesn't prove it, what do you define as proof that someone lied?


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sparks wrote:
    *reads back over thread*
    Looks to me like I should expect a great deal of company so.
    Or are you saying only Nally is permitted to sue boards.ie? Are the Wards not permitted to sue on the above-listed grounds?

    I'd take the view that given Wards history which would come into play in accusations that he was there to rob ie it would be a reasonable assumptiont
    Yes I'd be of the view that openly declaring the man a murderer and a liar here(and deliberately it would seem ignoring my instructions to call it your opinion based on your interpretation of certain things) ,yes I'd be of the view that that is a separate and more serious thing to be doing that I am not going to stand over here.

    Sparks take a week to cool off

    You can pm me or one of the other mods when the time is up.


  • #69
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    crybaby wrote:
    I do have sympathy for Nally in that I can see pretty much why he did what he did out of fear but how in Gods name he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter is beyond me

    agree completely. In Nally's situation I might have done the same, who knows, but surely manslaughter was the minimum conviction that should have been applied.

    I think public sentiment played a part here which it shouldn't have, only the law of the land should have applied.


  • #70
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    First of all, the spin doctoring at Pavee Point is comical. It doesn't matter if Frog was a Traveller or not, he was threatening a Man's home, his land, his psychological well being, and life. No one should have to stand for that kind of petty behaviour.

    Second of all, a man is entitled to defend what's his - no matter what the law says, it's what's morally right. I applaud Mr. Nally, and his stance. I would only hope if I was as old and frail as he was, being constantly bullied by scumbags, that I could have the same level of courage.

    I remember when I got my first retail job 12 years ago, there was an old Romanian man who came into the mobile phone shop where I worked. He was about 5 foot tall, about 7-8 stone, stooped over, on crutches, marginal english, covered in bruises. He was living in a Council Estate here in Cork, and used to get the sh*t kicked out of him regularly by Traveller - sorry, I mean Disadvantaged - Kids, his house had bricks thrown through his Windows, and they would reach in after smashing the Glass to cut his phone cable. He had to buy a Mobile at a time when they were very expensive to call the Gards - and it took him weeks to save the money while all the time these scumbags were making his life hell, putting such a deep fear into him, that he couldn't sleep, and any time he saw a young male with a shaved head, he'd look at the ground and back up against a wall for fear he'd be attacked. I asked the Gards if they could help, and the Gards said there was very little they could do.

    My garage was broken into last month, most of my tools were taken, and one of my Motorbikes, the perpetrators were identified as another Group of 'Disadvantaged' Kids, but yet again, they Gardaí told me there's very little they could do. I now have to replace about 1500 Euro of personal gear, and also replace a Window, and Roller Door.

    And this is what we let happen, and we never ever send a clear message to Scumbags. Never.


  • #71
    Drax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Drax


    Deleted User wrote:
    At least the Wards will now get their chance. Hope they merely sue Nally, maybe get the farm that he was so desperate to protect, but if someone goes a step further and exacts revenge in the old style way...meh...the heart won't bleed for him...

    Holy jasus... thats some attitude. I have to say that initially I was all in favour of Nally but looking at it a bit deeper, I am now divided on this. I can imagine the fear involved but to beat him 20 times and then reload and kill the man just seems too much to me. I guess at the time he wanted closure on his fear and went the whole hog. I do agree with Ned above in that people have a right to protect their property. But the above statement is totally out of whack. So it will be ok if one of the Wards decided to kill Nally?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    thats the reason I'm amzed he was found not guilty. Surely the fact he reloaded and shot again completely rules out the self defence argument.

    I think he took the opportunity to finish off what had been a scurge on his life and his peace of mind. In the same situation maybe most of us would do the same but how he was not convicted of a crime is beyond me.


  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tred wrote:
    Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict.

    Get a life and some valid opinions.

    Okay, I'll overlook the peronal abuse because (i) I don't want you banned and(ii) to help you understand the law. Of course the Wards can sue. I don't want to sound patronising, but you do appreciate the difference between criminal and civil remedies, don't you? Why can't they sue? What is the bar? Whether they are successful or not is an entirely different matter, but I'll leave you check up on occupier's liability legislation, MacNamara v ESB, Purthill v Athlone UDC etc. etc.


