Should Padraig Nally be in jail?

Dave!

Hey,

So Pádraig Nally, a 61 year old farmer, was found guilty of manslaughter after some [traveller] broke into his house and he shot him (full story here).

Just wondering, what do you people think about this? Justified? Was Mr Nally in the right?

And just general thoughts on protecting your house and family... how much force is 'reasonable'? Should you be allowed to kill them? Maybe a gun should be allowed in your house in case of intruders...?

Discuss :v:


EDIT:
Discuss the case and issue at hand. Do not dwell on the fact that the person shot was a member of the travelling community. Do not use offensive, derogatory terms.[/B]
-Herr K.

KdjaCL

He reloaded and fired again so yes simple as that. All the "he was on my property " crap goes out the window as soon as he reloaded and fired again.


Just to add the 1st shots would have taken down a large bear the guy was down when he reloaded and fired again.

kdjac

cournioni

The fact is that he took a mans life. He should do time for it, simple as.

johnnyrotten

I disagree, When somone breaks and enters he should face the consequences

KdjaCL

johnnyrotten wrote:

I disagree, When somone breaks and enters he should face the consequences

That may be so but he reloaded if he didnt he would have got away with it.


kdjac

cournioni

He should have got a slap alright, but not shot and killed.

Did he actually break into the house or not?

nlgbbbblth

KdjaC wrote:

That may be so but he reloaded if he didnt he would have got away with it.


kdjac

What if his second shot missed???????

Anyway he wouldn't have got away with it. Would have still got a custodial sentence.

Sarsfield

"The second and fatal shot was fired after Mr Ward had left Nally's farmyard in October 2004 and was limping down the road, in manifest retreat, Mr Justice Paul Carney said today"

He shot the guy in the back as he limped away. That's why he's in jail. It's not just that he killed, it's that he killed a man who was no longer a threat to life or even property.

johnnyrotten

Pity his accomplice was'nt shot as well

seamus

As KdjaC says, he was completely in the right until he reloaded and shot a fleeing man. I believe the six years was a good choice on the judge's part. What he did, didn't call for a life sentence or 15 years in jail - based on the man's general mental state at the time - but he can't go unpunished either.

In terms of defending your property, I'm all for reasonable force, but I believe that one a person strays into your property uninvited, and with dishonest intentions, then every injury incurred is his own problem. Unless the trespasser is left dead or vegetative, then the householder should not be liable.

Karoma

I do believe that in this case, Padraig Nally went too far (i.e. Reloading, and shooting the guy as he was trying to flee.)

However, hindsight's a great thing. The truth is, if you awoke to find someone in your house, you do not know their intentions. You may not think straight. Especially, if you live miles from the nearest police/help.

I'd also dispute whether 6 years of prison would improve ones mental state!

KdjaCL

[QUOTE=KaromaThe truth is, if you awoke to find someone in your house, you do not know their intentions. You may not think straight.[/QUOTE]

No i would , its simple i would put him down with as much force as needed, but once he was down that would be enough. I dont have a gun but there are less death inducing ways of protection.


kdjac

Madge

Reading that the traveller "had 12 previous convictions for burglary, possession of stolen goods and other offences, and had been facing charges of attacking garda officers with a slash hook at the time of his death", then imo, he deserved everything he got. Padraig Nally should be commended for doing society a favour and ridding us of the scum.

johnnyrotten

Here, here!

Dave!

KdjaC wrote:

No i would , its simple i would put him down with as much force as needed, but once he was down that would be enough. I dont have a gun but there are less death inducing ways of protection.


kdjac

Did the intruder not deserve it though...? I mean, he was obviously a scumbag -- no loss?

{stirring up discussion...}

EDIT:

Ah I see Madge got there first

*Lees*

Madge wrote:

Reading that the traveller "had 12 previous convictions for burglary, possession of stolen goods and other offences, and had been facing charges of attacking garda officers with a slash hook at the time of his death", then imo, he deserved everything he got. Padraig Nally should be commended for doing society a favour and ridding us of the scum.

I totally agree!!

.. If he hadn't shot him the second time... no doubt the traveller would have came back and killed him when he was well enough!!!...

Madge

lisamon wrote:

I totally agree!!

.. If he hadn't shot him the second time... no doubt the traveller would have came back and killed him when he was well enough!!!...

Yeah, that was what I was thinking, considering the traveller was seen on Nally's land 5 times in the last 2 months before the incident happened.

Pigman II

Yeah he should be in jail unfortunately. I've no sympathy for the dead pikey tho.

seamus

DaveMcG wrote:

Did the intruder not deserve it though...? I mean, he was obviously a scumbag -- no loss?

No, absolutely no loss to society.

But that doesn't mean it was OK. Otherwise, you could justify napalming large sections of certain communities on the virtue that it's no loss to society.

For society to function, all crimes must be punished, even when they're committed against society's enemies.

