Mayo Farmer - Murder or Manslaugter? Your thoughts

whiskeyman

Ok, so you probably all know this by now after the verdict yesterday.
However, this trial is a huge debate in my house.
One side is the whole "fair play to him... he stood up to the torment he was facing and he was left with no other choice / the trespasser had it coming".
The other is "he had already beaten him and then shot him in cold blood - there was no physical threat to his life - he should have got murder".

What the feelings of people here?
(I didnt see a proper thread with the specifics being dealt with - apologies if its being covered elsewhere)

I think either way, both families lives are ruined and its an awful shame... but probably more a terrible show of the Irish legal system how it all came about.

Nuttzz

a career criminal breaks into a house and the victim is in the dock, looking at ward's previous history its no loss, shame he was done for manslaughter, but a mayo jury was never going to do him for murder

mike65

I had'nt been following the case so when I heard the list of violent actions read out and then heard the jurys' decision I was suprised to say the least, an immediate singular act of can be manslaughter but not what the farmer did.

from sunday times

The farmer, who lived alone at his 65-acre farm in Cross, Co Mayo, shot Mr Ward, 42, who had a string of convictions, in the hip from a distance of about four yards last year.

As Mr Ward staggered away, Nally struggled with him before beating him with a 2ft ash stick. He then went to his shed, reloaded his single-barrel shotgun and shot Mr Ward a second time, wounding him fatally. He then threw Mr Ward’s body over a wall and drove to a neighbour’s house to alert police.

Mike.

Boston

If farmers have the right to protect their homes with shotguns why don't ordinary people. The fact of the case was that the man at the time he was killed was of no threat to the farmer, he was running away.

Ps; There's allot of people that deserve a good shooting, that doesn't make it right.

is_that_so

From his own description of it he felt driven to it and he would sit with a loaded shotgun on his property, expecting to be robbed again. From the rest of the details I've read I don't believe that there was premeditation, which means a murder verdict was unlikely. I think I'd have found him guilty of manslaughter.

Sparks

It's Tony Martin all over again.

As in, it's sold by the media and one side of the case as being a case of self-defence, in direct contradiction to the physical evidence. Martin waited up in his booby-trapped home with an illegally-held shotgun with full premeditated intent to kill any burglar in what is, by definition, a punishment shooting. There appears to be precious little difference here in the essentials.

And if we don't want the IRA/UDF/whomever carrying out punishment beatings and shootings, we don't want "unaffiliated" citizens doing so either.

The law allows for self-defence. It allows for reasonable defence of property. It allows for the stress and panic involved in such situations. But it demands honest action. Shooting someone, beating them unconcious, and then deliberately choosing to shoot them dead, that's not self-defence. And given that he lied about it initially, it seems clear that Nally knew that he'd crossed the line.

whiskeyman

mike65 wrote:

I had'nt been following the case so when I heard the list of violent actions read out and then heard the jurys' decision I was suprised to say the least, an immediate singular act of can be manslaughter but not what the farmer did.

from sunday times



Mike.

Exactly the same as myself Mike.
I only really read into it on the day before the verdict - At first I thought the farmer was probably right... but then I read those details from the paper of the beating and shooting (twice) definately left me wondering that surely it was murder.

murphaph

I would have found him guilty of manslaughter too, reluctantly. These robbing scumbags walk all over the law so it's difficult for me to just say "the law's the law-it's murder". The farmer was obviously tormented by that scumbag who is absolutely no loss to society. In fact I'm glad he's dead. He'll not be tormenting any other decent folk anymore.

Victor

is_that_so wrote:

From his own description of it he felt driven to it and he would sit with a loaded shotgun on his property, expecting to be robbed again.

As I understand it, he had been burgled once, not robbed (robbery is larceny with menace).

From the rest of the details I've read I don't believe that there was premeditation

Then why did he have a shotgun at the ready, ready to shoot someone?

Villain

Well IMO he was guilty of manslaughter, or perhaps murder by temporary insanity, Neighbours descibed him as a very decent person who had been living in fear. It seems to me that fear came to a head when he saw the Traveler at his backdoor, he obviously had the right to defend his property, which he did by firing the first shot and beating him with a large stick, but the second shot was not in defence, the traveler was leaving and posed no threat so obviously he has to be punished for that.