  • #74
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    civdef wrote:
    You've pointed out an apparent contradiction between two RTE reports, this is not proof that Nally lied. It may indicate all sorts of things such as Nally's recollecton could have been mistaken, the pathologists findings may have been incorrect, RTE could have reported incorrectly.

    It doesn't prove your repeated and serious allegations that Nally perjured humself.

    I'm sorry what now? We decide that forsenic evidence isn't in doubt on what basis?

    So on one hand we have the evidence of a senior government scientist.

    On the other hand we have the word of a man, who has contradicted himself, and needs to alter the circumstances of Ward's death.

    You have a man who needs to lie to get off from a crime, contradictory forensic evidence, and your claim reporting of the trial was mistaken.

    Those are three serious issues with Nally's story, you're suggesting a senior scientist was wrong, the national broadcast was incorrect, and the man is just honestly confused, despite the fact that he needs to change is original story to get off with less serious charge.

    The crediblility of the above is straining.

    One side of this argument wants to stiffle debate. The logic of their claims means I cannot say, for example, that the US government lied about WMD in Iraq, because it's entirely possible that they really did think there were WMDs in Iraq. I cannot prove the above statement, but the wealth of evidence support it.

    Can I not say such a thing now on this forum?


  • #75
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    Deleted User wrote:
    Okay, I'll overlook the peronal abuse because (i) I don't want you banned and(ii) to help you understand the law. Of course the Wards can sue. I don't want to sound patronising, but you do appreciate the difference between criminal and civil remedies, don't you? Why can't they sue? What is the bar? Whether they are successful or not is an entirely different matter, but I'll leave you check up on occupier's liability legislation, MacNamara v ESB, Purthill v Athlone UDC etc. etc.

    great idea; maybe the victims of Ward's previous 80 crimes could sue his estate if his family gets a big settlement?


  • #76
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Sparks wrote:
    See? That's the problem with democracy, even those with no clue as to the whole idea of the law get to vote as well.

    Laws which allow men like ward and his son go free. Hey, this is a miscarriage of justice, but sure, its not like there wouldn't have been one anyway if nally hadn't had his shotgun.

    Edit; btw, if Ward had of been where he belonged (behind bars) in the first place, nally wouldn't have killed him. So this is jsut another case of two wrongs not making a right.


  • #77
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    There are a lot of CRAXY comments on this thread, and it seems to me that most are judging Ward instead of Nally, the killer.

    If I was a juror, my considerations would have been:
    • We will not know for certain what Ward was doing on Nally's farm that day. People assume that they know, but they don't. This is an *assumption*. There is no forensic evidence, and there is no evidence to support either side's claims. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of guilt or innocence
    • Ward's prior charges/convictions are not admissable as evidence because (1) Ward is not being tried, Nally is, and (2) the legal obligation of the jury is to weigh up evidence of this incident, and this incident alone
    • Nally probably feared for his life; given prior incidents, it is not irrational for an old, lonely person to feel vulnerable, though I would assume he became paranoid, but not so far gone that an insanity plea was valid, therefore I must assume he was at the time compus mentus
    • Nally admits to beating Ward with a stick during the altercation - we will not know who started the altercation or why, and during this point Nally was probably using reasonable force
    • Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat
    • At this point, evidence would suggest to me that reasonable force may have been used
    • The State Pathologist - no one more qualified to collect evidence of this kind - is satisfied that, contrary to Nally's account, Ward was shot at close range, in the back strongly suggesting that Ward was escaping, therefore no longer a threat. I would take this evidence over anyone else's.
    • In the final analysis, Nally shot and killed Ward using unreasonable force.

    I think there are broader issues which should be addressed, and had they, this may never had happened. Such as better rural policing, and security grants to vulnerable farmers to secure houses. But this isn't what Nally was being judged on, he was being judged on whether he used reasonable force in an unlawful killing. I believe that, on the evidence that can rationally be considered, he is guilty.

    *Disclaimer: this is my own view of publicly available information, and I fully accept that Nally has been vindicated by a jury in the Central Criminal Court.


  • #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    El Stuntman wrote:
    great idea

    Thank you.


