Sundays Nally March Cancelled

...6 years? Thought it was very light myself. I appreciate his defence, but when you treat another human being as target practice I think you should be put away for a very long time...

You would have been in a minority on friday nights late late show audience.
Plenty of tales there of people scared witless by intruders and the adrenelin rush with some as to what they did and plenty of outrage as to intruders and no shortage of people willing to defend their homes and familie's.

In the Nally case, he just went too far, but I think the Judge recognised the circumstances that led to that-total fear.
Theres not much point ringing Gardaí if it takes a half hour for them to get there...
I had an incident in my home for instance and was waiting 3 hours and that was in the middle of the day!
Murder/manslaughter is exactly that and deserves the punishment that a judge is entitled to hand out.

There is a fear especially among old people in rural Ireland,and for some the shot gun is the only protection left.
Most don't even get time to point it-some just get beaten to a pulp by intruders.
Criminals of course dont care either way.

And meanwhile, theres someone sueing the state so as they can get the min wage for washing the dishes in the prison...
What do they think prison is- a holiday camp? :rolleyes:

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

In the Nally case, he just went too far

You can say that again.

I initially had sympathy for him, but then read about him shooting the guy, then beating him with a stick over 20 times, then going away and reloading his gun, coming back and delivering the coup de grace. And thouhg I had assumed he was some frial old man, he then threw the dead body over a wall...

Bloodychancer

I think that he did go too far and even though it is understandable given the mans previous experience and the experience of others at the hands of intruders people can not take someones life when there does not appear to be any immediate threat to their own or someone elses

That said I think 6 years in prison is harsh for a man of 62 with no previous record and who is unlikely to offend again and who was minding his own business in his own home.

However perhaps the judge did get it right in as far as no one is happy with the sentence neither the dead mans family nor the convicted mans side

If Nally had got a lighter sentence it may have sent out the message that a travellers life was less important.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

You can say that again.

I initially had sympathy for him, but then read about him shooting the guy, then beating him with a stick over 20 times, then going away and reloading his gun, coming back and delivering the coup de grace. And thouhg I had assumed he was some frial old man, he then threw the dead body over a wall...

Yeah I had sympathy for him as well till I found out he chased the injured man up the road and shot him in the back ... thats murder in my mind, not self-defense, you are attempting to kill the person so they won't have the oppertunity to attack you at a later stage, but it is still murder. I don't accept he was a frail old man either, the intruider seems to have got a good ass kicking before he was finally killed.

The whole point of self-defense isn't punishment or, a deterent, it is to actually defend yourself from attack. Force outside of this is not acceptable.

jimmycrackcorm

I thought it was an appropriate sentence. My sympathy was with Nally up to the point where he shot ward in the back.

I saw the Late Late show and I was very taken aback at the reaction of the audience which I felt was motivated by emotional thinking. There seemed to be absolutely no concept of reasonable force, but a justification for force driven purely by fear. While I think that Nallys train of thought was justifiably irrational given the crime spate and that he was waiting for such an event to occur, we cannot have a situation where people feel totally justified to take any action whatsoever without some thought to the consequences.

Nallys own statement that it was like shooting a badger says a lot for him.

Dave!

The sentence should have been suspended, in my opinion...

There's already a thread on this in this forum, and a larger one in After Hours, on page 3 or thereabouts, by the way.

murphaph

This case really has me torn. I'm not sure where I stand on it to be honest.

I'm glad that the tinker is not going to be able to terrorise any more elderly farmers in isolated parts, that's a given, but the law's the law and the sentence for robbery is not death.

Perhaps if the sentences handed down to the likes of that traveller when they are found guilty of robbing the elderly were a lot harsher I'd be more inclined to side with the dead tinker, but they aren't harsh enough so people like Nally get the feeling (rightly) that the law isn't going to to anything to protect them, so they fall back on protecting themselves with a shotgun.

Anyway, expect a civil case to be brought against Nally by the tinker's widow.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

You can say that again.

I initially had sympathy for him, but then read about him shooting the guy, then beating him with a stick over 20 times, then going away and reloading his gun, coming back and delivering the coup de grace. And thouhg I had assumed he was some frial old man, he then threw the dead body over a wall...

To be honest with you,I had not read or heard that at all.
Where did you hear he threw him over a wall? From this theres no mention of a wall-just a bed of nettles.
His defence and that of his neighbours seems to be that he got into some kind of uncontrolable rage out of fear.
He does deserve the sentence in my view and couldnt have been let off.He did after all go too far,he did unlawfully kill the man and thats not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm inclined to think the sentence is about right though.I wouldnt agree that he got away with it.I'd rather say that if Mr Ward had robbery as his intention(and by his long list of previous...) then he was very unfortunate to be the first to come up against Nally when Nally was in the state he was in.

