Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

gandalf · 16-12-2006 1:00am

frobisher I agree with you. This whole unfortunate incident seems to have polarised people. I agree with the whole concept of defending your territory but when you reload and shoot an injured man in the back who is moving away from you it all but negates the "he killed him in defense" arguement.

Personally I believe that Mr Nally was guilty of man slaughter but obviously the jury didn't agree and as I cannot crawl into their heads I cannot understand their reasoning. The fact that "Frog" Ward had 80 convictions should have no bearing on this situation, that is something that has to be dealt with by the authorities and I do feel that the pressure is mounting to sort out the "revolving door" Justice system because of the recent gang murders.

rediguana · 16-12-2006 1:07am

You take a risk when you break and enter someone's property. Sometimes those risks don't pay off. Welcome to the (next) world, Frog!

Having said that, I don't think that the Bog-Man would've been acquitted had he blown away a run-of-the-mill civilian.

It's just one of those things, isn't it. Live and learn. Intruders - come armed in future. Law-abiding homeowners - avoid the controversy by only shooting in the FRONT.

rediguana · 16-12-2006 1:24am

I'm suitably abashed after reading post # 101. Just to clarify, I don't rejoice in anyone's death. Hundreds of people were killed on Irish roads this year, many thousands in Iraq, millions globally through malaria, etc blah ad nauseum. What with so many people dying, I have to ration my sympathy.

Why should that Ward man, unfortunate as he was, get so much attention? It's just a media concoction. Tormented farmer cracks and shoots evil burglar. What about the five guys shot in Dublin this week? I can't even name ONE of them even though I've been bored to tears listening to the sorry stories all week. I bet we won't hear of them again once the weekend passes.

Diogenes · 16-12-2006 2:05am

What floors me about the "Nally did the right thing" camp, is that they argue that considering Ward's background and his extensive previous convictions Ward got was coming to him.

I wonder exactly at what point, at what conviction did Wards life became forfeit? His first? His tenth? His 20th?

See if you follow this rational any criminal who is convicted of X number does his right to life become revoked?

If Ward only had 10 convictions would Nally's actions have been OTT? Twenty? Thirty? Exactly which conviction voided Ward's basic human rights, and justifies the shooting him dead like a dog on the street?

I merely ask because of the lgoic of some posters here, the rational presented is that due to fact that Ward has a variety of convictions his life was forfeit. I merely ask, those people who propose this argument, at what number of convictions does a human being have to have to negate their human rights?

Because if you feel after a certain number of convictions a person loses their basic human rights and deserves to be gunned downed like a dog, could you please elaborate, which crime Ward commited that justfifed his murder? And why?

Or is it that we should have an "X" amount of strikes and you're out system? And by I out we'll have garda stick a bullet in your skull down a country lane.

See this Pro Nally types seem to just broadly salute the murder of "undesirables" in the vaguests of sense, I'd just like some detail or explaination from the pro Nally side.

SimpleSam06 · 16-12-2006 2:06am

frobisher wrote:

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.

That rather puts you in a small minority, then. Read the papers. What does that tell you? Nally walks free, regardless of your opinion.

gamb1or · 16-12-2006 2:25am

at banning sparks.....rediculous

About 10 people made accusations about Ward, were they banned?

The verdict was a total joke.

Wibbs · 16-12-2006 2:36am

MovingOn wrote:

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

I've avoided getting into this particular debate but fair play to Pascal/Movingon. Brave and informative posts. I have to agree with what Movingon is saying. I've had dealings in the past with travellers and like every group there is variety. In recent years there seems to have been a shift from the traditional way of life as Pascal said and I have found that there is a marked difference between settled travellers and their more mobile kin. The settled kind for a start seemed to have made the decision to give their kids a better future which comes with staying in the one place. The idea that the culture is lost is bunk too. The settled travellers I know are more careful of preserving their culture than the mobile kind.

As for the Nally/Ward situation; Ward was a (by testimony and common knowledge) a psychopathic, violent career criminal(traveller doesn't come into it). Forget the detached legalities for a moment, let's face it, the chances of him being at Nally's farm for a cup of tea were slimmer than an anorexic matchstick. Nally, a man alone and petrified, shot him with an ancient shotgun, reloaded and made sure of the job. In similar circumstances with the "blood up", I'm not so sure I wouldn't have done the same thing. In fact I'm pretty sure I would have, if not more.

Should he have gotten more of a punishment? Maybe, maybe not. His time served, his guilt at the crime and let's face it, the threats on his life, for the rest of his life, I personally feel go a fair way to redressing the balance. (BTW bleeding hearts, the door's over there).

