Padraig Nally is attacked again!

Wibbs

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Guards done their job but the judicial system? Well, you know the end to that story.

And that's the problem right there SM. It's not or very rarely the Guard's fault, it's the judges and the political will or lack of it to tackle this problem.

So what I am saying, if you think you are getting a good price on done deal ask yourself first if someone else is out of pocket in return.

+1

Wibbs

end of the road wrote: »

no, he shouldn't. he shot a man and then when the man tried leaving he went and finished the job. he's a murdering animal who should have been locked up indefinitely

end of the road wrote: »

no, he didn't have to murder him in cold blood. nally is a ferrel wild dangerous animal who should still be locked up in a secure facility

end of the road wrote: »

doesn't matter. nally was wrong and should be in a secure unit away from society as he is to dangerous to be free.

end of the road wrote: »

yes, he got sympathy and got lucky. he's still a dangerous individual though. he wouldn't be the first dangerous individual to be acquited and won't be the last.

Answer the question: How many crimes has Nally been accused of before or since this incident? How many convictions for crimes had Ward at the time of this incident? Compare and contrast.

I can't believe I read that stuff. I'd call troll, only I have encountered similar hippies in the real world with unreal levels of naiveté. They seem to have good intentions at their core, but it gets whipped up into ever decreasing circles of nonsense. It's been made worse these days as hippies can find their kin in online echo boxes where they whip themselves up into even more daft circle jerks of nonsense. That's how you get your "Social Justice warriors, your rad Manosphere and rad Fem nutters. Luckily they're still a minority, they just shout the loudest online, where they can avoid real world responses and consequences.

floggg wrote: »

One thing that puzzles me is that if it's so certain that the Ward family would retaliate against him no matter what be did, why haven't they done it yet?

1) he was in gaol so unreachable as such, 2) when he was released he has been threatened by members of the Traveling community 4) he had the beady eyes of the Guards keeping more tabs on him than previously and 5) yet is a big word. He may die in his bed like we all should, but I'd not be too surprised if he didn't.

Skylinehead

Wibbs wrote: »

Answer the question

He was banned from the thread, so he can't. Not that he would anyway, he has form for not answering questions that deviate from his stubborn-as-a-mule logic.

walshyn93

Riskymove wrote: »

the problem with this is view is that it is based on hindsight and seeks to find reasons to support what happened.

is the right to shoot someone in this situation based on the person's history? obviously it cannot be

If Nally had shot someone in the same way who had no previous convictions would it affect the legality of what he did?

If I see Wayne Dundon committing a crime and he sees me seeing him. Am I justified in ending his life then and there, in the knowledge that he will end mine sooner or later?

Legality is one thing, but self-defence is a complex thing when dealing with gangs. There's no room for half measures.

Roger Hassenforder

walshyn93 wrote: »

If I see Wayne Dundon committing a crime and he sees me seeing him. Am I justified in ending his life then and there, in the knowledge that he will end mine sooner or later?

Legality is one thing, but self-defence is a complex thing when dealing with gangs. There's no room for half measures.

So you would?
I would.

walshyn93

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So you would?
I would.

Can't say either way. The point I was making is that Nally had no way out. If he didn't kill him he'd be back for revenge. He did kill him and his family came back for revenge or at the very least continued to intimidate him and generally make his life hell. That's the problem with standing up to gangs and the justice system itself is ill equipped to dole out natural justice in these cases.

SeanW

walshyn93 wrote: »

If I see Wayne Dundon committing a crime and he sees me seeing him. Am I justified in ending his life then and there, in the knowledge that he will end mine sooner or later?

Legality is one thing, but self-defence is a complex thing when dealing with gangs. There's no room for half measures.

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

R0C

floggg wrote: »

I have no quarrels with him taking the first shot, and would defend his right to do so.

Once the thief was down and injured, he only needed to pick up the phone and call the Gardai. Regardless of whether the man lived or died from that point, i would have been in full agreement with what he did.

Self defence or defence of property rights is one thing. Taking the decision to unnecessarily take a mans life - that's another thing entirely and something I will never condone.

The person he shot should should have been arrested and jailed if he was attempting to steal from him. But last I checked we didn't he capital punishment in this state, nor was Patrick Nally empowered by anybody to administer justice.

Maybe I'm just a crazy leftist though, what with my respect for life and all.

(Good insult by the way whoever called me that. It's not only stinging, but also shows you are clearly an informed individual with an understanding of political and moral beliefs)

Nally didn't have a mobile phone, or a landline.

jungleman

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe he was 100% right to reload and give that scumbag the second barrel. Shooting someone in the back can easily be seen as cowardly, but In Nally's case I think it took a lot of courage. If an intimidating gang of travellers were breaking into my house, stealing stuff from my yard on such a consistent basis that I practically lived in a shed, I really don't think I'd have the balls to face them.
For one, they have no respect for the law. They think they are above the law. Secondly, they have no respect for human life. They don't care about their victims or their actions. Thirdly, the justice system is still not dealing seriously enough with these issues. Burgalry and theft aren't seemingly important enough to warrant sentences which would act as a deterrent.