I hope this case highlights the two equally important things that come out of this and those are : (1)The length you can and cannot go to defend your home and the consequences if you go too far and (2) The need for hundreds more Gardaí in this country

mike65

A dodgy mentaility is starting to creep into this case, now the IFA and GAA are backing a free Nally campaign (well its that in all but name). There will be a march or gathering of some description in the comming days. It'll proberly turn into a lynch mob after dark.

Mike.

Sponge Bob

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

I thought it was an appropriate sentence. My sympathy was with Nally up to the point where he shot ward in the back.

well my sympathy was with Nally until Ward hit the ground after the first shot , was clattered 20 times and then shot in the back after being clattered. Then it was murder . It should have been tried as murder in Dublin but trial was moved to Castlebar thereby forcing the state to reduce the charge to manslaughter when it was obviously murder . Whoever moved the trial perverted the course of justice, 400 years for that man !

Ward had an accomplice IIRC, what happened to him ??

Blackjack

Thread Title is a bit misleading. 6 years is hardly "getting away with it".
While he deserved a sentance for manslaughter, and got one, the 6 years he got was as much as he should have got. Ideally he should have got less.

And Spongebob, have you any links to your claim re the trial being in Dublin then moved Castlebar, for a lesser charge?. I haven't seen this anywhere else.

murphaph

Wasn't it the first murder trial in Castlebar since the foundation of the state?

Blackjack

Having read through the Irish Times website, there does not appear to have been any indication that the trial was ever in Dublin in the first instance. That's not to say it wasn't but the wording from the various articles I've read don't ever allude to the case ever having anything to do with a Dublin court. Also, why would a trial in Castlebar mean that it would only be a manslaugher charge instead of Murder?.

Sponge Bob

Blackjack wrote:

Having read through the Irish Times website, there does not appear to have been any indication that the trial was ever in Dublin in the first instance.

Normally trials are in Dublin as it is easier to get an unbiased jury , Nally was charged with murder but the DPP dropped the charge for fear he would walk and did him for manslaughter instead.

So who moved this farce to Castlebar ???

Bloodychancer

Sponge Bob wrote:

Normally trials are in Dublin as it is easier to get an unbiased jury , Nally was charged with murder but the DPP dropped the charge for fear he would walk and did him for manslaughter instead.

So who moved this farce to Castlebar ???

Actually it is within the courts new policy of keeping trials in the regions rather than clogging up the limited court space in Dublin

This also facilitates witnesses who now do not have to travel to Dublin for weeks unsure of exactly when they will be called

It facilitates the local Gardai for the same reason

Also it facilitates the accused counsel who are more likely to be local as well

This has been done in limerick as well in the various murder gang feud trials down there and i have not heard any suggestion that it was done to give the gangsters any likelyhood of a better outcome


Besides which it seems a huge insult on the jury in this case that you are suggesting that they were biased
They convicted the man of manslaughter a conviction which carries the possibility of a life sentence.
Hardly a farce manslaughter would appear to be the correct verdict as Nally did not set out to kill anyone but rather went to far in the heat of the moment.

Bloodychancer

Sponge Bob wrote:

Normally trials are in Dublin as it is easier to get an unbiased jury , Nally was charged with murder but the DPP dropped the charge for fear he would walk and did him for manslaughter instead.

So who moved this farce to Castlebar ???

Besides which you are completely wrong as 30 seconds and google would have told you

He was charged with Murder

He had a Murder Trial

The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of Manslaughter

The DPP did not dro the Murder charge

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/11/story229779.html

Last July, a jury found Mr Nally not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Castlebar, Co. Mayo.

Boggle

Not sure why so many here are keen to have the man hung, drawn and quartered... No one can deny that there were strenuous circumstances and that the man was under severe mental duress.

Personally, I have to problem with an old man defending his life and i can completely understand what would have driven him so mad that he would have gone so far overboard in his (not so measured anymore) response.

For me it should have been a suspended sentence and I expect that he wont see too mush of it before getting out...

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

Not sure why so many here are keen to have the man hung, drawn and quartered ... For me it should have been a suspended sentence

He shot a man in the hip for simply for being on his property (Gardi say there is no forensic evidence he was in the house, and Nally says he only saw him at his back door), beat him 20 times and, as Ward ran away, he chased him up the road and shot him in the back.