As Sparks said the media and others are making this out to be something it wasn't, I feel sorry for the man that he was driven to such action but he has to be punished for the crime.

Sparks

he obviously had the right to defend his property,

True.

which he did by firing the first shot

False. The standard here is "Reasonable Force". It's not reasonable to fire a shotgun off towards someone as a defence of property. If you're being attacked, yes, it's reasonable. If they're stealing your TV, well, the law judges that even your TV isn't worth a human life. Telling him to get off your land while standing there holding the shotgun (but not pointing it at them), that would have been closer to reasonable.

Sparks

Sparks wrote:

And if we don't want the IRA/UDF/whomever carrying out punishment beatings and shootings, we don't want "unaffiliated" citizens doing so either.

I'd agree.
However I havent really been following this case either,I was just aware of it.
I had a great Uncle who lived alone untill he died ,terrified of the several break ins he had to endure.
I dont think he slept at all at night and always had a gun under his bed.
I'd be hoping that where rage takes over in the case of a break in in that circumstance that it would be taken into account in the sentencing that the individual was under a great deal of stress.That wouldnt apply of course in the Nally case.
I noticed last night that a lot of his friends and neighbours were there supporting him.
There would be a view there with respect to the dead man of " It was good enough for him "
That view arising out of a vigilante mood borne out of frustration I suppose,understandable to an extent when constantly under the threat of this but not acceptable really.

Shooting someone, beating them unconcious, and then deliberately choosing to shoot them dead, that's not self-defence.

Correct-iirc from last nights news he maintained in court that his actions were out of fear that he would be killed if he let him away-again thats no justification.Shooting the guy in the foot or otherwise disabling him would have been enough. The intruder probably would have got a non custodial or a short sentence but it would have been the better thing to do.

And given that he lied about it initially, it seems clear that Nally knew that he'd crossed the line.

I'm not surprised about the lying, human nature made him do that probably given that he knew the enormity of what he did.

Villain

Sparks wrote:

True.


False. The standard here is "Reasonable Force". It's not reasonable to fire a shotgun off towards someone as a defence of property. If you're being attacked, yes, it's reasonable. If they're stealing your TV, well, the law judges that even your TV isn't worth a human life. Telling him to get off your land while standing there holding the shotgun (but not pointing it at them), that would have been closer to reasonable.

Well Sparks, I don't know the exact details like how close he was when he fired the first shot but if he was in fear of his life and fired the shotgun from a good distance only to injure the offender I'd say that was resonable force. I mean at his age he probably didn't think he had any other way of defending himself or his property.

I know your a mod of the shooting forum and would never like the negative press that a licenced gun holder gets after discharging his weapon at another person but if my Da was at home alone and someone trying to break in and he feared for his life I would have no problem with him taking my shotgun and wounding the person. I'm sure you know only to well that it is quite easy to only wound a person with a shotgun, depeding on what number cartridge you have and what distance your at of course.

Imposter

Earthman wrote:

That view arising out of a vigilante mood borne out of frustration I suppose,understandable to an extent when constantly under the threat of this but not acceptable really.

This is where the whole problem lies with this imo. The guards and the law are not seen to be - and in reality are not - doing enough about the crimes against this man so he takes matters into his own hands. Then the justice system turns around and punishes him for what is in reality it's own failings.

I can understand both sides of the argument but I think although it is manslaughter I don't think a custodial sentence should have been handed out.

Gurgle

irish1 wrote:

if my Da was at home alone and someone trying to break in and he feared for his life I would have no problem with him taking my shotgun and wounding the person.

Yes, but re-loading while the thug was lying there bleeding & shooting him again is murder imho.

Villain

Yes Gurgle I agree with you there.

johnnyc

fair due to the farmer if anybody was behind my house attempting to steal items i would love to do the same thing. I recon people should lose all right when they come to your property with the intention of stealing goods.

ionapaul

johnnyc wrote:

fair due to the farmer if anybody was behind my house attempting to steal items i would love to do the same thing. I recon people should lose all right when they come to your property with the intention of stealing goods.

Well, they shouldn't lose the right not to be tortured, should they!