Diogenes wrote:

I merely ask because of the lgoic of some posters here, the rational presented is that due to fact that Ward has a variety of convictions his life was forfeit. I merely ask, those people who propose this argument, at what number of convictions does a human being have to have to negate their human rights?

I agree with you. You have a good point. When looked at in the cold light of day, of course you have a point. The fact is in the heat of that kind of moment that goes right out the window. I know, I've been there. Luckily not to the same fatal end as in the case of Nally/Ward, but when faced with that kind of situation one would be surprised how logic can go out the window square on it's arse. I know I was and violent I am not, by any stretch.

I wonder exactly at what point, at what conviction did Wards life became forfeit? His first? His tenth? His 20th?

It was forfeit the day the system didn't help/stop him after his first or second. In any case it's obvious that one or two crimes do not a scumbag make. When you get into the tens of crimes there does come a point where such people do forfeit some rights, even in the cold light of logic. Endless cheek turning and forgiveness is alright for Jesus and Buddha, but the rest of us are not in that vaunted company. Let's extend and stretch your concept further. Let's imagine a man who has a thousand convictions for criminal acts. Does he not deserve more "sympathy" than a man who has three? Of course not. That's the way of the world. Would Himmler be as vilified if he had only been responsible for killing 3 Jews? Of course not. Like or not, in the real world numbers count.

The real "crime" here is the society that breeds people like Mr. Ward and his ilk. The society that breeds them and then has no mechanism to either help or hinder their dire progress that can end in a tragedy such as this where the powerless and unheard violently redress the balance.

When in one week people can go about wielding slashhooks with little fear of retribution. When in one week people can be gunned down in the nations capital with little fear of retribution. When in one week people can hijack cars and leave a man dead with little fear of retribution. There's your problem, not Nally. Mr Ward lying battered, gunshot and dead is the logical endpoint.

SimpleSam06 · 16-12-2006 2:59am

Wibbs wrote:

When in one week people can go about wielding slashhooks with little fear of retribution. When in one week people can be gunned down in the nations capital with little fear of retribution. When in one week people can hijack cars and leave a man dead with little fear of retribution. There's your problem, not Nally. Mr Ward lying battered, gunshot and dead is the logical endpoint.

Excellent post Wibbs, I agree with you completely. Might I add that Nally since getting out on bail, has been harrassed by members of the travelling community. Don't bother talking to me about racism, this is the fact of the matter. The newspaper I read that in said he was going to a cattle mart, and word spread that he was going to Tuam. Five travellers accosted him and he had to make a run for it. Apparently senior Gardaí are making up security plans for his protection. Thats the civilised society we live in.

Source: Daily Mail, December 15th issue, page 8

thebman · 16-12-2006 3:04am

I'd firstly like to say that if I was on the jury given what I've read in the papers, I would have found Nally guilty.

I don't care that Ward was a crook or a traveller. I care that he was on the property without permission and that Nally felt endangered. The second shot to finish him off was a bit OTT however most of the people posting from rural Ireland know that if he didn't finish the job and rang the police instead, he'd be lucky if they bothered showing up and if they did they'd probably be too late to save Nally as Ward probably would have got "friends" to come round and finished Nally off before the police arrived (again nothing to do with him being of any background but if a man is robbing me, I'm going to assume he's friends don't work in the Post Office or building industry). That is just speculation I imagine people here will say but if Nally was thinking along these lines, he would have been still in fear of his life when the second shot was fired. He saw it as necessary in self defense and was probably having a mad adrenaline rush at the same time so hardly thinking clearly at that point either.

Basically given what I heard in the media, I think he was guilty but that probably isn't the full story either. Hell what was heard in court probably wasn't entirely the truth from either side either so I suspect the jury had to read between the lines a little aswell.

gamb1or · 16-12-2006 3:19am

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Excellent post Wibbs, I agree with you completely. Might I add that Nally since getting out on bail, has been harrassed by members of the travelling community. The newspaper I read that in said he was going to a cattle mart, and word spread that he was going to Tuam. Five travellers accosted him and he had to make a run for it.

Ah, the poor thing.

Sangre · 16-12-2006 3:28am

I don't know how many times its been said already but the jury finding him not guilty of manslaughter in *no* way sets a precedent in law. Juries don't influence the law, its interpretation or provide dicta. A judge sets out the law, what to regard and the juries decides the fact based on this.

Basically Judge goes, this is manslaughter, was it manslaughter on the facts of the case. The jury decided to say no (even if it was). This does not mean the law has set out that the facts of *this* case would its never manslaughter.

This is something a lot of people won't realise.

16-12-2006 10:51am

gamb1or wrote:

at banning sparks.....rediculous

About 10 people made accusations about Ward, were they banned?