There is no evidence Nally had justification to fear for his own safety, or that this was an act of self defense. It seems he had become obsessed with the idea of being burglerisd, and that obsession manifiested in a huge panic attack when he saw Ward. The level of force Nally used was completely unjustified and brutal

If the situation had been reversed and a local man had been caught snooping around a travaler halting sight and had been shot and beaten to death would people be calling for light treatment of the travellers involved?

Sponge Bob

Bloodychancer wrote:

The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of Manslaughter

Ok sorry, the DPP must have charged him with murder and also with manslaughter in case murder did not stick and the jury decided murder did not stick but that manslaughter did.

If the policy from now on is to have all Mayo trials in Mayo itself , starting with this one, then fine and dandy .

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

There is no evidence Nally had justification to fear for his own safety,

With respect, you could make that statement for anyone living alone.
Fear is a state of mind.
I'll make a statement now of similar validity or probably more...Theres an awfull lot of afraid people living either alone or with their family miles from anywhere who might in some cases be driven to do the same or close to what Nally did.

Whats the solution? More Gardaí and indeed like they have in Britain community(voluntary iirc) police.
It wouldnt take much of an effort to get a rota going.

As Regards Nally, its very easy to pontificate with hindsight.He says he was afraid,as do his neighbours.The Judge and jurors must have believed him given the length of sentence, the circumstances and that he was convicted of manslaughter not murder.No one in my view has the right to be excused entirely for killing, there must be some legal inquiry.
Who are we to second guess what was lawfully done here, he and his case was given a full hearing as per the law.
Yes he went too far, yes he should have at worst wounded him and yes he should have arranged to have security to prevent Ward or his friends coming back for revenge.
But that makes no allowance for the irrationality of the situation-its just pontification-an easy thing to do in front of a pc but not so easy at the coal face of a potential robbery or intimidation(And yes I'd count being found on Mr Nallys Farm five times uninvited as intimidation).

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

...he should have arranged to have security to prevent Ward or his friends coming back for revenge.

Why should he? Isn't that one of the functions the state is supposed to provide for its citizens?

Isn't it, in fact, part of the social contract with the state that actions such as Nally's are illegal because the state has agreed to co-opt the role of defender?

If someone with Ward's record was able to successfully intimidate a man to the point where he felt (rightly or wrongly) driven to kill him, doesn't it indicate that the state failed, in the first instance, to honour its side of that social contract?

seamus

Earthman wrote:

I hope this case highlights the two equally important things that come out of this and those are : (1)The length you can and cannot go to defend your home and the consequences if you go too far and (2) The need for hundreds more Gardaí in this country

I think a third problem it highlights is the criminal justice system in general in this country. Ward was clearly a danger to general populace. Why was he roaming the countryside?

As oscarBravo points out, a massive portion of blame could be attributed to the state's failure to protect the public (in this case Nally). 12 previous serious convictions, as well as allegedly attacking a Garda with a potentially lethal weapon. Firstly, why was this man free, and secondly, why did the Gardai fail to do anything after Ward had been reported trespassing on Nally's land five times?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Why should he? Isn't that one of the functions the state is supposed to provide for its citizens?

What are you saying there? that one of the existing Gardaí should have been put on duty at his house instead? I think its evident from what I've said already that the govt should be in a position to do this for a group of neighbours but arent.

Isn't it, in fact, part of the social contract with the state that actions such as Nally's are illegal because the state has agreed to co-opt the role of defender?

If someone with Ward's record was able to successfully intimidate a man to the point where he felt (rightly or wrongly) driven to kill him, doesn't it indicate that the state failed, in the first instance, to honour its side of that social contract?

Of course.

seamus

seamus wrote:

Ward was clearly a danger to general populace. Why was he roaming the countryside?

Or, whether his fear was reasonably based or groundless, one could say that Nally was clearly a danger to anyone who might wander on to his property. Why did he have a gun?

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Or, whether his fear was reasonably based or groundless, one could say that Nally was clearly a danger to anyone who might wander on to his property.

Actually, one couldn't because the evidence says otherwise. Ward had been on Nally's property five times previous without Nally having taken any action. That quite clearly points to Nally *not* being a danger, even to potential trespassers, until he was sufficiently aggravated. Ward was just a constant danger to the public.

Why did he have a gun?

He's a farmer. You'll find a lot of them have guns for various reasons. Earthman can explain better.

Ronan|Raven

Why did he have a gun? He is a farmer. Last time I checked farmers tend to have guns.