However, if the law states that my TV is not worth the life of a burglar, I'm not sure I agree. If a burglar broke into my property to take my possessions, and expected to be allowed to walk off with them as I had no right to stop them without risking my life (as they could easily be armed, bigger than me, more skilled at combat, whatever, I would be a great fool not to take the option of simply shooting them if that option was available to me - think of that Chinese boy in the Rialto recently! If he had a gun he should have shot the burglar) because that is the law's view, then the law is an ass. A man's home is his castle, this is an intrinsic element of human nature and one that should be both respected and acknowledged in law.

I don't know enough about the law to say whether the Mayo farmer is guilty of murder or manslaughter. His actions past the initial shooting of the intruder were excessive.

Imposter

Imposter wrote:

This is where the whole problem lies with this imo. The guards and the law are not seen to be - and in reality are not - doing enough about the crimes against this man so he takes matters into his own hands. Then the justice system turns around and punishes him for what is in reality it's own failings.

Well it's a resource issue isn't it.I know of two rural Gárda stations that have one gárda each to cover a wide area with its own fair share of looting and beating up of old people.
It would be the brave politician that proposes a few cent in the Euro of a rise in taxes to fund a better service than that and other services.
Basically people dont care from what I can see when you ask them to contribute more and regularally out of their own pocket.
Make of that selfishness what you will but its there.

Sparks

irish1 wrote:

Well Sparks, I don't know the exact details like how close he was when he fired the first shot but if he was in fear of his life and fired the shotgun from a good distance only to injure the offender I'd say that was resonable force.

Thing is, you just said "in fear of his life". Not "in fear of losing his telly". That's the dividing line.

I know your a mod of the shooting forum and would never like the negative press that a licenced gun holder gets after discharging his weapon at another person but if my Da was at home alone and someone trying to break in and he feared for his life I would have no problem with him taking my shotgun and wounding the person.

Neither would the law. In fact, the law wouldn't have any problem with him killing the assailant. Thing is, the operative phrase here is "feared for his life". Not defence of property. An illustrative hypothetical: I'm upstairs with my family. Someone breaks into the house. I take a shotgun and sit at the top of the stairs and yell downstairs that I'm armed and the gardai are on their way. One of the burglars comes up the stairs and I shoot and kill him. That is reasonable force (and good common sense). I didn't use lethal force to defend the telly (nor did I risk my health over it), I used lethal force to defend my life and that of my family - I had a reasonable fear for those lives because someone was coming at me after I told them I was armed. Now, had I crept downstairs with the shotgun and attacked them without warning ala Tony Martin, that wouldn't have been reasonable. See the difference?

I'm sure you know only to well that it is quite easy to only wound a person with a shotgun, depeding on what number cartridge you have and what distance your at of course.

I'm actually very aware that that's a load of horse hockey. What, you're going to keep four or five cartridges handy and choose the right one depending on how far from the assailant you are? Using a shotgun for self-defence can only be a last act of desperation, legally. You will not be allowed own one for the purposes of self-defence, and your actions will be scrutinised if you use one that came to hand. And the idea that it's easy to "only wound" someone says that you don't understand too much about human physiology and gunshot wounds. Some people can take several high-calibre rounds to the torso and live; others can be struck what seems a minor blow with a minute projectile and drop dead on the spot. Firing a gun at someone can never be trivialised.

I recon people should lose all right when they come to your property with the intention of stealing goods.

You might think so. The law disagrees. And should you act on that belief, the law will put you in jail for it.

grumpytrousers

Just a general point here - everybodys saying that the farmer was in genuine fear etc, and while that may be the case, the legal test tends to be on objective test.

In other words, it doesn't matter that 'this particular farmer in this case was in fear', rather the issue at stake is would a 'reasonable man be in such fear as to feel his life was threatened'. If the answer to that is YES, then shooting is excusable.

If the knacker who was traipsing all over Mr Nallys farm uninvited with a mind for thieving on him didn't present a threat to the life of Mr Nally then unfortunately Mr Nallys fate was sealed and he was going to be found guilty of something.

I can empathise with him and certainly, having elderly relatives myself, can understand the fear etc, but that doesn't make their fear 'reasonable'; also, and this really is the kicker, whatever chance he had of getting off after discharging one shot; he was up the creek when he beat yer man, reloaded and shot again...