There was a pretty good reason for that separate entirely to what other people were saying on this thread.
Discussion of moderation is not allowed in threads on the politics board.

16-12-2006 11:16am

Diogenes wrote:

I wonder exactly at what point, at what conviction did Wards life became forfeit? His first? His tenth? His 20th?

Legally,morally,ethically from most reasonable standpoints in my view it never did.
You will of course have a big section of frustrated viewpoints out there that will set aside those considerations though.
Thats the variations in humanity though for you.
Thats life.

I doubt you'd find a majority or maybe even any in the 10 jury members that acquitted Nally who'd be of the view that wards life was worthless.
I'd imagine they came to a view on what it was they were asked to come to a view on based on the evidence put before them and that was-Did they believe that this was manslaughter " beyond reasonable doubt" and clearly for reasons we wont know because we werent in the jury room,they did have a " reasonable doubt ".

I said this earlier as to my own view-I was not in that courtroom,I did not look the witnesses in the eye or see or hear their demeanor as they gave evidence.
Neither was I in the enclosed environment of the jury room.
Ergo my opinion and that of the posters here while mostly valid to each other (and to those that agree with the differing outside opinions on either side)-It is irrelevant to what or how the jury came to a decision.
I'd expect them though to be more informed and surgical with the evidence than most if not all on this thread though.
Thats regardless of my opinion on the outcome.

frobisher · 16-12-2006 11:46am

I can't remember the last time I come across an issue that has made me look with such fresh eyes at the society I live in. Anyone who genuinely thinks that what Nally did was good (the shooting, not the beating) is not the kind of person I can respect. A fellow human being's life was extinguished in manner that sickens me to the core. The fact that he got away without a prison sentence utterly baffles me but more than any of that is the amount of public support. I actually feel like asking people I know in real life how they feel about this because it will definitely change my opinion of them. I fear that Ireland is a nastier place place than I ever realised.

On another note, does anyone else find the whole argument that this seems to be some sort of victory for home owners quite odd? Are tenants not to be extended the same rights of murder?

aphex™ · 16-12-2006 12:33pm

frobisher wrote:

I can't remember the last time I come across an issue that has made me look with such fresh eyes at the society I live in.

Same here, anybody who couldn't put themselves in the shoes of somebody who is afraid and harassed out of their wits..well, i wouldn't want to know them anymore.

16-12-2006 1:11pm

frobisher wrote:

On another note, does anyone else find the whole argument that this seems to be some sort of victory for home owners quite odd?

Now you are being melodramatic.If you don't realise that those who hail this as a victory for home owners dont extend the same argument to anyone who lives in their home rented or not.That said ,I don't read this verdict as a right to kill anyone.I read this verdict as reflecting the possibility that if you do kill someone who enters your home illegally the jury might acquit you depending on the evidence put in front of them.
It's by no means by a long shot (pun actually unintended) a guarantee.

Also-Go read Sangre's post above before you post more silly arguments like the one you just have.

Are tenants not to be extended the same rights of murder?

Nally wasnt convicted of murder,he wasn't convicted of manslaughter.
He was declared innocent by a court of law.

I've already banned one person from here for directly saying Nally murdered someone and I won't hesitate to do the same if you continue to decide to describe what Nally did as murder.
You can of course give it as your opinion,you can of course claim this is a mis carriage of justice and give your reasons in a discussion with others on here...
But there shall be no more contempt of court esque direct allegations in this thread or on this board.
If I see them,the poster will be banned and the post deleted.

I am not giving any more warnings on this.

frobisher · 16-12-2006 1:17pm

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Same here, anybody who couldn't put themselves in the shoes of somebody who is afraid and harassed out of their wits..well, i wouldn't want to know them anymore.

How many people do you know like that? Where is the huge swell of support for people who simply can't empathise with Nally's fear? I don't see it. Perhaps you are only able to react to either opinion as a whole rather than as a series of events some of which may be more or less wrong than others? I personally empathise deeply with Nally's situation and given the circumstances I can actually understand why he beat the pulp out of Ward completely. It would be a stronger man than I who can claim to react to that kind of situation in a purely pacifist manner. However, from that point onwards Nally crossed a line that has been taboo since man stepped out of the jungle. He took another humans life. I will not under any circumstances condone this kind of violence unless it is under the immediate threat of death. No matter how you look at it Nally was not in this situation.

More than the fact that he took Ward's life, or that he will serve no punishment, I am bothered by the blood lust that seems to have followed this case. In a poll I put up on this the numbers who voted before it was locked showed clearly that many are glad Nally killed Ward. Even with the option that he could have only given him a beating people still picked the option that ended in Ward's death. Disgusting.