Last time I checked farmers have to get their gun licence renewed annually by the gardai. In the rural area where I live I have seen gun licences turned down because the gardai are concerned about the state of the holder.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Or, whether his fear was reasonably based or groundless, one could say that Nally was clearly a danger to anyone who might wander on to his property. Why did he have a gun?

Now theres a big difference between a random stranger/salesman perhaps and someone who has wandered onto Nallys farm 5 times uninvited...
I think you are displaying a lack of understanding of the human condition called fear as it applies to people living alone.

From a personal perspective,I had an elderly grand uncle who never slept at night out of fear of being attacked.
We'd always find him napping by day whilst his farm employee was outside working.
Like a lot of people he was be too proud to move out and why should he anyway??

To cut to the chase on this one,Whilst I am sorry for Wards Death, and I think it was wrong,I know my sympathies are deeper for law abiding honest old people living in fear on their own.
Maybe intruders will realise now that they may face arms in future.
But then maybe they will come armed too, such is the society we live in.

By the way as per what Ronan|Raven said I have a licenced gun as do all of my neighbours.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Last time I checked farmers have to get their gun licence renewed annually by the gardai. In the rural area where I live I have seen gun licences turned down because the gardai are concerned about the state of the holder.

A very very Rare occurance from my experience.I'm sure there are many cases where the gun has been pointed or shot in the air to ward off intruders.
The Gardaí have no truck with that-its not whats supposed to be done, but in practice it is.
In Nallys case, they more than likely wont renew the licence anyway, because he killed someone with it and of course for the reason you mentioned in that it would be hard not to say he wasnt safe having it now.

But I reckon if you were to use the fact that a gun might be pointed at intruders as a reason not to have a gun , you may as well recall half or more of the guns in the land as many of them(certainly in rural areas ) are kept under the bed and only in their secure cabinets if inspected.

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

But I reckon if you were to use the fact that a gun might be pointed at intruders as a reason not to have a gun , you may as well recall half or more of the guns in the land as many of them(certainly in rural areas ) are kept under the bed and only in their secure cabinets if inspected.

They should be recalled then. Pointing a gun at another person is absolutely unacceptable. Plenty of my neighbours have guns, I've been out shooting with them, but it wouldn't cross their minds to produce the gun to deal with trouble or to point it at someone. It's not the wild west.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Last time I checked farmers have to get their gun licence renewed annually by the gardai. In the rural area where I live I have seen gun licences turned down because the gardai are concerned about the state of the holder.

Be that as it may, most media reports suggest that Nally hadn't become obsessed and terrified until the few weeks before the incident. You can't also infer that Nally at that point would be a danger to anyone who approached his property, since Ward was shot committing the very acts that Nally was in fear of.

seamus

seamus wrote:

Ward was shot committing the very acts that Nally was in fear of.

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

They should be recalled then. Pointing a gun at another person is absolutely unacceptable. Plenty of my neighbours have guns, I've been out shooting with them, but it wouldn't cross their minds to produce the gun to deal with trouble or to point it at someone. It's not the wild west.

Frankly thats ridiculous.
You don't and couldnt know what your friends might do when faced by an intruder.Some will lie down and let the guards take a statement after the fact.Some will tackle them, some will understandably cower in fear and some will take on the burgalars.

As regards your " its not the wild west" comment, you'd be forgiven for thinking it is, given the state of lawlessness in the country:rolleyes:

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

Frankly thats ridiculous.
You don't and couldnt know what your friends might do when faced by an intruder.

The one who I know did produce a gun to deal with trespassers, needless to say, doesn't hold a licence any more...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

Wards conviction list.... his constant pestering of Nally(5 uninvited visits given Wards history would not be nice)
The legal system has dealt with this matter.It got a good hearing and if you disagree, well thats your perogative.
If it was premeditated murder as opposed to a pestered man going to far in the circumstances, there might be something to the fuss that you are making.

This is the 2nd ridiculous point you've made-the first being that Nally was a danger to all visitors when clearly he wasnt. (given that it took the 5th or 6th uninvited intrusion bu the same man to finally have him lose it)
Clearly in the eyes of his neighbours he wasnt either and clearly a judge and jury of his peers also thought this given the result of the case.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

The one who I know did produce a gun to deal with trespassers, needless to say, doesn't hold a licence any more...

Well I suggest you have a quiet talk with some Gardaí and ask them of the instances that a gun may have been pointed at an intruder-it happens every other day.
There are several cases,Id venture.