Nuttzz

The man worked hard over his life for his possessions and as he approaches the end of his life why should he live in fear of roving gangs of theives?

I, like an awful lot of people, have worked hard to pay for my house, my car, my tv and so on, if some envious scumbag breaks into my house then he takes the risk of something unpleasant happening to him.

Ward is no loss to society, he was awaiting a court date for threatening a cop with a slash hook, spent time inside for smashing a cup into someones face, drove around in a car with no tax or insurance. Ward took his chance and lost, Nally shouldnt be going to the joy he should be going to the Aras to pick up his award to service to the community

Gurgle

Nuttzz wrote:

he was awaiting a court date for threatening a cop with a slash hook, spent time inside for smashing a cup into someones face, drove around in a car with no tax or insurance.

And he deserved to be punished for all of those things, but the good old justice system failed as usual.

This farmer he was trying to rob took it on himself to mete out justice. He beat him, got his shotgun & killed him.

Was the farmer qualified to judge under Irish law ?
Was he entitled to sentence the man to death ?

IMHO, he should have been convicted of murder.

Villain

Sparks wrote:

Thing is, you just said "in fear of his life". Not "in fear of losing his telly". That's the dividing line.

Correct, but it's very hard to disprove someones state of mind, i.e. how can you prove that someone didn't fear for their live?

Sparks wrote:

Neither would the law. In fact, the law wouldn't have any problem with him killing the assailant. Thing is, the operative phrase here is "feared for his life". Not defence of property. An illustrative hypothetical: I'm upstairs with my family. Someone breaks into the house. I take a shotgun and sit at the top of the stairs and yell downstairs that I'm armed and the gardai are on their way. One of the burglars comes up the stairs and I shoot and kill him. That is reasonable force (and good common sense). I didn't use lethal force to defend the telly (nor did I risk my health over it), I used lethal force to defend my life and that of my family - I had a reasonable fear for those lives because someone was coming at me after I told them I was armed. Now, had I crept downstairs with the shotgun and attacked them without warning ala Tony Martin, that wouldn't have been reasonable. See the difference?

The difference is only your state of mind because in your mind you shouted downstairs and the guy keeps coming your in fear so you can shoot, the farmer could have been in fear of his life just by seeing the guy attempting to break in. I was on a jury that had to deal with a simalar case and some people believed he was in fear of his life others didn't, it's very hard to decide.

Sparks wrote:

I'm actually very aware that that's a load of horse hockey. What, you're going to keep four or five cartridges handy and choose the right one depending on how far from the assailant you are? Using a shotgun for self-defence can only be a last act of desperation, legally. You will not be allowed own one for the purposes of self-defence, and your actions will be scrutinised if you use one that came to hand. And the idea that it's easy to "only wound" someone says that you don't understand too much about human physiology and gunshot wounds. Some people can take several high-calibre rounds to the torso and live; others can be struck what seems a minor blow with a minute projectile and drop dead on the spot. Firing a gun at someone can never be trivialised.

Well I only shoot Rabbits with my shotgun so I always have no 4's, so if I saw someone trying to break in and I was in fear I would aim for their feet and I really doubt that i would kill him, as you say "Firing a gun at someone can never be trivialised" but there is a big difference bewtween firing a shotgun at someone chest from 5 yards and shooting at someones feet from 30 yards.

ionapaul

I think the whole 'reloaded, and shot again' bit of this story (if confirmed) is the most important part. If it had been a handgun (and so probably a different country) and he had fired a few times in fear of his life, it is understandable. The fact the farmer shot the person and probably incapacitated him, then reloaded and fired again, damns him.

The fact that no-one will cry for the dead man isn't an issue, really.

Sponge Bob

The fact that he reloaded is the single most important thing. I agree with Ionapaul.

In Dublin that would have been a murder conviction but by the grace of allah the trial was conducted in Mayo.

The victims family have a good case against the government, Ward had such a list of convictions that he really really really should have been in jail at the time . Were he in jail he would be alive . The government failed in its duty to protect the poor man .

johnnyc

Nuttzz wrote:

The man worked hard over his life for his possessions and as he approaches the end of his life why should he live in fear of roving gangs of theives?

