What do you have to do to get convicted of murder these days?

12-02-2009 04:46PM

i think another poster said crime dropped in that area after the shooting.

overall, +ev

Svalbard · 12-02-2009 05:00PM

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Of course not...you can talk nice to him while he rapes your wife and children in the hope he'll realise what a naughty boy he's been and beg your forgiveness.
Of course he might then decide just to kill ye all.
At what point exactly will you decide to try and stop this guy?
Before he rapes your wife?
Before he rapes your children?
Before he kills your wife?
Before he kills your children?
Before he kills you?

Here's the dilemna..how far is this guy going to go?
Can you trust him when he tells you that "oh i'm just gonna do the missus".
He's already proved his trustworthiness by breaking into your house and holding you capture.
Are you going to take his word on this or are you thinking to yourself..this guy is not going to just stop with his wife?

Yes the political system in this country is a joke...there was a laywer on the Matt Cooper show recently..
He was explain why so many get off on manslaughter is that to prove first degree murder is nearly impossible for the under-resourced police to prove and most of the time they accept Manslaughter as a poor substitute.

Pub07 wrote: »

Probably. What else are you gonna do if he is going to harm/kill your wife and kids.

*Big long exasperated sigh*

In the above situation I would take any action to keep my family and myself safe, up to and including killing the intruder. Killing in self-defence is not the same as murder.
To the poster who wrote this scenario (especially for me!!), what point do you have to make exactly? It is completely different to what we were discussing.
Nally shot that man in the back as he fled. Nally was 'victimised', Nally had 'had enough'. I've had enough of my neighbour's trucks making noise at 5am, will I take my shotgun to him? I'm sure Nally did suffer horrendously as he has claimed, I can certainly sympathise with him. But murder was not justified in that case.

12-02-2009 05:03PM

Svalbard wrote: »

I've had enough of my neighbour's trucks making noise at 5am, will I take my shotgun to him?

most definately. :rolleyes:

quite the crap comparison there svalbard.

youcrazyjesus! · 12-02-2009 05:03PM

To be fair, in that case below the poor unfortunate privately educated child was actually a victim
of some minor learning disorder and couldn't be guilty of Sean Nolans murder. In an almost
identical case 2 weeks later the demonic working class murderer of angelic benevolent Google
employer was found guilty of murder and hit life.

Pub07 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardas-son-guilty-of-killing-traveller-1636784.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0202/breaking74.htm

And remember that other case recently where some 18/19 year old ran out of his house with knives and killed a guy who was standing outside thehouse with some friends, he got done for manslaughter too.

And then there was the case of the guy who shot his friend from point blank range with a shotgun in a car and left him in a permanent vegetative state - he gets 9 years, prob out in 6 years.

The justice system in this country is a joke, it's almost as bad as the political system, what do you have to do to get convicted of murder in Ireland these days...do you have to tie someone up and use a blowtorch on them or something?

Pub07 · 12-02-2009 05:10PM

Why are my posts being deleted?

javaboy · 12-02-2009 05:11PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Why are my posts being deleted?

Because you're using a word that is now considered a derogatory slur. I'll PM you your last post if you want to edit it and repost it.

12-02-2009 05:12PM

Pub07 wrote: »

A group of rugby players repeatedly kicking a small guy while he is incapacitated on the ground for a sustained period of time is alot more than a fight gone wrong. If the culprits were scumbags and not posh guys from good familys they would've done some serious time for it.

No, they wouldn't have.Plus there was more than 5 people involved in this fight.The only reason that the lads got arrested was they all voluntarily made statement to the police the next day.The person who delivered the fatal blow never stood trial.

cornbb · 12-02-2009 05:13PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Why are my posts being deleted?

Perhaps because you are very fond of the ole racial slurs as far as I can see.

Have you not spotted the irony here - in your original post you are aghast because people are not being convicted for murder - and in one particular case you are shouting about how one man was absolutely right to murder another??

Svalbard · 12-02-2009 05:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Svalbard wrote: »

most definately. :rolleyes:

quite the crap comparison there svalbard.

Well I'm pretty fed up with that crap scenario being put to me when it is completely off the point.
Fine, ok, I give in.
Murder is fine. Murder is acceptable. We can all excuse it and excuse it away. Next person to look at me the wrong way gets in in the neck. That is the Irish way, after all.

Dudess · 12-02-2009 05:14PM

Svalbard wrote: »

Nally had 'had enough'. I've had enough of my neighbour's trucks making noise at 5am, will I take my shotgun to him?

Totally disproportionate and unfair comparison. Does the noise from your neighbour's trucks cause you to fear for your safety, if not your life?