Now before we continue on this tit for tat waste of time posting crusade can we agree that you disagree and hold your opinion and thats that .
Because Frankly at the rate we are going I dont see it converging at all with the opposite view in this thread.

ishmael whale

oscarBravo wrote:

If someone with Ward's record was able to successfully intimidate a man to the point where he felt (rightly or wrongly) driven to kill him, doesn't it indicate that the state failed, in the first instance, to honour its side of that social contract?

I think that’s a very fair point. Many people do lack confidence in the effectiveness of the Gardai and a browse of the Morris Tribunal report gives credence to their views.

I’m not sure that the verdict would be different wherever the case was heard. From what we know of the facts, a conviction for murder would seem wrong. It looks like a person who honestly felt under threat overstepped the limit of what might be regarded as self defence in the heat of the moment.

Is six years too much? The judge commented he found it a hard call and it is. A second look at the sentence would be no more than just.

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

This is the 2nd ridiculous point you've made

You really think it ridiculous to point out that Ward was not actually committing a robbery or a violent act before someone decided to shoot him, blasting through his hip and hand, beat him so severely as to break his arm and split his head open, reload and shoot him again while he was in a crouched position and thereafter dump his body over a wall? I think it relevant tbh. You sure you aren't starting from the premise that Nally deserved leniancy and worked your way backwards to justify his actions?

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

With respect, you could make that statement for anyone living alone.
Fear is a state of mind.

True, but just because you are scared doesn't justify taking a defensive action against someone unless they are actually threatening your safety.

If I stayed up all night watching the Alien Quadology and then blew the milkmans head off because I was in such a hightened state of fear and alert, that still doesn't mean that is a justifable action against someone who actually isn't any danger to me, I just believe they are because I am so wound up.

Neighbours had commented that Nally had been in a hightened state of suspicion due to robberys in the local area. That may have effected his mental state, but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

And even if the inital attack had been motivated by panic and fear, what about the beating, the chase and the final killer shot? What exactly was Nally scared about then?

It was an act of frustration and anger, not panic and fear.

Earthman wrote:

I'll make a statement now of similar validity or probably more...Theres an awfull lot of afraid people living either alone or with their family miles from anywhere who might in some cases be driven to do the same or close to what

Driven? He was burgled once, had something stole from a barn another time. Seeing someone on your land is was hardly a sustained campaign of fear and intimadation. I have friends (living alone) who have had their apartments and houses broken into 3 or 4 times, they don't shoot people at their back doors, chase them for a bit and then shoot them again. I would suspect Nally let his paranoia and frustrations effect this mental state more than any external factors.

Earthman wrote:

Who are we to second guess what was lawfully done here, he and his case was given a full hearing as per the law.

Thats rather strange logic. Do you believe the Irish crimial justice system is infallible? Or only when you agree with the outcome?

Earthman wrote:

But that makes no allowance for the irrationality of the situation-its just pontification-an easy thing to do in front of a pc but not so easy at the coal face of a potential robbery or intimidation

But sure then any robber or criminal (or even Ward himself) could claim he was "scared" as justification for any act of violence and get man slaughter instead of murder.

I admit the inital panic and fear of seeing Ward on his land could justify some sort of fight-or-flight response in Nally (maybe the inital shot that wounded Ward), but this was a sustained and continuous act of brutal violence. Hell he had to go and get his gun.

If this was a Gardi special weapons group and had chased an unarmed man up a path and shot them in the back, because they were "scared", would that be man slaughter?

Or, as I said before, if Nally had been snooping around a halting sight and had been found by Ward, shot, beaten and killed, do you think many would listen to Ward if claimed he was just really really scared at the time?

I my opinion this was far more an act of frustration and anger, than fear. Nally meant to kill Ward. And that is murder, not man-slaughter. The reason he only got man slaughter was emotional not justice.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

He was exiting Nally's house. Regardless of whether a robbery had occured, at the very minimum it's breaking and entering, and it's not a huge jump from there to burglary or attempted burglary.

Benedict XVI

Wicknight wrote:

but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

Wasn't a direct theat ????
Ward was at Nally's back door existing the house, on the property uninvited for the 6th time, if that is not a direct threat to Nally and his property what is. ?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

You really think it ridiculous to point out that Ward was not actually committing a robbery or a violent act before someone decided to shoot him, blasting through his hip and hand, beat him so severely as to break his arm and split his head open, reload and shoot him again while he was in a crouched position and thereafter dump his body over a wall? I think it relevant tbh. You sure you aren't starting from the premise that Nally deserved leniancy and worked your way backwards to justify his actions?

I think its ridiculous that , sitting at a PC, one presumes to know better that what the legal process has delivered.
I've not read that the body was dumped over a wall.
As regards shot guns-yes they blast.