I, like an awful lot of people, have worked hard to pay for my house, my car, my tv and so on, if some envious scumbag breaks into my house then he takes the risk of something unpleasant happening to him.

Ward is no loss to society, he was awaiting a court date for threatening a cop with a slash hook, spent time inside for smashing a cup into someones face, drove around in a car with no tax or insurance. Ward took his chance and lost, Nally shouldnt be going to the joy he should be going to the Aras to pick up his award to service to the community

well said Nuttzz that farmer deserves a reward

SparkyLarks

Manslaughter was the right decision.

The farmer had fired and shot the burgler/intruder who was now fleeing
Reloading and shooting again makes wrong. The burgler was running away, no danger to anyones life.

This whole he looses his rights cos he's a burgler stuff is all wrong. burgler comes into you house and you take him out with a snipers rifle from 100 yards. that's murder.

If your a navy seal armed combat instructor( Steven Segal in Under siege) and a thief comes into yuor house and you walk down beat him 3 shades of blue, then that's probably fair enough. If you can detain him easily and withough injuring him though then it is unnecessary and unreasonable. If you break his neck, or throw him from the upstars window . That's murder.

The farmer was panicing and afraid true but the reloading of the gun gave him time to think. He'd then have to look up and aim for a mans back. Not justified.

What if the guy was a door to door salesman, but the farmer though he was a burgler. He could have been fearful of his life but that doesn't allow him kill the salesman.
Doesnt allow him kill the burgler either

Jimi-Spandex

Nuttzz wrote:

Ward is no loss to society, he was awaiting a court date for threatening a cop with a slash hook, spent time inside for smashing a cup into someones face, drove around in a car with no tax or insurance. Ward took his chance and lost, Nally shouldnt be going to the joy he should be going to the Aras to pick up his award to service to the community

Just because the deceased was scum doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Would your attitude to the killing have been different had he been a relatively honest man who, through circumstance and desperation, had decided to steal from a farmer to provide for his sick children? A bit more of a hollywood character suit you better?

I personally believe that the farmer could easily have been convicted of murder as there was quite a large element of premeditation in his actions especially with the needless second fatal shot. Seeing as I'm not privy to all of the relevant information I'll stay away from 'should', but my impression of the facts make me think that a less sympathetic jury would have given him Murder.

In reality though I don't think it makes much of a difference which he's convicted of as long as it sends out the right message to any other lunatic vigalante's who'd prefer their own brand of justice.

Sparks

irish1 wrote:

Correct, but it's very hard to disprove someones state of mind, i.e. how can you prove that someone didn't fear for their live?

It's very difficult to do so. That's why very few cases like this ever see the accused being convicted of anything (in the UK, it's something like a dozen cases in the last decade).

However, Nally confessed to deliberately deciding to kill Ward and following through with this plan.

Well I only shoot Rabbits with my shotgun so I always have no 4's, so if I saw someone trying to break in and I was in fear I would aim for their feet and I really doubt that i would kill him, as you say "Firing a gun at someone can never be trivialised" but there is a big difference bewtween firing a shotgun at someone chest from 5 yards and shooting at someones feet from 30 yards.

There certainly is. Now, tell me what happens if that same someone surprises you from five feet away and you unload both barrels into his chest while he's holding your telly in both hands?

I hate to be the one stating the obvious, but firearms aren't really much use for self-defence for civilians.

SparkyLarks

Sparks wrote:

There certainly is. Now, tell me what happens if that same someone surprises you from five feet away and you unload both barrels into his chest while he's holding your telly in both hands?

.

You have to buy a new TV.

Sorry a bit tasteless.
Seriously. If you didn;t know he was ther and you were walking round with a loaded shotgun, you'd probably be guilty of manslaughter( possibly hoimicidal negliance). What if it was you wife startled you. Or your brother.

If you knew he was ther and was staying hidden with the shotgun. i.e only going to use it if the burgler found you and came at you, but he then came ropund the corner suprided you and you panicked then it probably wouldn't be manslaugher and not homicidal negliance either. You had shown restraint and appropiate actions.

Villain

Sparks wrote:

It's very difficult to do so. That's why very few cases like this ever see the accused being convicted of anything (in the UK, it's something like a dozen cases in the last decade).

However, Nally confessed to deliberately deciding to kill Ward and following through with this plan.

