Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

candide

whitelightrider wrote:

Do you honestly think that if Nally had wounded Ward, that Ward wouldnt have come back and probably killed Nally???

Would anybody leave such enemmy alive and then wait alone and isolated for the day when the angry wounded could come and revenge?

Mrs Roy Keane

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

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

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

the_syco

DadaKopf wrote:

Nally shot Ward in the leg, clearly disabling him; Ward Jr. had driven to get help at this point; Ward was no longer a threat; accounts of how this happened differ but in either case, Ward was no longer a threat

So... if you're in the middle of nowhere, you attack a scumbag (not a traveller), do you a)wait for his friend to come back with his pals, b)ring the Gardai, knowing they won't make it before the scumbags friends, or c)render the scumbag to an unthreatening condition?

tred wrote:

I read some interesting posts pros and cons, and then this muck above comes along. Wards family have no right to sue now because of yesterdays verdict.

Since our law is based on English law, and since English burgulars have successfully sued the homeowners of the house's they got injured in, I'd say they have a case. I'd prefer for the burgular not to have that right, but at the moment, they have more rights than those getting bugurlazied.

=-=

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

elurhs

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

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

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

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

SimpleSam06

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celticfire

latenia wrote:

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

08 June 2000 21:42

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

their own life....

Ronan|Raven

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

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

Sand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Villain

Sand wrote:

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

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

frobisher

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

gandalf

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

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

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

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

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

at banning sparks.....rediculous

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

The verdict was a total joke.

Wibbs

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

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

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

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

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.

gamb1or

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.

Diogenes

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

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™

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.

frobisher

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

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

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

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

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.