I have seen a man at close range that was just shot. It is a profoundly disturbing experience the like of which the majority of people can never imagine. I ask all the blood thirsty armchair vigilantes who are glad of Ward's death if they would feel the same after seeing a fellow human sprawled on the floor fighting for his life as their blood carries away shards of bone and lumps of inner organs. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

To those of you believe so vehemently in the right to use death as retribution and protection I suggest you prepare for the time when you, your children or your parents will be on the receiving end. Because for every trespasser up to no good that is shot in the future there will be the massive potential for the frightened gun wielder to have -heaven forbid- a momentary lapse in judgement and let loose their righteous judgement on someone manically banging down their front door at 4am because their kid is trapped in a car crash on the main road. But then maybe these people wouldn't care anyway? For the first time ever I'm starting to think that this maybe the case in a far greater way than I ever did before.

Tristame: Point on the term murder noted. For the sake of staying on topic and maintaining the quality of a great thread I'm going to chose to not reply to you calling my post silly and melodramatic.

Nermal · 16-12-2006 1:30pm

Diogenes wrote:

What floors me about the "Nally did the right thing" camp, is that they argue that considering Ward's background and his extensive previous convictions Ward got was coming to him.

I wonder exactly at what point, at what conviction did Wards life became forfeit? His first? His tenth? His 20th?

In many US states 3 felony convictions will result in an automatic life sentence, which I find agreeable. So I'll say 3 convictions, before your life becomes 'forfeit'. Does that sound too harsh to you? Maybe you could argue me up to 4. But by 80, there's not much point arguing anymore. It's so pathetic it actually makes me feel sorry for the Garda. Why even bother trying to convict him if he's not locked up?

Of course, if this was enforced here, there would have been no need for Nally to defend his home, because Ward would have been in a cell where he belonged.

Ordinary man · 16-12-2006 2:08pm

Its hard to put into words the sadness felt when reading some of the above posts. A man is put in a situation where he feels his only hope is kill another man and he is crucified for it. Maybe he would have been better off to put the gun in his mouth after and end it all.
The Ireland that we once had, is disappearing fast. The power is now in the hands of the lawbreakers. There is no deterent to criminals any more. Soft sentences and 5* prisons. Chances of getting caughts- slim. And if they do, there is always some group who will argue for their human rights.
I'm not a very educated or travelled person so maybe thats why i can't understand the fact that even though some people are killing themselves to try and make a better life for themselves and their children, they have no rights to live in peace.
I worry for my childrens future when i see what is happening to our society. I feel there is a divide opening in this country- not settled vs traveller, not Irish vs foreigner- a divide between the ordinary working people and the voices of power. The educated sheltered people who can bang on about rights for criminals and people who just want to live their lives in peace without worrying about somebody taking it all away.

ferdi · 16-12-2006 2:19pm

thae fact that nally reloaded means he should have done time. however, if i look at the case as a whole, i think karma will be satisfied.
justice was done, one less scumbag on the streets.

aphex™ · 16-12-2006 2:53pm

I think if you push someone to the point they're prepared to use lethal force then that is your own fault.

If you kick a dog long enough it will bite you.

He may have been convicted technically by law, but that would be contrary to natural justice.

nobodythere · 16-12-2006 3:56pm

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.

Safety and dignity

Wibbs · 16-12-2006 6:12pm

frobisher wrote:

I personally empathise deeply with Nally's situation and given the circumstances I can actually understand why he beat the pulp out of Ward completely.

I'd be singin from the same hymn sheet here.

It would be a stronger man than I who can claim to react to that kind of situation in a purely pacifist manner.

Trust me if it ever God forbid comes to it you may be surprised at your reaction.

However, from that point onwards Nally crossed a line that has been taboo since man stepped out of the jungle. He took another humans life.

You reckon that's taboo do you? Are you serious? Violent death, especially in defense of property has been a part and parcel of our history as a species. Even the Biblical law "thou shall not kill" is more correctly expressed as "thou shall not murder". There exists in the past or now precious few societies were such actions are as taboo as you may think. The reaction you're shocked by expressed by a lot of people shows it's not taboo at all under certain circumstances.

I will not under any circumstances condone this kind of violence unless it is under the immediate threat of death. No matter how you look at it Nally was not in this situation.

In your opinion and in hindsight. In Nally's head, isolated, alone and having been robbed several times previously, faced with a apparently dangerous individual(s) a different viewpoint might have been to the fore. To be perfectly honest I'm surprised that he didn't shoot the son too. The post mortem beating is the act of a desperate man. The ferocity of the attack from start to finish smacks more of desperation and frustration than any Rambo style mindset.

