Niall Gilligan cleared of assault

Really?

This has to be the epitome of internet talk. More families shattered, jobs lost, incomes gone, homes sold, children left visiting their fathers in prison. Do you truly grasp the weight of taking a life, the mental, physical, and far‑reaching consequences for everyone involved?

Are you the resident amateur gaslighter of Boards.ie? I’ll ask you again — who told you I think it’s OK to kill people? And who told you I think it’s OK to beat a child?

From the very start of this thread, I and others have been condemning the beating of children, let alone killing people. Stop twisting my words and trying to paint me as someone who condones violence against kids. I’ve been crystal clear from the outset: I’m firmly against it.

That’s been the crux of my position all along. I’m not into beating kids, and I've been clear that I don’t support others doing it either.

There's plenty of people here in support of child abuse and beating up kids, direct your accusations there please.

You’re dead right. Myself and maybe three or four others have been condemning the beating of children on this thread, while about 90% of the posters here (certainly not 90% of the population) seem to be all for it. But hey, you do you. Keep fantasising about beating up kids.

Well, you posed the question, “How do you know Nally or Phelan never assaulted a child?” I answered in good faith that that’s not what they’re known for. I never said it wasn’t as bad as Gilligan beating a child, who told you I said that? I don’t think killing or beatings are good things, but there are circumstances and there’s context.

Look, I’ve already dealt with this, but I’ll go into more detail for you, hopefully you’ll understand. Nally and Phelan shot men who were trespassing with ill intent, and both claimed they feared for their lives. Nally was facing a drugged‑up criminal with over 80 convictions. He was an elderly man, living alone in an isolated part of rural Ireland, after suffering multiple burglaries and thefts from his home and farm. Phelan was confronted by three enraged grown men (at least one of whom was well known to the Gardaí) advancing on him after he shot their dog, one of his warning shots hit the criminal trespasser.

Gilligan wasn’t up against a dangerous intruder, he beat the shite out of a kid. He even admitted he beat the child!

I liked Gilligan as a player, I'm not from Clare but a sports fan, and I think he over reacted here.

You want to make this about the GAA but it's not. It's about the society you pick juries from.

That society has lost the means and appetite to control or sanction criminal youth. Guards and criminal justice system effectively sit on their hands.

When a otherwise well regarded member of said society over reacts to criminality they will get every hop of the ball from that group.

We need to figure out how to deal with this low level under age crime.

You are over on another thread cheerleading a dumb guard because you don't like the old man being pushed, and are getting all upset over about 6 pieces of litter and a bit of shouting from GAA supporters. Have you considered counselling for your hatred of rural people and more particularly rural gaa people?

For the record I think DHR is a (unt, and a stupid one at that. MHR is a smart version

If you read the thread properly you'll see I said numerous times that the Garda screwed up. Regarding rural people? I married one and spend a lot of time in rural Ireland and my kids play GAA as I did when I was a lot younger and fitter, an uncle played hurling for kilkenny! Loving Dublin doesn't mean anti-rural.

So you’ve never explored a derelict building as a kid? You’ve never retrieved a sliotar from a back garden, you’ve never climbed a wall, cut through a field, or dared to sneak into a place you weren’t supposed to be? Strange most of us did at some stage growing up. It doesn’t mean we were hardened criminals, it just means we were kids.

Let’s get a few things straight. I did not introduce Nally or Phelan into this discussion, someone else did and I responded. I pointed out that neither of them is known for assaulting a child. That is not what defines their cases. They are known for incidents where they claimed to be acting in self defence against intruders.

At no point did I claim to have definitive proof of their full life histories. What I said, and what remains true, is that they are not associated with beating a child. Gilligan is. He admitted it himself. That is the key distinction, and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Your attempt to mock the idea of good faith by dragging in religion is ridiculous. Good faith means engaging honestly based on what is known. The reputational facts about these individuals are clear. Nally and Phelan are tied to self defence cases. Gilligan is tied to beating a child.

And no, it is not a beauty contest between trespassers. It is about recognising that there is a fundamental difference between responding to a perceived threat and attacking a child. If you cannot see that distinction, or worse refuse to, that says more about your reasoning than it does about mine.

 It is about recognising that there is a fundamental difference between responding to a perceived threat and attacking a child.

You talk about "good faith and engaging in what is known" yet you continuously fail to recognise, and what the jury accepted, in relation to what happened. Gilligan did not simplistically admit to "beating a child";

"I then heard footsteps fast coming behind me, over my right shoulder. I felt I was going to be attacked — so to protect myself I drew out with the stick on two occasions and then kicked out twice,”.

He was clearly unaware who was coming behind him, it was a brief scuffle, Gilligan was clearly unaware it was a child prior to this.

The whole point of this thread is the inexplicable verdict!

No. The verdict is not "inexplicable"; just you want it to be and have continued to indulge in bad faith commentary despite berating others for it.

Again; you continue to repeat the simplistic assertion that "Gilligan admitted to beating a child"; patently untrue and you write it in this manner as the premise of your argument (against the actual facts) is entirely weak. There was no premeditation or wish to simply go "beat a child". You "noticed the kid" only because you have the convenience of time and safety behind a screen; the actual situation was extremely different.

No. There's others that believe he got favourable treatment.

Gilligan admitted beating the kid! He said in court that he "drew out with a stick on two occasions and then kicked out twice" at the boy! He thought he was going to be attacked and that he now felt very sorry for the boy. How do you think the boy got the injuries??

The Jury "believed" it was self defence! Laughable, inexplicable and unbelievable.

Yeah, he had excellent representation and (in my opinion and I'm not argeueing with you) a sympathetic jury.

You know this is a discussion forum? I don't need therapy to have an opinion and voice it here, it's not against the charter, if my opinion triggers you put me on ignore.

Gilligan is exactly the type who’s revered in certain circles, farmer, local auctioneer, land owner, GAA star, local ‘pillar’. And the bias was immediate. The child? Assumed to be from a single-parent home, poor, low status, labelled scum or feral without a second thought from the get-go on this thread.

Gilligan admitted beating the kid!

No, and as you've quoted it below, you'll recognise it, again, wasn't as simple as you like to make out. The fact you have to keep repeating that line to summarise your point shows the inept weakness of it and your understanding of the case. If you don't understand it, it's easy to see why you don't like the verdict; but don't expect us all to be as naive.

He said in court that he "drew out with a stick on two occasions and then kicked out twice" at the boy! He thought he was going to be attacked and that he now felt very sorry for the boy. How do you think the boy got the injuries??

Now who is again not posting "in good faith and engaging in what is known"….

You have quite intentionally left out a crucial bit of that quote, and what was part of the evidence, to again make the situation seem more simplistic. What you are attempting to do is rewrite the scenario; why? because your argument relies on the disingenuous story you're putting about as fact. The bit you are missing -

"I then heard footsteps fast coming behind me, over my right shoulder. I felt I was going to be attacked — so to protect myself 

The Jury "believed" it was self defence! Laughable, inexplicable and unbelievable.

The jury believed (no need for the scare quote) that what had happened was as per the defence, not as per your version of the scenario. This is why you've settled on "Laughable, inexplicable and unbelievable". It's easy to do if you ignore the facts of the case.