Sarsfield

Madge wrote:

Reading that the traveller "had 12 previous convictions for burglary, possession of stolen goods and other offences, and had been facing charges of attacking garda officers with a slash hook at the time of his death", then imo, he deserved everything he got. Padraig Nally should be commended for doing society a favour and ridding us of the scum.

I doubt Nally had the benefit of knowing the intruders previous convictions, so no defence there. Even if he did, he had no right to hand down and carry out a death sentence.

Guy:Incognito

To all those who think that he was wrong, would you takethe chance that he would come back at a later stage to get revenge? I wouldnt. I'm sorry but my life is worth a lot more to me than the life of some scumbag burglar.

The law doesnt deal strongly enough with offenders in this country (how are people done for joyriding/burglery etc allowed to run up rap sheets of 50-60 arrests? they should be locked up long before that). If they have arrests into double figures you can bedamn sure their crimes amount to a good few times that amount, so I have no sympathy.

Ray777

I think it's a fair enough sentence. Presuming that he behaves himself, he should be out of jail in less than four years. I can understand why people who know the man would feel aggrieved at his sentencing, but looking at it coldly and clinically, I think the judge made the perfect choice. Ward may have been a thieving piece of filth, but did he honestly deserve that kind of 'justice'?

I found it depressing, listening to spokespeople (apologists) for the travelling community on the radio today. They seem completely incapable of admitting that any traveller could ever be responsible for a crime. It is a sad fact that for many travellers, stealing is a way of life.

Hagar

You come into my house tonight, you become my judge and jury.
I'll take my chances with a real jury the day after.
Die you bastard, you are not worth one sleepless night for one of my children.

Blackjack

Nally reloading the gun and shooting ward the second time was what he deserved the sentance for. Regardless of the circumstances, it would send the wrong message if he were not to get some punishment for this.

On the other hand, had he not done so, he would have either been killed by Ward's family, or sued for the injuries caused.

junkyard

I don't think Padraig Nally should be in jail for protecting his property, the traveller got what was coming to him for his carryon.

HybridTech

I don't believe the man should be in jail!

If more people reacted the same way others would be slow to commit these crimes in the first place. That's what's wrong, IMO, no fear of consequences.

"If there's going to be an enquiry................be at it!"

Ray777

HybridTech wrote:

If more people reacted the same way others would be slow to commit these crimes in the first place.

Or maybe they'd just tool themselves up better?

Sparky

he was on padraigs property breaking in, as far as i would be concerned he done the right.
Its seems the law is on the travelers side.

The man done what he had to.
I say no he should not be in jail, the fact that he has killed a fellow human on his conscience is a serving of a sentence enough.

Dave!

Sparky_S wrote:

the fact that he has killed a fellow human on his conscience is a serving of a sentence enough.

That wouldn't be on my conscience for too long, to be honest. Maybe I'm a sick b*stard, but I'd feel like I've contributed to society if I did that. I'd probably think different if I had actually done it, though.

I'd probably feel bad about the kids and that, now that I think of it.

Ray777

Sparky_S wrote:

I say no he should not be in jail, the fact that he has killed a fellow human on his conscience is a serving of a sentence enough.

At the risk of sounding flippant...

Maybe the law should be amended. Abolish jail sentences for every killer who 'has it on their conscience'.

HybridTech

Ray777 wrote:

Or maybe they'd just tool themselves up better?

He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword!

Funkstard

Does no one else know the background story to this? The farmer lived in fear basically, he was told his house was going to get burgled, and he was being continously intimidated by the tinker family for ages, he was supposed to be absolutely shattered emotionally because of the torment he was going through.

Fair enough, he shot him the second time, but he obviously just flipped and went on a mini-rampage. I'm sure many people here would have done the same.

With that said, he still broke the law and it's right that he's in jail. I too agree somewhat with the sentence, I'd like to see him not in jail because he won't do anything like it again, but a message must be sent out. He didn't deserve anything near life, which is why I can see where the judge is coming from in giving him 6 years

junkyard

It wasn't the travellers first time on Mr. Nallys premises and you can be sure it wouldn't be his last if he was still alive. The law should be changed as regards protecting your own property, anyone found in your house without your permission should be fair game.

caesar

Blackjack wrote:

On the other hand, had he not done so, he would have either been killed by Ward's family, or sued for the injuries caused.

Very true.

Does anyone think that maybe he is better off in jail for awhile. I mean he will be safer there, chances are that the family of the man who was killed will try to get revenge.

I voted that he shouldnt be in jail because the man was living in fear of those travellers. He did take the law into his own hands but only when the law let him down in that he had reported them about previous threats but nothing was done about it. The situation then arose when, he had had enough, he was in a situation where one of them was going to leave the world(as he said himself), he wasnt thinking straight, he was defending himself, he shot once, he reloaded and shot a second time, a man died. These travellers were well known to the gardaí for other crimes so it wasn't as if they had just been commiting a crime in threatning Mr. Nally, but where was the law then?