More than the fact that he took Ward's life, or that he will serve no punishment, I am bothered by the blood lust that seems to have followed this case. In a poll I put up on this the numbers who voted before it was locked showed clearly that many are glad Nally killed Ward. Even with the option that he could have only given him a beating people still picked the option that ended in Ward's death. Disgusting.

Disturbing certainly, but you must ask yourself why? Why is this a shock to you? Why do you think people feel this strongly about this? Do you not think in a "perfect" society people would think the polar opposite? Where's that leave our society where a man feels that alone and let down by the forces of law and order. Given Mr. Ward had that many convictions and felt apparently free to maybe commit more(and the maybe's for legal reasons), I think that says more about our society than any blood lust you seem to feel aggrieved and surprised by. BTW It also somewhat lessons your argument for the "taboo" angle.

I have seen a man at close range that was just shot.

As have I many years back.

It is a profoundly disturbing experience the like of which the majority of people can never imagine.

It is indeed.

I ask all the blood thirsty armchair vigilantes who are glad of Ward's death if they would feel the same after seeing a fellow human sprawled on the floor fighting for his life as their blood carries away shards of bone and lumps of inner organs. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

I'll regard the shards of bone and organs being carried away by blood as faintly smelling of hyperbole and anatomically dubious when referring to gunshot wounds, even shotgun wounds. The fact is of course it's not a pretty sight. We all realise that. Again why would you think a man otherwise of a normal bent be reduced to inflicting such a thing?

To those of you believe so vehemently in the right to use death as retribution and protection I suggest you prepare for the time when you, your children or your parents will be on the receiving end.../... their righteous judgement on someone manically banging down their front door at 4am because their kid is trapped in a car crash on the main road.

How likely is that? Outside of histrionics. The fact is things like this are rare. The fact is it's more likely to be the homeowner that is the one assaulted and/or killed.

For the first time ever I'm starting to think that this maybe the case in a far greater way than I ever did before.

Try not to lose sleep over it.

Nermal wrote:

Of course, if this was enforced here, there would have been no need for Nally to defend his home, because Ward would have been in a cell where he belonged.

Nail I'd like to cordially introduce you to head.

Grasshopa wrote:

Safety and dignity

Bang on the moolaa. The bleeding hearts seem to miss that one all too often. I've seen people who've been burgled be reduced to anxious wrecks, more so in the elderly. The scum can steal far more than ones telly. I know one elderly woman who barely leaves her house since it happened to her 6 years ago(and she lives in a city, imagine her on an isolated farm). The scum effectively stole her life and security. If I could get away with it I don't like to thinl what I would have done to the scum who left that woman in that state.

brianthebard · 16-12-2006 6:34pm

aphex&#8482 wrote:

Same here, anybody who couldn't put themselves in the shoes of somebody who is afraid and harassed out of their wits..well, i wouldn't want to know them anymore.

Because, lets face it, if you are scared, then your morals don't really count right?
Nally should have got manslaughter in my opinion for the very obvious reason that he shot a man in the back after a first shot. Now there are many people saying that Ward would have gotten up, got his pals, etc but thats just excuses. Nally shot the man, and he obviously had the advantage over Ward in terms of weapons. He bet him and shot him again. That's when he passed the line from self defence and took a running jump into manslaughter territory. Anyone that thinks the guards are that lazy/stupid/corrupt that they would not respond to a call from a farmer saying he just shot a man also needs a rethink. There were a lot more options available to Nally than a lot of people seem to want to admit.

Tha Gopher · 16-12-2006 6:39pm

frobisher wrote:

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.

Im disgusted that there are people who care and stand up for people who go to rob from the elderly because they are afraid if they attack someone young that there is a possibility they may fight back. Ward went to Nallys because he thought he could intimidate him, he thought he would be incapable of injuring him. Nally responded by beating him and shooting him dead.

SimpleSam06 · 16-12-2006 7:18pm

frobisher wrote:

I have seen a man at close range that was just shot. It is a profoundly disturbing experience the like of which the majority of people can never imagine. I ask all the blood thirsty armchair vigilantes who are glad of Ward's death if they would feel the same after seeing a fellow human sprawled on the floor fighting for his life as their blood carries away shards of bone and lumps of inner organs. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

Do you still wake up at night and run screaming at the walls, when charlie comes out of the bush? Just like Vietnam, man...

Red Alert · 16-12-2006 7:33pm

It was unwise for Nally to reload.

However, I think justice as done. Nally was tormented from Frog's previous visits to his farm.