As regards leniency.
Anything short of the full available sentence would be leniency ergo 6yrs by the eminent judge is leniency and thats a fact.I've already stated that given the circumstances up to this event, that I think the trial outcome was fair.
My position on the law in this case has alread been stated.
The judge agreed that everyone was agreed that Ward was up to no good

The judge accepted that Nally was initially protecting his property against an invasion from someone that he pointed out everyone agreed was up to no good. It was events after this point that informed his sentencing.

link so again frankly your implication that Ward was not up to any good doesnt hold up-his character and record was woefull.

Wicknight wrote:

True, but just because you are scared doesn't justify taking a defensive action against someone unless they are actually threatening your safety.

Correct and the law was enforced in this case to take account of what is and isnt justifiable.

If I stayed up all night watching the Alien Quadology and then blew the milkmans head off because I was in such a hightened state of fear and alert, that still doesn't mean that is a justifable action against someone who actually isn't any danger to me, I just believe they are because I am so wound up.

Oh in that case,If I were on the jury,I'd recommend the big house for you and the men in white coats.
It's different to a real person with a menacingly bad conviction history harassing you.

Neighbours had commented that Nally had been in a hightened state of suspicion due to robberys in the local area. That may have effected his mental state,

correct.

but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

Thats an unknown.

And even if the inital attack had been motivated by panic and fear, what about the beating, the chase and the final killer shot? What exactly was Nally scared about then?

he admitted himself that he finally went beserk.Theres no question of that.

It was an act of frustration and anger, not panic and fear.

Thats one opinion,I'd only partiall share.I'd say it was a combination of all four, with the latter two well documented in court.

Driven? He was burgled once, had something stole from a barn another time. Seeing someone on your land is was hardly a sustained campaign of fear and intimadation. I have friends (living alone) who have had their apartments and houses broken into 3 or 4 times, they don't shoot people at their back doors, chase them for a bit and then shoot them again. I would suspect Nally let his paranoia and frustrations effect this mental state more than any external factors.

Yes but you see there is a big difference between seeing regular intruders on an isolated farm and living in a town or city.
At least with the latter, theres help nearby-It may not come but at least its there.

Thats rather strange logic. Do you believe the Irish crimial justice system is infallible? Or only when you agree with the outcome?

I usually agree with the outcome of a court.

But sure then any robber or criminal (or even Ward himself) could claim he was "scared" as justification for any act of violence and get man slaughter instead of murder.

They would have to convince the jury though.
That takes some if not a lot of a component of truth to do and if its the truth, then I dont see a problem.

I admit the inital panic and fear of seeing Ward on his land could justify some sort of fight-or-flight response in Nally (maybe the inital shot that wounded Ward), but this was a sustained and continuous act of brutal violence. Hell he had to go and get his gun.

I'm aware he went beserk but I'm accepting the extenuating circumstances.

If this was a Gardi special weapons group and had chased an unarmed man up a path and shot them in the back, because they were "scared", would that be man slaughter?

Uhm I dont see the comparison.

Or, as I said before, if Nally had been snooping around a halting sight and had been found by Ward, shot, beaten and killed, do you think many would listen to Ward if claimed he was just really really scared at the time?

I'd imagine the court would decide on the evidence.

I my opinion this was far more an act of frustration and anger, than fear. Nally meant to kill Ward. And that is murder, not man-slaughter.

I'd agree with you to an extent, he probably did intend to kill him.But I doubt it was an intention rationally thought out.It was a heat of the moment intention which I wouldnt consider murder.

The reason he only got man slaughter was emotional not justice.

Well I'd like to think it was justice because to be honest with you,thats what I'd have conviced him of, if I was on that jury.
The jury was out for only two hours by the way which is indicative that they must have been solid in what they thought.

Zombrex

Benedict XVI wrote:

Wasn't a direct theat ????
Ward was at Nally's back door existing the house, on the property uninvited for the 6th time, if that is not a direct threat to Nally and his property what is. ?

What is? Ward attacking Nally.

My understand of the event is that Ward was found standing at Nally's back door. Nally went and got his shot gun came back and shot him. At no point was Ward a danger to Nally. At no point was it necessary for Nally to defend himself. If Ward had attack Nally he would have been justified in using the shot gun to defend himself. He didn't

Zombrex

seamus wrote:

He was exiting Nally's house.

I think the most likely reason Ward was there was to rob the house, but the Gardi said there was no evidence Ward had actually made it into the house. He was simply standing at Nally's back door.

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

I think its ridiculous that , sitting at a PC, one presumes to know better that what the legal process has delivered.