There is such a thing as being driven to desperate acts and not having full responsibility for them. It's also unfair to say he "had enough" so flippantly. Yeah, he was tired of being terrified out of his wits. Due to all the layoffs, there is apparently a rise in burglaries in the area where I'm from - a nice, built-up, leafy area. A person was recently telling me about being in the house when a robber gained entry during the day. I personally would be absolutely frozen with fear. Now take a man who's getting old and living in an extremely rural area with nobody around, under threat from a known violent criminal, in the dead of night. That wouldn't be fear, that would be terror.

12-02-2009 05:17PM

Svalbard wrote: »

Fine, ok, I give in.
Murder is fine. Murder is acceptable. We can all excuse it and excuse it away. Next person to look at me the wrong way gets in in the neck. That is the Irish way, after all.

that's better

it's not the irish way but what would a restraining order here done for the farmer? how can the courts help him in the back arse of nowhere. if he feared for his life due to constant harrassment, there's a point where our instinct for survival overtakes our state given pc morals.

cornbb · 12-02-2009 05:18PM

Dudess wrote: »

Totally disproportionate and unfair comparison. Does the noise from your neighbour's trucks cause you to fear for your safety, if not your life?

The comparison may not be as extreme in nature but it is a fair comparison and his point still stands: it is not ok to intentionally kill someone who is already disabled and fleeing from you, even if they are making your life a misery.

Are you saying that its ok to kill someone if they are not immediately endangering your life, even if they are "terrorising" you? I'm surprised at you Dudess

youcrazyjesus! · 12-02-2009 05:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they wouldn't have.Plus there was more than 5 people involved in this fight.The only reason that the lads got arrested was they all voluntarily made statement to the police the next day.The person who delivered the fatal blow never stood trial.

A shameful episode, I hope the person or persons who got away with get done for it somewhere down
the line, can witnesses not now come forward?

The Gardai did a very poor job in bringing the case.

cornbb · 12-02-2009 05:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

pc morals.

So now its "PC" if you are against murder :rolleyes:

Pub07 · 12-02-2009 05:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they wouldn't have.Plus there was more than 5 people involved in this fight.The only reason that the lads got arrested was they all voluntarily made statement to the police the next day.The person who delivered the fatal blow never stood trial.

Your right there was more than five people kicking him while he defenceless was on the ground. And shure aren't they great lads altogether, so great that they volunteered to admit they took part in kicking some guy to death, what a great bunch of guys. Nothing to do with the fact that they were advised this was the best course of action for them to maximise leniency and minimise any potential jail time.

And whoever deliverd the 'fatal blow' shoulda been put in jail for life, that is if you can figure out who it was when you have 5+ people laying kicks into the victim.

youcrazyjesus! · 12-02-2009 05:21PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Your right there was more than five people kicking him while he defenceless was on the ground. And shure aren't they great lads altogether, so great that they volunteered to admit they took part in kicking some guy to death, what a great bunch of guys. Nothing to do with the fact that they were advised this was the best course of action for them to maximise leniency and minimise any potential jail time.

And whoever deliverd the 'fatal blow' shoulda been put in jail for life, that is if you can figure out who it was when you have 5+ people laying kicks into the victim.

Group enterprise no? Does it apply?

Svalbard · 12-02-2009 05:23PM

Dudess wrote: »

Totally disproportionate and unfair comparison. Does the noise from your neighbour's trucks cause you to fear for your safety, if not your life?

Never meant to be a fair comparison. You can end this argument here and now by telling me exactly when it is ok to kill a man, tell me exactly where the line is to be drawn.
When he has a knife to your throat and intends to rape your family? When he breaks into your house? When he's on your land? When you think he might be a threat (and you may well be right)? When he's running away but you are just sure he will be back and might do more harm? At what point is it ok to shoot him?

Pub07 · 12-02-2009 05:23PM

cornbb wrote: »

The comparison may not be as extreme in nature but it is a fair comparison and his point still stands: it is not ok to intentionally kill someone who is already disabled and fleeing from you, even if they are making your life a misery.

Are you saying that its ok to kill someone if they are not immediately endangering your life, even if they are "terrorising" you? I'm surprised at you Dudess

Its ok if that person who is disabled and fleeing from you is a scumbag violent psycho who is 100% sure to come back and kill you.

Pub07 · 12-02-2009 05:25PM

Svalbard wrote: »

When he's running away but you are just sure he will be back and might do more harm? At what point is it ok to shoot him?

Yes thats the point where it becomes ok to shoot him. Nallys was a dead man walking if he didn't finish him off. Do you think yer man 'Frog' Ward was the type to forgive and forget?

cornbb · 12-02-2009 05:25PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Its ok if that person who is disabled and fleeing from you is a scumbag violent psycho who is 100% sure to come back and kill you.

How do you know that? If you have insight like that you should be out patrolling the streets stopping crimes before they happen, not posting here on boards.