Yes thats why I said in my first post he was guilty of manslaughter or murder by temporary isanity.

Sparks wrote:

There certainly is. Now, tell me what happens if that same someone surprises you from five feet away and you unload both barrels into his chest while he's holding your telly in both hands?

I hate to be the one stating the obvious, but firearms aren't really much use for self-defence for civilians.

Well I wouldn't be walking around with a loaded shotgun so the only way I would come into that situation would be if I returned home after shooting and saw somone breaking in, in that case I would load the gun and warn him not to move if he did I would shoot at his feet. I wouldn't shoot anyone from 5 feet with a shotgun unless they had a gun or knife and I feared for my life.

Boggle

A quick question: If you were living in genuine fear of you life would you not take whatever action you felt was necessary to protect it?

I know that reloading the shotgun was a bit much but I can't imagine how, after such an ordeal, that a man could be thinking straight. Personally I would have cconvicted hime of manslaughter (due to the reloading) but I would have given no sentence as the man is of no danger to society and was in very extenuating circumstances.

Do you think you should be allowed use whatever force you deem necessary at the time to protect your property and your life??

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

A quick question: If you were living in genuine fear of you life would you not take whatever action you felt was necessary to protect it?

I might....but I wouldn't expect teh law to just shrug its shoulders and say "hey...he felt he had to slaughter that person (or whatever it was I did) to protect himself, so its fine".

If someone lost it entirely, and went on a killing spree because they were convinced the world was out to get them....would their belief in self protection excuse their actions?

I know that reloading the shotgun was a bit much but I can't imagine how, after such an ordeal, that a man could be thinking straight.

Then he should have sought help...not decided that the right approach was to become judge, jury and executioner.

Personally I would have cconvicted hime of manslaughter (due to the reloading) but I would have given no sentence as the man is of no danger to society and was in very extenuating circumstances.

I'd have gone with murder, with a possible "out" being that I'd consider accepting a psychiatric evaluation leading to a commital over a prison conviction.

Do you think you should be allowed use whatever force you deem necessary at the time to protect your property and your life??

No.

I know several very, very jumpy people. I know more than one who felt the need to carry round pepper-spray because they're worried about getting mugged. Ask one of these people for a light on the street on the wrong night, and you end up a victim of their doing what they feel is the need to protect themselves. is that right?

Now...take another person who gets their kicks out of spraying ppl in the face (just like some scum get a kick out of beating people senseless). They can equally claim they were protecting themselves as they saw necessary, given virtually no provocation.

Can you distinguish between the two, without me giving you any information on the appearance and character of the jumpy people I know? Do you think the law can? And if not...who should it side with? Giving scum a free hand with a cop-out excuse, or forcing ppl to bear the consequences of their actions.

jc

Sherlock

In the court case it came out that Wards son (was sitting with the engine running while the dad was in the house) admitted he'd changed cars 10 times in the last 6 months but denied it was to avoid detection while burgling. He also admitted that the car had no tax or insurance. He also admitted being with people who'd comitted 3 burglaries in Galway but denied being involved in the burglaries.
Why don't the guards check on these halting sites and see if the cars have tax and insurance?, is it because the usual traveller rights groups will cry racism?
My 2c is that poor Nally just snapped and all the tension of having to be always on guard after previous burglaries made him just snap. You'd have to find him guilty of manslaughter but I hope he doesn't get jail. He'll be punished enough by having to always look over his shoulder for revenge attacks.

civdef

Now, had I crept downstairs with the shotgun and attacked them without warning ala Tony Martin, that wouldn't have been reasonable. See the difference?

Look at this one another way - the burglar is in the process of committing an arrestable offence, the householder would be legally entitled to go down and arrest that person, using reasonable force to do so. If the burglar resisted arrest, putting the householder in fear of their own safety, then it's a whole different kettle of fish.

I hate to be the one stating the obvious, but firearms aren't really much use for self-defence for civilians.

There have also been several cases in Ireland where firearms were used successfully and legally by civilians in defence of themselves or their families.