Which is a stock response that could be given to any post here. After all, isn't that what we are all doing, just sitting at PCs presuming to know better - or at least have differing opinions - and criticise others? Are you saying all of your posts amount to ringing endorsements of decisions made by others on the basis that they would naturally know better having spent more time on the matter? I agree with the Courts decision to convict, I think the sentence was unduly leniant, and I do not believe that the Courts are above adverse comment and censure - if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

I'd agree with you to an extent, he probably did intend to kill him.

Then it is pretty clearly murder.

If the inital shot had killed Ward, and the inital shot was fired in panic or a surge of anger, and Nally did not really realise his actions, yes you have a case for man slaughter. But it wasn't. Ward was shot again minutes after the inital surprise (it wasn't even much of a surprise, since Nally knew someone was on his property). Thats simply the shots, ingoring the beating and the chase.

The different between murder and man slaughter is malice. Did Nally mean to and want to kill Ward. It is pretty clear he did. Even if this malice was caused by a deep frustration and anger brought about by paranioa and fear, it is still murder. Nally killed Ward out of anger, not fear. You don't beat someone, chase them and shoot them twice because you are scared of them.

Earthman wrote:

It was a heat of the moment intention which I wouldnt consider murder.

But that's the point .. it wasn't a moment, it was a sustained act of violence, over minutes. If the inital shot had killed Ward, I would be right up there with the manslaughter verdict. But it wasn't the inital shot that killed Ward. There were plenty of times Nally could have stopped and realised what he was doing. He didn't, because there was malice in him to injure and kill Ward. At the time he wanted to do it. that is pretty clear. The justification for that anger (weak as it is) doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

Earthman wrote:

The jury was out for only two hours by the way which is indicative that they must have been solid in what they thought.

Like I said, emotional rather than rational. They didn't even take time to really consider what they had seen. Two hours consideration for a murder trial? That ridiculous.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Or the vast majorit of post on Boards.ie/Politics

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Which is a stock response that could be given to any post here. After all, isn't that what we are all doing, just sitting at PCs presuming to know better

We're not all presuming to know better than a court.

- or at least have differing opinions - and criticise others? Are you saying all of your posts amount to ringing endorsements of decisions made by others on the basis that they would naturally know better having spent more time on the matter?

Nope,I'm just indicating that I'm not convinced by any stretch here that justice wasnt done in this case.

I agree with the Courts decision to convict, I think the sentence was unduly leniant, and I do not believe that the Courts are above adverse comment and censure - if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Well I'll accept the appeal in this case too.I just havent seen anything compelling to convince me theres a need for an appeal.
I have however seen a poster use an emotive description of a beating and a wrongfull killing and beating as a justification for not agreeing with a sentence.I'd prefer to look at the full picture not just part.
Different posters-different ways of looking at it.

Wicknight wrote:

Then it is pretty clearly murder.

Nope-there were several extenuating circumstances that led to this.It wasnt long in the planning.

If the inital shot had killed Ward, and the inital shot was fired in panic or a surge of anger, and Nally did not really realise his actions, yes you have a case for man slaughter. But it wasn't. Ward was shot again minutes after the inital surprise (it wasn't even much of a surprise, since Nally knew someone was on his property). Thats simply the shots, ingoring the beating and the chase.

All of which ignores extenuating circumstances which cannot and shouldnt be ignored in a fair trial.

The different between murder and man slaughter is malice. Did Nally mean to and want to kill Ward. It is pretty clear he did.

No It is not, it is far from clear that he rationally decided to kill him.

Even if this malice was caused by a deep frustration and anger brought about by paranioa and fear, it is still murder. Nally killed Ward out of anger, not fear. You don't beat someone, chase them and shoot them twice because you are scared of them.

Theres no basis for that-even the jury who did not decide on the length of sentence but rather on the conviction disagree with you there and they attended the entire case.

But that's the point .. it wasn't a moment, it was a sustained act of violence, over minutes. If the inital shot had killed Ward, I would be right up there with the manslaughter verdict. But it wasn't the inital shot that killed Ward. There were plenty of times Nally could have stopped and realised what he was doing. He didn't, because there was malice in him to injure and kill Ward. At the time he wanted to do it. that is pretty clear. The justification for that anger (weak as it is) doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

With respect thats your own conjecture, you werent there and Nally plus his legal team convinced an 11 person jury who attended a 6 day trial otherwise.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'll fervently disagree with it.

Like I said, emotional rather than rational. They didn't even take time to really consider what they had seen. Two hours consideration for a murder trial? That ridiculous.