  • #79
    BuffyBot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    no matter what the law says, it's what's morally right.

    Unfortunately for you morals, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder.


  • #80
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    Deleted User wrote:
    Thank you.

    you're welcome ;)


  • #81
    elqu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭elqu


    morals are not in the eye of the beholder.

    it is wrong to kill someone. we all know this. everyong accepts this as a first basic principle.

    the history and background of a victim are completely irrelevant.

    the circumstances described in the media don't sound like self defence to me.

    he may call himself vindicated but he is still a killer.

    it is very shocking that he has come out of this with no conviction. what does it say about our value on human life? are we saying Nally's possessions and right to protect them are more important that someone's life? how can so many people think it was in order for Nally to do what he did?

    I find the whole thing very depressing.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MovingOn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭MovingOn


    To try and balance this debate a little. I am one of the people you never usually hear from, a settled traveller, I am 38 years of age and settled now for just over 7 years. I am proud of my traditions and family but unfortunatly the travelling community is in termoil.
    God bless the soul of Mr Ward and his family and god be with Mr Nally, my travelling community want to be equal and respected but that will not happen unless the old ways of an honest days work for an honest days pay comes back. The day of the quick buck is here and too many of our people are availing of it. I can blame many sources from the governments lack of resources to peoples blatent prejudice against travellers but alas its as much our fault as any other. I will be honest in that I used to believe things would change and so did my brother until he was killed by a fellow traveller for trying to stop him from dealing drugs. I may be a coward but I have young children and know the travellers way. I will not get involved in any fued. It's time honest travellers take a stand and say the old ways are dying and stop the rot from within. It will take a lot of effort from both sides. Every man, woman and child has the right to feel safe especially in their own home, anyone who creates fear like this is not a good person traveller or otherwise.
    God bless you all.

    Pascal


  • #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Giving my own view at this point,I'd have been calling the Guards and neighbours after the first shot-It's easy to say that sitting in front of a pc though...
    I'm not at all happy with the situation regarding the 2nd shot but then if I was a juror,I'd be looking all the witnesses in the eye at the trial and deliberating with the other 11 jurors.

    I cannot say what my view would have been in that case.
    I know what my view is now and that is,I'm not happy generally because there was a death.
    I'm pretty happy with the verdict but only in the sense that it was done right and thats the way we do things here-you are judged by a jury of your peers in a court of law for such things who consider the facts of the case as put foward.

    The difficulty starts here though as we move foward.
    Hopefully the recrutment of civilian Gardaí will continue by the score load so as to keep this kind of thing happening to an absolute minimum.
    Every community should have access to at least one or two Garda reserves and pay them for that.
    Every community should have some kind of committee on call to the vulnerable or those that live alone.

    Simple Requests-Simple so Simple.


  • #84
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    DadaKopf wrote:
    • We will not know for certain what Ward was doing on Nally's farm that day. People assume that they know, but they don't. This is an *assumption*. There is no forensic evidence, and there is no evidence to support either side's claims. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of guilt or innocence

    Well, you don't know anything about the killing when you get down to it, you wheren't there. So you have to take a look at the balance of probability, and the things you know to be facts. It's circumstancial evidence, but its admissible.
    • Ward's prior charges/convictions are not admissable as evidence because (1) Ward is not being tried, Nally is, and (2) the legal obligation of the jury is to weigh up evidence of this incident, and this incident alone

    True, however it gives insight into whether or not Nally was in actual danger from Ward. Did Nally know ward, or off him? Did his knowledge contribute to his decision to shoot him?
    • Nally probably feared for his life; given prior incidents, it is not irrational for an old, lonely person to feel vulnerable, though I would assume he became paranoid, but not so far gone that an insanity plea was valid, therefore I must assume he was at the time compus mentus

    He was only paranoid if they weren't there to rob him. Knowing what we know, this ward character was, in all likelyhood there to rob him, and if he had no problems in the past attacking people and gardi, he would have had no problem attacking Nally.
    • Nally admits to beating Ward with a stick during the altercation - we will not know who started the altercation or why, and during this point Nally was probably using reasonable force

    Resonable force in an unreasonable situations.
    • Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat
    Maybe, but did nally still precieve him to be one. Was Nally in a panic? You don't know. I don't know.
    • At this point, evidence would suggest to me that reasonable force may have been used

    Lets be Clear, at this point, in keeping with your line of thought, ignoring all evidence we're not 100% certain on, you believe resonable force has been used on a man, who has been shot and beaten for walking up to the door of a house? Because if we don't take into account Nally's state of mind or Wards past actions, thats the situation in a nut shell.
    • The State Pathologist - no one more qualified to collect evidence of this kind - is satisfied that, contrary to Nally's account, Ward was shot at close range, in the back strongly suggesting that Ward was escaping, therefore no longer a threat. I would take this evidence over anyone else's.