Nuttzz

Jimi-Spandex wrote:

Just because the deceased was scum doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Would your attitude to the killing have been different had he been a relatively honest man who, through circumstance and desperation, had decided to steal from a farmer to provide for his sick children? A bit more of a hollywood character suit you better?

wouldnt make any difference to me, once someone breaks in to steal they cross the line, however life is not like the lyrics of the fields of athenry

as far as i see it, scum 0 - 1 Decent society. never mind the Rossport 5, free the Funshinagh 1, of course he's not in jail yet, and hopefully he will get a suspended sentence

Boston

Nuttzz wrote:

wouldnt make any difference to me, once someone breaks in to steal they cross the line, however life is not like the lyrics of the fields of athenry

as far as i see it, scum 0 - 1 Decent society. never mind the Rossport 5, free the Funshinagh 1, of course he's not in jail yet, and hopefully he will get a suspended sentence

A suspended sentence for manslaughter, and I bet your the type that bitchs and moans about our justic system being soft. He murdered a man in cool blood, whatever his reasons.

Nuttzz

LiouVille wrote:

He murdered a man in cool blood.

not according to the jury......

Stabshauptmann

This is also a debate in my family as well. My father has stories of a man who lived near him as a child. He was burgled once, the second time he had a shotgun and fired a warning shot and the third time a gang broke in and beat him senseless. With that in mind, shoot to kill would be acceptable to some.

Shoot to kill was accepptable for the London police when confronting an unarmed man because he could have been a sucide bomber. He could have been a serious threat. Better safe than sorry. Same for this man, this traveller could have come back, the could be a serious threat. Better safe than sorry.

Though now the poor man is quite sorry. I well believe the story that he sat in his shed with the gunin his mouth thinking about taking his own life after the incident.

The deceased was a career criminal. His record shows this. I dont for a minute believe that he went into Mr Nallys house to enquire about buying a car and tbh, Im pissed off that his family wont admit their side of the story.

TBH I dont know what I would have done. ONe version of the story says that Ward attacked Nally after the first shot, Nally fought him off then reloaded. Another says Nally shot him, beat him then reloaded. Ive no reason to give credence to one over the other. Id say as a juror Id let him go. Completely. BTW I read in the news/media forum that the judge directed that a verdict of manslaughter be returned, is that right?

Boggle

I might....but I wouldn't expect teh law to just shrug its shoulders and say "hey...he felt he had to slaughter that person (or whatever it was I did) to protect himself, so its fine".

To be honest, if someone breaks into your house I think that the law should allow you to do whatever you feel you have to in order to protect yourself. This is one area where I believe the Americans have the right idea.

If someone lost it entirely, and went on a killing spree because they were convinced the world was out to get them....would their belief in self protection excuse their actions?

Your really tryin to stretch things here...

Then he should have sought help...not decided that the right approach was to become judge, jury and executioner.

Thats it: Cuckooland meet bonkey, Bonkey meet Cuckooland... :rolleyes:

"Do you think you should be allowed use whatever force you deem necessary at the time to protect your property and your life??"

No.

No?? Your telling me that if someone attacks me then I should take the beating, hope I survive, and then report it to the gardai??? Sorry bonkey but thats just plain wrong.
If someone attacked me or broke into my home in the middle of the night I'd feel that I should be entitled to defend myself using whatever means I deem necessary at the time because, at the end of the day, I am the one who stands to lose his life if I don't answer the threat with sufficient force. In saying that if burglars were to submit applications in writing stating that, if challenged, they will react in a non-violent manner during a burglary then I might accept your theory...otherwise you don't know his intensions or capabilities and should be met with the full force of your capabilities.

Boggle

Boggle wrote:

Thats it: Cuckooland meet bonkey, Bonkey meet Cuckooland... :rolleyes:

We have our own cuckooland its called bansville.
Compulsory holiday there for a week

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

To be honest, if someone breaks into your house I think that the law should allow you to do whatever you feel you have to in order to protect yourself. This is one area where I believe the Americans have the right idea.

You mean you think that some Americans have the right idea. Not all states have this approach.

Personally, I'm unconvinced. What if you don't own the house? What if you don't pay rent in the house, but are staying there? What if the person didn't break in? What if they were invited in and then turned on you? What if we're talking about your land, but not your domicile.

Ultimately, the "your house is your castle" approach strikes me as being just as problematic as the existant Irish law, only with a much greater scope for abuse.

