Gangland Shootings part 4 - Read OP before posting - updated 30/12/23

secman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118687279#Comment_118687279

Very possibly, name is same, age tallies and just had a 4th child too.

CaoimhinCong

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118688435#Comment_118688435

No not same man. Keith greene is the midlands serving life. Bono is Keith Conlon different man.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118688467#Comment_118688467

Bono is a different fella altogether

Yeah yeah yeah yeah

CaoimhinCong

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118688672#Comment_118688672

Bono is the guy who died yesterday

Donald Trump

https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=drphelan

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118689299#Comment_118689299

People need to take care. It's always dangerous to be living life close to the The Edge.

gary550

Diarmuid Phelan charged with murder of Keith Conlon this morning

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40816428.html

He is very well connected, wonder if he will wiggle out of it.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118690741#Comment_118690741

What a legal professional would have is knowledge of the law which might have inform their actions at the time of commission of an act. For example, they might know when they are allowed to do something that the general public might not know. In questioning, they might know how to explain their actions in the context that they know the justifications under which those actions are allowed.

I am not commenting on any specific case here.

Effects

There's a lot of people on the other side of that fence, that also have similar knowledge, learned through experience and at various full board "training centres".

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118690907#Comment_118690907

Not much use to them when they aren't available to give evidence.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118690741#Comment_118690741

Depending on the circumstances, he mightn't have done too much wrong. It might be a case of self-defence.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118683866#Comment_118683866

Charged with murder. He'll never get convicted of that. The proof of "intent" is too high. Manslaughter maybe once DPP builds their prosecution.

He had a pistol which he used to shoot a dog. His intent was to shoot a dog which he achieved.

I would be farily safe to say (and boards should be happy to have appearing) that he was a man who never set out with the intent to kill any specific or random person. He won't be found guilty of murder.

At home we had a silly Spitz type dog which had taken an interest in chasing Neighbour's sheep. One day while dog was chasing sheep my Father took shotgun and was going to kill the dog, our pet. The dog didn't get shot, stopped chasing sheep and lived to old age but there is a simple rule that a dog roaming worrying livestock will not be protected in the countryside and either the Farmer or owner are likely to kill the dog.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691173#Comment_118691173

Just to point out that "intent" can be formed immediately and on the spot. It doesn't mean that you had to have sat in a room planning it.

A defence to a hypothetical charge of murder in a hypothetical scenario where a man ran at you while you were holding a gun would be self defense. If the result of your actions were fatal, you would need to convince the court that you believed that those actions were necessary.

If you were just reckless and a man was shot by accident while you were trying to shoot a dog, then there would also be a lot other charges that could be laid against you even if murder was not.

Short of him saying out loud and audio recorded "I intend to shoot you" there isn't a chance that intent will be proved here.

Effects

Are pistols even allowed to be used outside of shooting ranges? Would a rifle or shotgun be better for shooting a dog worrying sheep?

Pentecost

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691743#Comment_118691743

If there are four or five witnesses saying he wasn't in danger etc then there's a chance he could be found guilty of murder I guess. But there's a fair chance the witnesses may not be entirely credible you would think.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691743#Comment_118691743

Again, I think you still misunderstand "intent".

Nobody knows what happened in this case.

Hypothetically, if a man walking across his land to get to the local shooting club range, suddenly comes upon, and shoots, a dog running wild in his field, then suddenly spins around and shoots the owner of the dog who is just standing there looking at him from 20 yards, that intent can have been formed there on the spot. You would not need a recording to try to prove it. If you want to speculate what likely happened in a specific case then you can do that. I'm not speculating on any specific case.

To be convicted of murder, you have had to intended to kill, or seriously injure, another person, who subsequently dies as a result of your actions.

This goes back to my point why a legal professional might be better placed to have known what they can, and cannot, do.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692171#Comment_118692171

A person would have to claim that he believed he was in danger and that he believed that his actions were necessary. His actions might have indeed been unnecessary in reality, but he could have believed them to be. Obviously, the more "necessary" they really were, the more difficult it would be to disprove that claim of belief.

forming "intent" and proving "intent" are two different things. You have a reputation as being one of the most contrarian posters on this forum so stop talking to me and I'll stop talking to you. Please and Thanks.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692257#Comment_118692257

I'm not being contrarian, I pointed out above that a man who shot a dog, and then shot the owner of that dog, would have a good chance to be acquitted due to a claim of self defence if the owner of the dog subsequently moved to attack the man with the gun.

I was only pointing out that your understanding of "intent" was not correct. I am not saying that a person will always be found to have had intent even if they didn't plan it. What I am saying is that the fact that they did not plan it in advance does not rule out the possibility of intent. You appeared to think that it would. That's not necessarily the case.

A claim of "no intent" would be more along the lines of "I only meant to scare him" rather than "Sure I didn't even know he'd be there and never met the man before in my life"

Was the intent of my last post to offend you or simply to end the conversation with you as quickly as possible based on my prior experience of your behaviour on Boards.ie...you couldn't possibly ever be sure.

Donald Trump

I don't know. I didn't take any offence. Nor was I trying to offend. Most people would not be aware of the laws so it is not an insult not to know what would be somewhat of a technicality. I don't claim to be an expert but I am sure there are some solicitors or legal people on here who would clarify if they were arsed.

juno10353

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118691087#Comment_118691087

It has been reported that man was shot in back of head

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692576#Comment_118692576

That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't self defence. We'll have to wait for more details before we can form some sort of conclusion. I mean, was there a struggle etc. If there was a struggle, then shooting someone in the back of the head may be considered self-defence. Different story if he was shot in the back of the head from 50 yards away.

CaoimhinCong

For all the legal eagles. In Irish criminal law (Defence and dwelling) think it’s Act 2011. Absolutely no chance he’s a guilty in murder.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118693387#Comment_118693387

Was he in his house or curtilage when he shot the man? if not that act does not apply.

Pentecost

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118692576#Comment_118692576

I didn't see that but I did see a report saying that he was apparently shot three times. Ultimately we can speculate all we like, within the boundaries of the law, but the full details will only come out at the trial. If there is one.

High bike

People can speculate all they like but as someone else said no one here knows for sure what the circumstances were.One thing we do know though is that one person was on his own property and the other 4 and the dog were trespassing

CaoimhinCong

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118693446#Comment_118693446

Are you gonna read the act or just read the title and make a tit of yourself

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118694035#Comment_118694035

That Act is unlikely to be relevant here based on reasonable assumptions. A person would have to claim they believed that were protecting themselves or their property from damage as a result of a criminal act, or stopping a crime, and that they used only reasonable force. It might be difficult to reach that standard of proof if it is just a person ostensibly out walking their dog on your land without permission. Especially if there have been ongoing issues with trespassers and no criminal acts have happened. That Act is not a right to summarily execute trespassers.

Basically, if someone is in your house or walking in your back garden, you can use reasonable force to stop them if you think they are trying to do something criminal. You cannot run out a shoot a fella who got lost and wandered in your front gate by accident just because he is in your garden

They would more likely rely on a claim of self defence at common law, rather than the 2011 Act. As I stated above, if you shot a dog, and you could show that the dogs owner subsequently ran at you, that you might have a good defence in that scenario.

Personally, I hope that (assuming the man acted reasonable) the man is acquitted if he was attacked while protecting his animals. There have been many issues with "lurcher walkers"