    Maybe he was, but was Nally in a positions to make such a rational and level headed decision, after fighting with the man for his life? Did he stil lfeel under treat?

    • In the final analysis, Nally shot and killed Ward using unreasonable force.
    In the final analysis, after much hine sight and allot of debating and evidence, which Nally may not have had, you are right, unreasonable force was used. Question remains, was it unreasonable then.


  • #85
    Owen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,683 ✭✭✭✭Owen


    MovingOn wrote:
    To try and balance this debate a little. I am one of the people you never usually hear from, a settled traveller,

    Pascal, thank you for coming on boards to tell your story. You're dead right, I think there are probably quite a few Travellers who are upset at what the majority are up to. I worked for an afternoon in the Travellers Training Centre in Galway, and couldn't believe how the young people thought it was great fun to steal from my toolkit, and from the pockets of their Teachers, and thought straight away to blame the Travellers themselves, but then I thought ... wait a minute, this happens with 'Settled People' too. I think Parents are to blame full stop, and the reasons Parents of unruling children are to blame, settled or not, is down to poor education, not knowing how to discipline kids, not knowing how to impart the difference between right and wrong.


  • #86
    MovingOn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭MovingOn


    I was very lucky growing up as our mother cared a lot about others and had respect which is what is lacking not only for others but for ourselves. My father was a man like Mr Ward, a king boxer who practiced on my mother more than once. I reject the argument that I was a victim. We all get the chance to make decisions unfortuneatly the easy way is usually the wrong way. I had it tough and seen first hand how my community has started to tear itself apart. I hate people who look down on others instead of trying to help them, but not nearly as much as I hate people like Mr Ward who have helped destroy a culture that was once respected. The real trajedy here is the wider rift that has formed between our cultures and in case you don't know how deep this goes, I know that if my identity is figured out by my community for what I am writing my family will be shunned. It is up to us to make the effort to educate and support our own people and make us a proud race again.

    Pascal


  • #87
    El Stuntman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭El Stuntman


    holy crap :eek: :eek: :eek:

    bans, bans, bans & was that not incitement to do all sorts of nasty things?

    must be illegal to advocate mass murder of a segment of society?


  • #88
    adonis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭adonis


    LiouVille wrote:
    In the final analysis, after much hine sight and allot of debating and evidence, which Nally may not have had, you are right, unreasonable force was used. Question remains, was it unreasonable then.

    Is that not how all trials are carried out?


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I see the closure of the Nally threads in afterhours is bringing the loons here.

    Country voice you are banned

    This thread is remaining open for the time being as per this post

    http://cake.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=52501134&posted=1#post52501134

    I'm sending country voices post and bonkeys sensible reply (to keep it company) to the recycle bin.

    Any more nonsense in this thread guys will get a 1 week ban at the moderators discretion.

    Please read the charter anybody that hasnt read it before and please post sensibly.

    Thank you.


  • #90
    MarkR
    Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 11,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭MarkR


    I was pretty surprised to hear that he was found not guilty. I would have assumed that executing someone as a pre-emptive strike would be carring the self defence thing a bit far.

    Saying that, I think that ward deserved justice (jail time etc) rather than to be killed for what he might have done later.

    So - if nally wasn't guilty, who was? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sniipe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,932 ✭✭✭Sniipe


    I think Nally was in fear of his life. I think that he had been harassed before, quite possibly by the same person he killed. I don't care what background Mr Ward had. I welcome the news that Jusitice Minister Mr McDowell will strengthen home-defence legislation (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWIDSNOJCWKF)
    I do not believe in couring away in a corner while you are being burgled. They could easily kill you! Your home should be your safe house, you should never be afraid in your home (don't go down the line of posessions/stuff, as I'm talking about being afraid of your life).
    If the same situation happened again I think it would be better if Nally had perhaps immobilised the Burgler permanently rather than killing him. Unfortunately the system isn't good enough, that man could if alive could go to prison and get out eventually then hunt down Mr Nally. There is no chance of that happening now.