How is it in many cases when a woman commits a 'crime of passion' she's allowed off with basically nothing? In the event of a guilty verdict Nally would have been deserving of this treatment.

Sangre · 16-12-2006 10:18pm

Red Alert wrote:

It was unwise for Nally to reload.

However, I think justice as done. Nally was tormented from Frog's previous visits to his farm.

How is it in many cases when a woman commits a 'crime of passion' she's allowed off with basically nothing? In the event of a guilty verdict Nally would have been deserving of this treatment.

Ask the juries?

Esel · 16-12-2006 10:42pm

Wibbs wrote:

The post mortem beating is the act of a desperate man.

You think Nally tried to beat Ward back to life? AFAIR, he shot him, then battered him, then shot him to death, then disposed of the body.

So, in reality, Ward committed suicide. That's what any good ole Southern jury would have found - if the case ever came to trial.

fly_agaric · 17-12-2006 12:31am

frobisher wrote:

I can't remember the last time I come across an issue that has made me look with such fresh eyes at the society I live in.

I wonder how the trial would have gone if the trespasser had been, say, maybe a local kid gone off the rails rather than a traveller "scumbag" whose death has been nicely gloated over in this thread?;)

aphex wrote:

I think if you push someone to the point they're prepared to use lethal force then that is your own fault.

So those Columbine Kids had the right idea all along folks...

aphex™ · 17-12-2006 1:42am

fly_agaric wrote:

So those Columbine Kids had the right idea all along folks...

That example works only if you ignore the facts of that case, which is something which is being done in all the arguments for the traveller in this thread. Fair play for being consistent, though.

Stabshauptmann · 17-12-2006 1:47am

That you cant judge a book by its cover is true enough and it must be noted that Nally didnt know Wards past.

But lets also remember that he'd been round the block a few times and wasnt stupid. Im sure after talking to the son he knew immediatly what was going on. He was being burgled. He shot the intruder, and a shotgun at the range he was at isnt overly excessive.
Ward was pissed, rightly enough and if he could would have killed Nally. Nally got the upper hand but Ive no doubt Ward was screaming how he was gonna get him. I believe had Ward not been killed Nally would have been.

Nally didnt need to know anything about Wards past. It was a kill or be killed moment, in Nallys eyes anyway, and under our law that is enough. If you think your life is in danger you can do pretty much anything. There is buckets of evidence to suggest that Nally feared for his life.

I can see the counter arguement, that he was in no immediate threat and reloading was a cold blooded decision to teach Ward a lesson. I can put myself in his shoes, I can think of times I was genuinely terrified and Im sure the danger was real and immediate in his mind, and time was something elapsing very quickly.
If that man reaches the car Im a gonner

fly_agaric · 17-12-2006 1:40pm

aphex&#8482 wrote:

That example works only if you ignore the facts of that case

,

That was a response to the crap you wrote without reference to any circumstances of the case that I could see.

aphex&#8482 wrote:

which is something which is being done in all the arguments for the traveller in this thread. Fair play for being consistent, though.

Ya. "For the travellers" - who every right-thinking Irish person should be pleased to see shot in the road when they pose a threat - "against" poor benighted Mr Nally":rolleyes:

Lets say Ward was your black-sheep brother and then run those circumstances of the case over in your mind again...

aphex™ · 17-12-2006 2:17pm

fly_agaric wrote:

,

That was a response to the crap you wrote without reference to any circumstances of the case that I could see.

I was clearly talking within the context of the facts of the case in question ie. a defensive action- protecting your dignity and home.

Putting my comment out of the context and into one of an offensive action, as you suggest, is silly. It is easy to win arguments when you ignore or distort the facts.

You're now comparing Nally to a bunch of angry teenagers as if to suggest it was he who got in a car and went to the travelers and shot one of them, an offensive action.

We're talking about the case in question, please stick to it. You're going wayy off topic bringing up irrelevant situations.

MrPudding · 17-12-2006 2:28pm

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

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

So without, I assume, any pychiatric training (wow assuming stuff is soooo easy) you are comfortable to assume a tortured man was compus metus at a time when he believed his life was under threat but are not comfortable to assume that a man with 80 previous convictions who was uninvited on private property in the middle of the night was possibly up to no good? Wow. Nice.

MrP

brianthebard · 17-12-2006 2:57pm

Is there any way of getting a transcript of the court case or any sort of proper report like that? All I keep seeing is people talking about Wards past, possible this, probably that, nothing that is actually true or proven to be true at any rate. Can we sort the opinion from the fact please?

aphex™ · 17-12-2006 3:57pm

brianthebard wrote:

Is there any way of getting a transcript of the court case or any sort of proper report like that? All I keep seeing is people talking about Wards past, possible this, probably that, nothing that is actually true or proven to be true at any rate. Can we sort the opinion from the fact please?