Your really tryin to stretch things here...

Yes I was, and deliberately so. The "anything goes" defence permits these situations, so I'm trying to get - at the very least - an acceptance that "anything is justified if you think you're threatened and you're defending against that threat" doesn't actually mean that anything is justified, based on anyone's perception of any threat. Once we get that basic limit agreed upon, I can start finding out what people meant when they say "anything", but actually mean "anything within certain limits".

No?? Your telling me that if someone attacks me then I should take the beating, hope I survive, and then report it to the gardai???

If thats what I meant, thats what i would have said.

I said I do not accept that you have the right to do whatever you like based on your perception of the threat facing you. I do not accept that delusionally paranoid people have the right to kill because their paranois makes them feel threatened - something which your stance doesn't clearly reject.

I do not accept that if faced with a potential beating, you have the right to do whatever you like to the person posing that threat....especially when you're not going out of your way to quantify that there has to be at least some correlation between threat and response. How threatened do i have to feel before I can respond free from reprecussion? How can this be tested in a court of law (i.e. once someone says "I was afraid...", how can you prove they weren't?)

If someone attacked me or broke into my home in the middle of the night I'd feel that I should be entitled to defend myself using whatever means I deem necessary at the time

What if you felt threatened that someone was going to attack you, or if you heard someone making noise on your premises and feared they were going to attack / break in? Going by your "I should just let myself get beat up" comment above, its clear you don't feel your hands should be tied here either. So when, exactly, do you lose the right to do what you want? Where, exactly, is the line drawn?

because, at the end of the day, I am the one who stands to lose his life if I don't answer the threat with sufficient force.

Only if there is a genuine threat to your life do you stand to lose same.

You haven't qualified that there needs to be a threat to your life...just that you need to feel threatened. These are two almost entirely seperate things. You can believe your life is in danger when it isn't, and you can believe its just fine when its, in fact, under mortal threat.

otherwise you don't know his intensions or capabilities and should be met with the full force of your capabilities.

Anyone who is capable and trained in self-defence will tell you that if you do not know intentions or capabilities, then the last option is go head-to-head, and the best option is to do all in your power to avoid conflict. If its your own safety you fear for, then you should only ever go in "with the full force of yoru capabilities" when there is absolutely no other option. Any other response is putting something else - perhaps your material worth, your pride, your want for revenge, or your ego - in front of your safety and potentially in front of your chances of survival. Doing so on the grounds that you are protecting yourself is nonsensical reasoning.

jc

Villain

It's simple if you genuinely fear for you're life you have the legal right to defend yourself, thats where it stops though once you have defended yourself to an extent where you no longer fear for you're life you must stop.

tim3115

Shame he was done for manslaughter, although it was expected. Another bit of scúm out of this world, so who's complaining?

bonkey

tim3115 wrote:

Another bit of scúm out of this world, so who's complaining?

At a guess?

People with a respect for human life, as opposed to people with only respect for the life of humans whom they decide to grant (or not deny) that respect to.

These would be hte same people who put weight behind documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as opposed to the Universal Declaration of Non-Scum Rights (were it to exist).

jc

tim3115

"People with a respect for human life, as opposed to people with only respect for the life of humans whom they decide to grant (or not deny) that respect to."


I'd be lying if I said I respected each individual in the same manner. No one does, that's not how things work, never has. Travellers have always been looked down on, have things changed? Should they change? How can any sane person show respect for a person who decides to break in to your home...

bonkey

I would point out that I said respect for the life of suich people, and not for the people themselves.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Stabshauptmann

"Yes he deserved to die and I hope he burns in hell" Samuel L Jacksen, a time to kill.

Ward was a thief, a coward, a bully and possibly a murderer (according to a poster on the news/media forum he is a suspct in the murder of an oap). He most likly was a threat to Mr Nallys life. Mr Nally may have acted a little bit in the extreme, but if he didnt he may not be alive today.

Stabshauptmann

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=VINCENT%20BROWNE-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.1.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

intesesting read. 2 things that I consider important
A)This wasnt Wards first time to break into Nallys House
B)Nally wanted to kill Ward. He didnt want this dangerous man repeatedly breaking into his home. He did take the law into his own hands but why couldnt the law protect him?