  • #92
    candide
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭candide


    whitelightrider wrote:
    Do you honestly think that if Nally had wounded Ward, that Ward wouldnt have come back and probably killed Nally???
    Would anybody leave such enemmy alive and then wait alone and isolated for the day when the angry wounded could come and revenge?


  • #93
    Mrs Roy Keane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 274 ✭✭Mrs Roy Keane


    I'm curious was any members of the travelling community on the jury, i'm thing not.

    I think this will make the divide between settled people and travellers even more wider and make racism and violence worst in Ireland.

    I feel for all parties involved in this but i feel than Mr. Nally went too far and should be punished after all a man is dead and murder is murder. Mr. Nally is being hailed as a hero for murder what is Ireland coming to


  • #94
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    DadaKopf wrote:
    Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat
    So... if you're in the middle of nowhere, you attack a scumbag (not a traveller), do you a)wait for his friend to come back with his pals, b)ring the Gardai, knowing they won't make it before the scumbags friends, or c)render the scumbag to an unthreatening condition?
    tred wrote:
    I read some interesting posts pros and cons, and then this muck above comes along. Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict.
    Since our law is based on English law, and since English burgulars have successfully sued the homeowners of the house's they got injured in, I'd say they have a case. I'd prefer for the burgular not to have that right, but at the moment, they have more rights than those getting bugurlazied.

    =-=

    MovingOn, I'm sad for the way the traditions have been lost, but I doubt those who are criminals will ever stop using the caravan to dissappear when they want. The only way forward would be to oust them, but as they proberly hold "clout", I'd say this would be hard to do :(


  • #95
    elurhs
    Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭elurhs


    There are no winners in this case, everyone lost. The Wards, Nally and society in general.

    I myself am from the same general area as Nally, and I must admit I was surprised at the verdict. I thought the long deliberation was due to few holdouts for "not guilty", but it appears to be the other way around. The original Mayo jury would probably have returned "not guilty" as well, a fact Judge Carney was likely aware of, which lead to his (incorrect) instruction to the jury.

    In my own opinion, I think Nally should have been found guilty. As mentioned before, the sentance would probably have been no longer than the 6 years originally handed down, and the year he served probably would have been taken into account. I do think Nally was in fear of his life when he attacked Ward, but the kill shot seems to fall outside the strict definition of "self-defence".

    However, I also have a lot of sympathy for Nally. He has found unwanted noteriety from this case and the killing of Ward will always be on his conscience. Ward was a drain on society, had 80 previous convictions, and from this I think it can be assumed he wasn't going to change his ways. Indeed he was indoctrinating his son into the same behaviour. That being said, no-one deserves to be killed for anything in a civilised society.


  • #96
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    I think the question at the end of the day isn't so much about justice (the letter of the law), but what justice is (the spirit of the law). It's right or wrong, and fitting punishment if wrong. Who decides whats right or wrong would be, in my opinion, the people of the country in question, in this case, a jury of Nally's peers.

    If you look at other countries, their laws and judgements fit the desires of the people of that country, otherwise they would be dictatorships. Hash and various narcotics are legal in the Netherlands, abortion and divorce are illegal in the Philippines.

    The fact that Nally is a free man today reflects the judgement of his peers and country that for the most part, they agree he was not in the wrong. On a higher moral level, yes it was wrong, or at least incredibly ill thought out. But by the standards set by society, he does not deserve punishment for his actions, and thats all that matters, since that's our society.

    In Texas, for example, he'd have received a ticker tape parade for his actions. Not that we should follow that example, but there is an element of that in Irish society. People are weary of what seems like a rising tide of thuggery and lawlessness, and I don't think I'm exaggerating here when I say everyone has been touched by that at one stage or another. To see that there are certain sections of society that feel they are above the law, untouchable, and then to see one such (and I mean career criminals here) well and truly touched, is a relief to a lot of people.