The trial lasted six days not two hours.
The two hours reflects the honest opinions of those who looked all involved in the case in the eye.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

Nope-there were several extenuating circumstances that led to this.It wasnt long in the planning.

What, that he was scared and pissed off?

Earthman wrote:

All of which ignores extenuating circumstances which cannot and shouldnt be ignored in a fair trial.

I am not ignoring them, I just think it is ridiculous to say that the fact that this man was frustrated by local robberies means it wasn't a malicious act to chase a man down with a shot gun beat him and shoot him in the back.

Earthman wrote:

No It is not, it is far from clear that he rationally decided to kill him. Theres no basis for that-even the jury who did not decide on the length of sentence but rather on the conviction disagree with you there and they attended the entire case.

Did they hear something we didn't?

Cause my understanding is that upon seeing Ward at his back door Nally went away, came back with a gun, shot Ward, beat ward 20 times, fracturing his skull, pushed Ward into a pile of nettles, chased him up a lane way, shot him in the back and put him over a wall. All this over a time of about 5 minutes.

That doesn't sound like a panic response to be, it doesn't sound like self-defense, it doesn't sound like a temporary loss of control. It sounds like a malicious murder. Nally was worried sh*tless of robbers so he murdered, out of frustration and anger, the next one that came by.

Earthman wrote:

With respect thats your own conjecture, you werent there and Nally plus his legal team convinced an 11 person jury who attended a 6 day trial otherwise.

So?

As I have already said I believe that verdict was ruled by emotion rather than rational. A scumbag traveller got shot robbing a house, no point convicting a nice man like Nally of murder over a robber, we will let him off with man slaughter. Nally's legal team gave the jury a way out (he was insane at the time and didn't realise what he was doing) and they took that cause they couldn't stomach convicting this man of murder. Isn't the first time its happened, won't be the last.

Earthman wrote:

The two hours reflects the honest opinions of those who looked all involved in the case in the eye.

Thats my point, they didn't reflect on anything, they had made up their minds before the end of the trial, before everything had been presented. Scum bag traveller vs Nice farmer, it isn't a surprise it wasn't a murder conviction. I am just pointing out it wasn't justice.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

What, that he was scared and pissed off?

I think we already know you think, his worries were trivial, it's easy for you to say that.I'll go with the court and agree that they werent trivial.

I am not ignoring them, I just think it is ridiculous to say that the fact that this man was frustrated by local robberies means it wasn't a malicious act to chase a man down with a shot gun beat him and shoot him in the back.

You are either trivialising them or ignoring them tbh.I'll run with you thinking they are trivial given that you dont think they were as important than your conjecture that the jury were emotional.

Did they hear something we didn't?

Are you suggesting trial by media is better than trial in a court of law now/ Or that trial by threaded post having read the newspapers carries more weight than a court of law?

Cause my understanding is that upon seeing Ward at his back door Nally went away, came back with a gun, shot Ward, beat ward 20 times, fracturing his skull, pushed Ward into a pile of nettles, chased him up a lane way, shot him in the back and put him over a wall. All this over a time of about 5 minutes.

That doesn't sound like a panic response to be, it doesn't sound like self-defense, it doesn't sound like a temporary loss of control. It sounds like a malicious murder. Nally was worried sh*tless of robbers so he murdered, out of frustration and anger, the next one that came by.

5 minutes isnt temporary? 20 minutes isnt temporary.
I wouldnt fancy your chances convincing a psychologist of that.

So?

your conjecture Vs the result of a law case heard by 12 jurors

As I have already said I believe that verdict was ruled by emotion rather than rational. A scumbag traveller got shot robbing a house, no point convicting a nice man like Nally of murder over a robber, we will let him off with man slaughter. Nally's legal team gave the jury a way out (he was insane at the time and didn't realise what he was doing) and they took that cause they couldn't stomach convicting this man of murder. Isn't the first time its happened, won't be the last.

We're all entitled to hold beliefs, but beliefs arent necessarally facts.You dont know what the jurors were thinking other than obviously they disagree with you ergo, you are just expressing an opinion and darn it, thats fine,I'm of the opposite opinion

Thats my point, they didn't reflect on anything, they had made up their minds before the end of the trial, before everything had been presented. Scum bag traveller vs Nice farmer, it isn't a surprise it wasn't a murder conviction. I am just pointing out it wasn't justice.

We dont know.
But I wouldnt agree with dissing the result of a jury verdict without good reason and there is no reason to diss this one.
(If you had evidence that the jury was tampered with I'd be of a different opinion.)