Found something here but I'm not sure why the date is in October. Either way it has a few facts in it for you. Unfortunately I don't have time to go through it right now, feel free to mention anything interesting you see in it.

dlofnep · 17-12-2006 6:43pm

When I first came across this story, I was in support of Nally. After reading more, I realised that is was murder. I'm sure Ward was no saint and perhaps society is better off without him - But despite our own gains, his children lost a father. Surely that's not a nice thing for anyone, regardless?

Nally shot him, beat him, and as Ward who was clearly at this time no threat tried to escape, Nally reloaded, came back and killed him in cold blood.

The problem with this case is that the travelling society has caused so much harm in general. And sometimes you have to stereotype, because travellers in general cause alot of problems. Now I'm not going to go down the path saying I know some nice travellers, because I do - But in most part, I'm not fond of them. I'd like to be open minded about them, but their own reasoning is through violence and robbery.

With this being said, it's very easy for me and everyone else to make their mind up quickly and come to harsh conclusions. There is no doubt in my mind that Ward was a bad man, but did he deserve to die? And if so - Do people believe people should get the death penalty for robbery (although there was no evidence of any)?

Stabshauptmann · 17-12-2006 6:59pm

dlofnep wrote:

Nally shot him, beat him, and as Ward who was clearly at this time no threat tried to escape, Nally reloaded, came back and killed him in cold blood.

Nally was in a very real and serious danger from Ward. If Ward had escaped he'd have come back and killed Nally. I know it, you know it, Wards family knows it and Nally knew it.

It was a kill or be killed situation.

dlofnep · 17-12-2006 7:03pm

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Nally was in a very real and serious danger from Ward. If Ward had escaped he'd have come back and killed Nally. I know it, you know it, Wards family knows it and Nally knew it.

It was a kill or be killed situation.

That's fine and well.

Nally had the option NOT to shoot him. From what I read, Ward wasn't threatening towards Nally. So it wasn't a kill or be killed situation.

But he shot him, as Ward escaped he shot him again and "beat him like a badger". Nally wasn't forced to shoot anyone. It was his decision. If I make the decision to shoot someone twice, I'd expect to be sent away for it.

It would of been the Garda's job after that to protect Nally. Nally had his options. I understand why he did what he did, but if Ward wasn't a traveller, Nally would of been found guilty. That's a fact.

17-12-2006 7:27pm

dlofnep wrote:

Nally had the option NOT to shoot him. From what I read, Ward wasn't threatening towards Nally. So it wasn't a kill or be killed situation.

Thats easy to type though.
If you read about ward not being threatening towards Nally, you'd have also read that Nally was terrified of intruders.
You'd also have read that Nallys defense case was based on his utter fear and the adrenelin pushed actions that he took.

This is something you either believe or not and something you either consider or don't consider.
Clearly a majority of the jury decided to take it into primary consideration and acquitted Nally.

The point I'm making is, our arm chair views on this are all well and good but we werent in Nally's shoes, we werent in his fear and we didnt have the benefit the jury had of looking Nally in the eye or Frog Wards son in the eye whne they were on the stand.

17-12-2006 7:34pm

dlofnep wrote:

When he went out and shot him again, that would indicate anger to me more than fear.

IN YOUR OPINION.

Whatever way you look at it, he murdered a man who by all rights was not going to murder him.

Read my warning earlier in this thread.
That kind of slander will not be allowed here.
I'm deleting your post and banning you for one week.

brianthebard · 17-12-2006 7:57pm

dlofnep wrote:

The problem with this case is that the travelling society has caused so much harm in general. And sometimes you have to stereotype, because travellers in general cause alot of problems. Now I'm not going to go down the path saying I know some nice travellers, because I do - But in most part, I'm not fond of them. I'd like to be open minded about them, but their own reasoning is through violence and robbery.

Stereotypes help no one, and trying to use them as an excuse for a killing (whether you think it was manslaughter or not) is lazy and rascist.

fly_agaric · 17-12-2006 10:31pm

aphex&#8482 wrote:

I was clearly talking within the context of the facts of the case in question ie. a defensive action- protecting your dignity and home. Putting my comment out of the context and into one of an offensive action, as you suggest, is silly. It is easy to win arguments when you ignore or distort the facts.

Alrighty then. I wasn't trying to "win" anything. If you want to know I was scoring a point because I'm feeling somewhat irked about all this.:)

You can't win with those who see absolutely nothing at all amiss here. I keep thinking I've been teleported to Texas or something...