    I mean look at the newspaper headlines... "JUSTICE" six inches high in one, on the front page. Would they have printed that if they didn't think it reflected the opinions of most of the country? Maybe we should face up to that part of Irish culture and accept that thats how we deal with certain situations.

    The "hard men" and criminal types should thank the guards every day of their lives, because if there were no guards they wouldn't be around long. I'm not saying thats right or wrong, I'm just saying that in my opinion, thats the real world fact of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Celticfire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,706 ✭✭✭Celticfire


    latenia wrote:
    This is only going to go the same way as the other thread so I'll leave it there. I challenge anyone to come on and name one single posession of theirs that's worth killing someone for.

    08 June 2000 21:42

    The funeral has taken place of Patrick Logan, the 81-year-old County Meath farmer who died after he was beaten by raiders at his home on Monday afternoon. Local parish priest, Fr Paddy Dillon, described Mr Logan as a generous and much-loved member of the community. Paddy Logan died from a heart attack, after he was beaten by raiders who robbed him of just £45 on Monday afternoon.


    their own life....


  • #98
    Ronan|Raven
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,147 ✭✭✭Ronan|Raven


    I didn't think he would have had his conviction completely quashed. I felt he would have at least got a charge of man slaughter then had his sentence served from his previous incarceration.

    However if he had killed a decent human being then I may shed a tear however I will be hard pressed to shed a tear for Mister Frog Ward.


  • #99
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,605 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Good to hear Nally has been freed - some common sense has been applied for once in Ireland justice system.

    Nally didnt travel to Wards home to kill him. Ward, who was not a friend and not invited to Nallys home nor had *any* right to be there ventured into Nallys home.

    Given the long, long, long list of convictions of Ward and the remoteness of many elderly people in rural locations Nally had every right to be afraid of Ward. Jurors might not know about Wards character, nor be allowed to judge him on the basis of his record, but Nally may have known Ward by reputation alone. I think Sparks or Dada remarked earlier that the law allows you the right to do whatever you like if you feel your life is threatened - maybe Nally felt his life was threatened?

    There seems to be a completely delusional view that any time you are threatened in your home the Gardai are psychically aware, and scramble the ERU who are on your doorstep 5 seconds later to protect you. This isnt the reality - if threatened by violent criminals, you are effectively on your own - this is true anywhere, but especially in rural areas.

    It doesnt matter if Ward was a traveller or a settled person - he was a criminal entering onto somebodys property for no good reason at all. Its not a matter of people vs property. Its a matter of scumbags vs security in your own home. Ordinary law abiding people have rights too, last I heard anyway. If somebody violates the security of your home, then too bad if they wind up the worse for wear from it. Maybe the moral lesson is dont break into peoples houses?

    I think this is an issue that could swing the general election - if FF can blame FG for the "retreat" part of the law then they will practically guarantee themselves a majority. People genuinely feel criminals have too many rights and activists working for them in this country, and this is another example of it.


  • #100
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Sand wrote:
    I think this is an issue that could swing the general election - if FF can blame FG for the "retreat" part of the law then they will practically guarantee themselves a majority. People genuinely feel criminals have too many rights and activists working for them in this country, and this is another example of it.

    You see the issue I see with that is FF have been in power since FG bought that legislation in in 1997, so if they haven't seen fit to change it in 9 years they can hardly blaim FG for in acting it?


  • #101
    frobisher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,413 ✭✭✭frobisher


    Earler this morning I posted a thread on this that within no time illicited the kind of responses that you'd normally expect find only at a far right training camp. Can you beleive people are glad that a human being has been killed? I am utterly blown away by people's reaction to this case. I regard the kind of people who hang out on Boards.ie as a pretty normal cross section of Irish society. For the first time ever I am disturbed by the consensus of those around me. Disturbed is too light a word, I am absolutely f*cking disgusted. The only hope I hold out is that these people actually have little genuine experience with real violence, pain or bloodshed so therefore they don't actually know what they are really talking about. If the majority of opinions I've read on this subject reflect the personality of modern Ireland then I'm afraid I live in a country that is scarier than I ever realised. Hopefully we won't end up like parts of the USA.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement