Padraig Nally found not guilty of manslaughter :o)

aphex™

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

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

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

nobodythere

latenia wrote:

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

Safety and dignity

Wibbs

frobisher wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As have I many years back.

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

It is indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

Try not to lose sleep over it.

Nermal wrote:

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

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

Grasshopa wrote:

Safety and dignity

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

brianthebard

aphex&#8482 wrote:

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

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

Tha Gopher

frobisher wrote:

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

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

SimpleSam06

frobisher wrote:

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

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

Red Alert

It was unwise for Nally to reload.

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

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

Sangre

Red Alert wrote:

It was unwise for Nally to reload.

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

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

Ask the juries?

Esel

Wibbs wrote:

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

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

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

fly_agaric

frobisher wrote:

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

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

aphex wrote:

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

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

aphex™

fly_agaric wrote:

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

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

Stabshauptmann

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

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

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

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

fly_agaric

aphex&#8482 wrote:

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

,

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

aphex&#8482 wrote:

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

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

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

aphex™

fly_agaric wrote:

,

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

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

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

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

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

MrPudding

DadaKopf wrote:

• We will not know for certain what Ward was doing on Nally's farm that day. People assume that they know, but they don't. This is an *assumption*. There is no forensic evidence, and there is no evidence to support either side's claims. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered 'evidence' towards a 'proof' of guilt or innocence
• Nally probably feared for his life; given prior incidents, it is not irrational for an old, lonely person to feel vulnerable, though I would assume he became paranoid, but not so far gone that an insanity plea was valid, therefore I must assume he was at the time compus mentus

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

MrP

brianthebard

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

aphex™

brianthebard wrote:

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

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

dlofnep

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

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

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

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

Stabshauptmann

dlofnep wrote:

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

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

It was a kill or be killed situation.

dlofnep

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

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

It was a kill or be killed situation.

That's fine and well.

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

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

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

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote:

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

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

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

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

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote:

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

IN YOUR OPINION.

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

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

brianthebard

dlofnep wrote:

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

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

fly_agaric

aphex&#8482 wrote:

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

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

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

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

If that man reaches the car Im a gonner

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

aphex™

fly_agaric wrote:

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

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

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

SimpleSam06

aphex&#8482 wrote:

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

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

Diogenes

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diogenes

Diogenes wrote:

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

Theres an enormous amount of unnecessary Angst in this thread.


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

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

Blush_01

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

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

MovingOn wrote:

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

Pascal

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

Eire 4Ever

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