As for reloading and shooting a second time, well that didn't help his case but he was in fear and trying to defend himself. Could you imagine yourself in this situation, what would you do?(this Q is for those who voted yes because you may think he should be in jail but you may also think that you would have done the same as Mr.Nally did). He probably reloaded because he wanted to make sure the traveller didnt come back to get him with his son or maybe the second shot was not ment to hit him but to scare him off(remember he was a fair distance away when the 2nd shot was fired). Rant over.

lostexpectation

Madge wrote:

Reading that the traveller "had 12 previous convictions for burglary, possession of stolen goods and other offences, and had been facing charges of attacking garda officers with a slash hook at the time of his death", then imo, he deserved everything he got. Padraig Nally should be commended for doing society a favour and ridding us of the scum.

This sort of comment by alot of people on the boards really makes me question their sanity. If you really think this you should get yourself seen too.

junkyard

What would you do lostexpectation, if you were in Padraig Nally's shoes?

Guy:Incognito

lostexpectation wrote:

This sort of comment by alot of people on the boards really makes me question their sanity. If you really think this you should get yourself seen too.

Why? It highlights tht the law failed to deal with him and the fact that he reapetedly offended meant this situation was going to arisesonner or later. If the pikey had broken into the guys house and murdered him, everyone in the country would have been up in arms with screams of "why was this guy allowed to threaten an old farmer and cause him misery , while having a string of offences, and then kill him"

Funkstard

/\/\Is that not a valid outcry? I mean, what you said is only one step away from being true

Guy:Incognito

Funkstard wrote:

/\/\Is that not a valid outcry? I mean, what you said is only one step away from being true

Yes it is. And it works both ways. The situation had to be sorted one way or another and pesonally I would always take the side of the householder over the scumbag burglar. These scumbags break into peoples houses so why should the people hve to show them any respect, I wouldnt.

Binka

I have to be honest, hand on heart, i think i would have done the same in his circumstances. Have any of you been robbed or burgled? even a one off by a total stranger? It does very strange things to you. Let alone a series of events by the same perpetrators.
So, yes, his actions were justified, and yes a custodial sentence should be applied to appease all those in favour of not taking the law into your own hands.
But you also have to weigh up what gives anyone the right to subject another human being to this type of mental torture, paranoia and sleep deprivation, to the point where you are willing to put an end to it by killing someone. If Ward had limped away injured you can be sure Nally would not be alive today.
Many of us applaud him for ridding us of this scum. Nally did not ask to be made a victim of Ward's crimimal lifestyle. That was Ward's choice, not Nally's.
Maybe 2 years, but 6, no.

silverside

i might have lost the head completely and shot someone in the back as they were limping away. this doesnt mean it's justified or deserves to go unpunished. at the end of the day he took someones life unnecesarily even if they were a no good cream cracker.

junkyard

I think a suspended sentence maybe, but nothing more.

Funkstard

Stekelly wrote:

Yes it is. And it works both ways. The situation had to be sorted one way or another and pesonally I would always take the side of the householder over the scumbag burglar. These scumbags break into peoples houses so why should the people hve to show them any respect, I wouldnt.

Hey I'm on your side here! The little tinker was going to meet his maker sooner or later, it's unfortunate that an otherwise innocent man got caught up in it and is in jail now because of it.

de5p0i1er

If some one breaks into your house and trys to rob you you should be allowed to fight back.

Binka

at the end of the day he took someones life unnecesarily even if they were a no good cream cracker.[/QUOTE]

I find it hard to agree with your sentiment "unnecesarily". I think you would rephrase that if you were the one living alone in a remote farmhouse.

silverside

no i dont think i would
if someone was limping away and was already seriously wounded i dont think finishing them off is ever justified. understandable maybe in a rage, but not justified.

Guy:Incognito

silverside wrote:

no i dont think i would
if someone was limping away and was already seriously wounded i dont think finishing them off is ever justified. understandable maybe in a rage, but not justified.

So you'd be willing to take a chance with your or your families lives, becaus etheres a good chance he'd be back?

silverside

if he comes back after he gets out of hospital (which is unlikely) i will still have my shotgun. who gave me the right to finish him off?

hardCopy

Under current laws I think it was a fair sentence, although I do not agree with the current laws. As far as I'm concerned if someone invades your most personal space, your home, then they waive all of their rights and you should be allowed do whatever is necessary to protect yourself. This should apply also to protecting yourself from a future threat as happened in this case.

If the Gardai/Judiciary cannot protect people's homes then people should be given the power to protect themselves.

In an ideal world I would not have Mr. Nally in jail, he is the real victim here.

Guy:Incognito

silverside wrote:

if he comes back after he gets out of hospital (which is unlikely) i will still have my shotgun. who gave me the right to finish him off?

He's hardly going to turn up empty handed (or alone) knowing you have a shotgun. Bottom line, I wouldnt take the risk.

He wasnt worth the price of two cartidges, he should have beaten him to death with the gun rather than fire the secondd shot

Binka

"if he comes back after he gets out of hospital (which is unlikely) i will still have my shotgun. who gave me the right to finish him off?"

Why would it be unlikely?