So yeah, fair play to Nally. All he wanted was a quiet life and those monsters took it from him. He's a braver man than I am.

I am in the same situation myself. I have warned the Gardai after 6 attempts on my house i now have to have a weapon in every room should they strike again. Somebody is going to get hurt. Still waiting since May 2014 to speak with the community Garda.

Its hard to describe but the feeling you get hearing your front door being broke down. It literally haunts you. My girlfriend has nightmares that somebody is breaking in at night and cant sleep.

Only last night she was confronted with some guy shining a torch into next door neighbors car.

Chrissybhoy

endacl wrote: »

Ye would, yeah.

:rolleyes:

Well Nally shot one dead do you think he's one of a kind that no other person would do the same.

Roger Hassenforder

Ward forfeited any rights he may have had not to be shot, after his third conviction, not to mind 80.
Did he promise to rehabilitate himself each time? Was each conviction a cry for help? How many chances does his ilk (criminals) need? He was convicted of 80, but how many elderly people suffered as a result of his actions.
These people have no respect for the law, others. Only themselves. It's take take take.
Although it's sad kids will grow up without a father, the country is better off without this individual.

Roger Hassenforder

SeanW wrote: »

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

In the words of Carwyn James "get your retaliation in first"

walshyn93

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ward forfeited any rights he may have had not to be shot, after his third conviction, not to mind 80.
Did he promise to rehabilitate himself each time? Was each conviction a cry for help? How many chances does his ilk (criminals) need? He was convicted of 80, but how many elderly people suffered as a result of his actions.
These people have no respect for the law, others. Only themselves. It's take take take.
Although it's sad kids will grow up without a father, the country is better off without this individual.

How about a mandatory death penalty at 50 convictions?

jungleman

walshyn93 wrote: »

How about a mandatory death penalty at 50 convictions?

Good idea, I like it.

Kunkka

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh away with the lefty nonsense for just once. Why was said wounded man there? To give him flowers? Oh wait... no... he was there to rob him blind and likely worse given said "man's" (many)previous* and the previous intimidation of Mr Nally. The lefty nonsense of "all property is theft" and "shure what can you do and shure won't insurance cover it" doesn't begin to illustrate the terror many elderly and not so elderly people feel in isolated areas of this country.

Said "man" had eighty convictions. Eighty. And those were only the crimes he was found out and found guilty of. Eighty FFS. And yet he was free to raom abroad to commit more crimes. Insanity. Did he deserve being shot? Debatable, he certainly deserved to be in a gaol cell for life to keep his sort from the rest of human society. And he ended up shot to death because he wasn't taken out of normal human society.

Agree 100% but the world has gone so PC now that we can't call these people what they are. They don't contribute to society they just terrorize people that live by the law. It drives me mad when someone comes out and says it how it is in the public eye we are then told how "persecuted" they are & how we can't say this or that. **** off will you these people have no respect for society so they should have no place in it.

Roger Hassenforder

walshyn93 wrote: »

How about a mandatory death penalty at 50 convictions?

Why wait until 50?
Although I'd prefer permanent removal from society.

Roquentin

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why wait until 50?
Although I'd prefer permanent removal from society.

liquidate them?

endacl

walshyn93 wrote: »

How about a mandatory death penalty at 50 convictions?

jungleman wrote: »

Good idea, I like it.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why wait until 50?
Although I'd prefer permanent removal from society.

Roquentin wrote: »

liquidate them?

who the fug

end of the road wrote: »

ward died due to being murdered out of revenge by a dangerous out of control individual who got off due to the sympathy vote. the jury allowed a dangerous individual back into society which means questions should have been asked

No he be dead because he broke the law by trying to rob someone

RecordStraight

end of the road wrote: »

ward died due to being murdered out of revenge by a dangerous out of control individual who got off due to the sympathy vote. the jury allowed a dangerous individual back into society which means questions should have been asked

I think they let a dangerous man back into society 80 times.

tayto lover

walshyn93 wrote: »

How about a mandatory death penalty at 50 convictions?

How about a suspended sentence i.e. hang him.

Stinicker

I think all law abiding citizens should have a full right to bear arms, a person should have the right to defend their property using lethal force, if I was in Nally's position there would be three dead intruders. No warnings given just shoot and ask questions later.

Roquentin

Stinicker wrote: »

I think all law abiding citizens should have a full right to bear arms, a person should have the right to defend their property using lethal force, if I was in Nally's position there would be three dead intruders. No warnings given just shoot and ask questions later.

i agree with that. people should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves. they would think twice about breaking into someones house or business


although the risk of killing someone who is harmless goes up as we see in america.