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If that man reaches the car Im a gonner

I thought the son had already driven off in the car by the time the second shot was fired...

aphex™ · 17-12-2006 11:37pm

fly_agaric wrote:

You can't win with those who see absolutely nothing at all amiss here. I keep thinking I've been teleported to Texas or something...

So the Irish never cared about protecting themselves in their property? Why do most castles have an opening above the door then? To attack would-be intruders. Protection is fundamental.

We're one blue flu away from being butchered in the street, the way things are going right now. Time for real laws so people like Nally don't have to get into situations like that ever again.

SimpleSam06 · 18-12-2006 12:17am

aphex&#8482 wrote:

We're one blue flu away from being butchered in the street, the way things are going right now. Time for real laws so people like Nally don't have to get into situations like that ever again.

I think you meant to say, "The criminals are one blue flu away from being butchered in the street"...

Diogenes · 18-12-2006 10:42am

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Ward was pissed, rightly enough and if he could would have killed Nally. Nally got the upper hand but Ive no doubt Ward was screaming how he was gonna get him. I believe had Ward not been killed Nally would have been.

Nally didnt need to know anything about Wards past. It was a kill or be killed moment, in Nallys eyes anyway, and under our law that is enough.

Theres an enormous amount of rampant BS in the above. Are you really telling me that I can gun anyone down because I suspect that they might kill me?

If you think your life is in danger you can do pretty much anything. There is buckets of evidence to suggest that Nally feared for his life.

I can see the counter arguement, that he was in no immediate threat and reloading was a cold blooded decision to teach Ward a lesson. I can put myself in his shoes, I can think of times I was genuinely terrified and Im sure the danger was real and immediate in his mind, and time was something elapsing very quickly.
If that man reaches the car Im a gonner

More rampant speculation. I sincerely hope given the attitude expressed above that you don't have access to a firearm and ammo.

18-12-2006 10:50am

Diogenes wrote:

Theres an enormous amount of rampant BS in the above. Are you really telling me that I can gun anyone down because I suspect that they might kill me?

Theres an enormous amount of unnecessary Angst in this thread.

Like I said earlier.Anyone that thinks they can run after an intruder and put a few shots in them based on this verdict is deluded.
The situation is that you might get away with it and then again you might not depending on the circumstances.
Personally I wouldnt like to depend on the gamble,if I was minded towards more than disabling an intruder.
I'd like to think though that those who would claim to be as persecuted mentally enough to go for the kill, by the thoughts of intrusion are few enough and far enough between.

That said,if I was a robber these days,I would be factoring in the likelyhood that theres a strong possibility that I'll be tackled and injured or maybe even killed depending on who I was robbing.

Blush_01 · 18-12-2006 12:48pm

Diogenes, are you from an urban or rural background? You may not think that's relevant, but I can assure you it really is.

In my opinion: Nally's slate shouldn't have been wiped completely clean, but I can understand the motivation behind what he did. I feel very sorry for Nally, he'll never be able to live alone in peace again, particularly not on his farm. Only a fool would think that revenge won't be sought. Besides, Nally probably can't live alone anymore, having been institutionalised. That, in a way, is an even worse sentence than being in prison.

MovingOn wrote:

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

It's awful that that's the case, and fair play to you for giving your opinion on the matter when you know that that's the case, but the travelling community are notoriously close-knit and traveller customs and traditions are closely guarded, as we all know. I hope that the travelling community can find some way of preserving the knowledge of their traditions into the future. There's been a general social disintegration over the past number of decades, in my opinion, but while the settled community have a literary and scribal aspect to their history, traveller history is largely oral, isn't it? In that case traditions and history will be lost as less people respect the old ways of doing things, even if they don't use them. Recent attempts to teach Shelta (I don't know whether it was Gammon or Cant) in (a) regular primary school(s) - as far as I know it was a pilot scheme in Galway, I could be very wrong - really didn't go down too well with the travelling community as it's a vital part of their individual heritage and they didn't want it being taken outside the travelling community. In a way I can respect that, but it also causes the rift between the settled and travelling communities to deepen as the travelling community's privacy is very like exclusion, I guess.

Eire 4Ever · 19-12-2006 6:03pm

It should not matter that Ward was a member of the travelling community or if he were coloured, protestant or a non national. The is a big divide in Ireland between settled and travelling communities and this case has made the divide even wider. As with all people they are good and bad types. While Mr. Nally had every right to defend himself and his property and he did cross line when he shot and beat a man retreating and if remember correctly "beat him like a badger". Who picked the jury members and were any members of the travellers community on the jury? I think they should have been. I really can't see how Nally was found not guilty.

Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

Comments