12-02-2009 05:25PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Your right there was more than five people kicking him while he defenceless was on the ground. And shure aren't they great lads altogether, so great that they volunteered to admit they took part in kicking some guy to death, what a great bunch of guys. Nothing to do with the fact that they were advised this was the best course of action for them to maximise leniency and minimise any potential jail time.

And whoever deliverd the 'fatal blow' shoulda been put in jail for life, that is if you can figure out who it was when you have 5+ people laying kicks into the victim.

The person who was murdered(can't for the life of me remember what his name was) had friends who were involved in the fight.It wasn't 5 vs 1.i love the fact that the tabloids made him out to be completely blameless. Was the fatal blow not from him hitting his head off the kerb?

12-02-2009 05:28PM

cornbb wrote: »

The comparison may not be as extreme in nature but it is a fair comparison and his point still stands

i would say the comparison is irrelevant.

nice neighbours with a loud truck

versus

caravan-people harassing you to the point of fearing your life.

youcrazyjesus! · 12-02-2009 05:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The person who was murdered(can't for the life of me remember what his name was) had friends who were involved in the fight.It wasn't 5 vs 1.i love the fact that the tabloids made him out to be completely blameless. Was the fatal blow not from him hitting his head off the kerb?

That implies he deserved on some level to be kicked to death like an animal on the ground. Are rape victims with
short skirts not completely blameless either,

12-02-2009 05:31PM

Svalbard wrote: »

Never meant to be a fair comparison. You can end this argument here and now by telling me exactly when it is ok to kill a man, tell me exactly where the line is to be drawn.

if a man repeatedly goes out of his way to harass you to the extent where shooting him is the last resort for fear of your life, then i think it's grand to kill him.

that's why i'm not a judge by the way.

Dudess · 12-02-2009 05:31PM

cornbb wrote: »

it is a fair comparison

I disagree strongly. As I said, I think people are underestimating what Nally was going through.

it is not ok to intentionally kill someone who is already disabled and fleeing from you, even if they are making your life a misery.

Are you saying that its ok to kill someone if they are not immediately endangering your life, even if they are "terrorising" you? I'm surprised at you Dudess

It is not "ok" but it's understandable to a degree - you have to remember how he was driven to it. It's not cut and dry. There are things to consider such as his state of mind when he did it, his mental health, the fact he had reached breaking point. I don't think he can be held fully responsible for it. It's not like he made the decision to go out and hunt Ward down and put a gun to his head - you have to consider how he got caught up in the moment.

cornbb · 12-02-2009 05:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

i would say the comparison is irrelevant.

nice neighbours with a loud truck

versus

caravan-people harassing you to the point of fearing your life.

The comparison stands. The question at hand is "is it ok to take someone else's life because they are making your life a misery?" and the answer is no in either case (unless there is an immediate threat to your own life). Fearing for your own life is irrelevant. Plenty of awful drivers on the roads make me seriously fear for my life but that doesn't make killing them ok either.

Pub07 · 12-02-2009 05:33PM

cornbb wrote: »

Perhaps because you are very fond of the ole racial slurs as far as I can see.

What racial slur? I'm unaware of this separate race of people who are natives of this country, what is this other race?

12-02-2009 05:33PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That implies he deserved on some level to be kicked to death like an animal on the ground. Are rape victims with
short skirts not completely blameless either,

That is not a valid comparison to be honest(very tabloidy), he got involved in a fight which escalated out of control, he wasn't picked on for no reason.

Svalbard · 12-02-2009 05:34PM

Pub07 wrote: »

Its ok if that person who is disabled and fleeing from you is a scumbag violent psycho who is 100% sure to come back and kill you.

Pub07 wrote: »

Yes thats the point where it becomes ok to shoot him. Nallys was a dead man walking if he didn't finish him off. Do you think yer man 'Frog' Ward was the type to forgive and forget?

Deleted User wrote: »

i would say the comparison is irrelevant.

nice neighbours with a loud truck

versus

caravan-people harassing you to the point of fearing your life.

Deleted User wrote: »

if a man repeatedly goes out of his way to harass you to the extent where shooting him is the last resort for fear of your life, then i think it's grand to kill him.

that's why i'm not a judge by the way.

Oh thank God. Up to now I thought a few intelligent rational fellow citizens were engaging me in debate. I now see you are morally bankrupt racists and there is no point in arguing with you. What a relief.

Dudess · 12-02-2009 05:34PM

cornbb wrote: »

The comparison stands. The question at hand is "is it ok to take someone else's life because they are making your life a misery?"

No, not "making your life a misery" - making you fear for your life.

You have to put yourself in Nally's shoes - how could he have been rational and reasonable at that point in time? To compare this to a cold-blooded murder case is inappropriate, IMO.

What do you have to do to get convicted of murder these days?

Comments