Stinicker

Roquentin wrote: »

i agree with that. people should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves. they would think twice about breaking into someones house or business


although the risk of killing someone who is harmless goes up as we see in america.

With America's huge population then you will always have unfortunate incidents. In Ireland due to our lower population you would have far less incidents, the criminals in Ireland already are armed and the populace should be able to fight back to defend themselves if they want.

Every country has an underbelly of pure scum and law abiding citizens should be given full reign to defend themselves.

If more ordinary citizens were armed then you'd see more dead scumbags and less dead ordinary citizens. There is no police station where I live and I might aswell be living in the Wild West of Texas in 1850, the Gardai do what they do but the justice system is on the side of the Criminal and against the ordinary man.

There is no justice in Ireland and until the death sentence is brought back and a 3 strikes rule implemented then nothing will change because scumbags like these are afraid of noone. On your third offense you get a minimum ten - fifteen year stretch without parole.

I don't blame the Guards, they do their best I blame the Judges and the Legal System, Gardai here get treated with savage abuse and if you treated a Police Man in America like I've seen some Gardai treated then most likely you'd get shot.

Roquentin

Stinicker wrote: »

With America's huge population then you will always have unfortunate incidents. In Ireland due to our lower population you would have far less incidents, the criminals in Ireland already are armed and the populace should be able to fight back to defend themselves if they want.

Every country has an underbelly of pure scum and law abiding citizens should be given full reign to defend themselves.

If more ordinary citizens were armed then you'd see more dead scumbags and less dead ordinary citizens. There is no police station where I live and I might aswell be living in the Wild West of Texas in 1850, the Gardai do what they do but the justice system is on the side of the Criminal and against the ordinary man.

There is no justice in Ireland and until the death sentence is brought back and a 3 strikes rule implemented then nothing will change because scumbags like these are afraid of noone. On your third offense you get a minimum ten - fifteen year stretch without parole.

I don't blame the Guards, they do their best I blame the Judges and the Legal System, Gardai here get treated with savage abuse and if you treated a Police Man in America like I've seen some Gardai treated then most likely you'd get shot.

totally agree.

we should really be demanding this. if we can take to the streets for water, then we should to demand this. the guy nally killed had 80 convictions. the guy should have been in prison and if the justice system had done its job hed be alive in prison.

we need to build more prisons by the sounds of it as well.

walshyn93

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why wait until 50?
Although I'd prefer permanent removal from society.

I dunno about the exact numbers, but 50 is clear evidence of an unreformable career criminal and even if half of those convictions were false it would still be too many. Someone could rack up 10 convictions in a particularly bad year but if you've got 50 there can be no complaints or justifications whatsoever.

L.Jenkins

Mr Williams wrote: »

Mr Nally should be allowed to carry an uzi.

Landmines would be more appropriate.

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

I think all law abiding citizens should have a full right to bear arms, a person should have the right to defend their property using lethal force, if I was in Nally's position there would be three dead intruders. No warnings given just shoot and ask questions later.

I agree. When it comes to your home and family inside it, all bets should be off.

Plus, Id rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6

AndonHandon

Roquentin wrote: »

totally agree.

we should really be demanding this. if we can take to the streets for water, then we should to demand this. the guy nally killed had 80 convictions. the guy should have been in prison and if the justice system had done its job hed be alive in prison.

we need to build more prisons by the sounds of it as well.

Firstly, I am in full agreement with your general view of the severity of the punishment that should be dished out to certain offenders.

The issue I have is in relation to imprisonment; specifically, the cost of keeping someone locked up. I do not feel that such offenders deserve the luxury of being housed in a jail for a cost of €65k (2013 figure) per year. To be honest, I would rather let the vermin run free and give them 20k to alleviate the burden on the taxpayer of keeping them in jail. But I also do not believe in the death penalty so I have decided that the best way to deal with repeat offenders is to essentially run the prisons like battery farms. Prisons will be cheaper to run depending on either the length of time the person is due to be in prison or else the number of offences they have committed. Although, honestly, the battery prisons should be reserved for repeat offenders and the long serving, low offenders can have the current prison system.

The two benefits I see in this are;

1) save money for the taxpayer who essentially fund the career criminal through social welfare and prison accommodation fees; and
2) judges will be less likely to suspend sentences for repeat offenders as the cost factor in imprisoning them is no longer an issue (this means that those career criminals who 'understand the system' i.e. how to run a case so as to get bail to attend a cousin's christening or merely avoid a jail sentence can no longer afford to be so casual when confronted with a summons).

There are, presumably, human rights issues to address but this can be overcome with a simple supplementary provision dealing with those who are convicted of violating the human rights of others.