Sundays Nally March Cancelled

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Last time I checked farmers have to get their gun licence renewed annually by the gardai. In the rural area where I live I have seen gun licences turned down because the gardai are concerned about the state of the holder.

Be that as it may, most media reports suggest that Nally hadn't become obsessed and terrified until the few weeks before the incident. You can't also infer that Nally at that point would be a danger to anyone who approached his property, since Ward was shot committing the very acts that Nally was in fear of.

seamus

seamus wrote:

Ward was shot committing the very acts that Nally was in fear of.

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

They should be recalled then. Pointing a gun at another person is absolutely unacceptable. Plenty of my neighbours have guns, I've been out shooting with them, but it wouldn't cross their minds to produce the gun to deal with trouble or to point it at someone. It's not the wild west.

Frankly thats ridiculous.
You don't and couldnt know what your friends might do when faced by an intruder.Some will lie down and let the guards take a statement after the fact.Some will tackle them, some will understandably cower in fear and some will take on the burgalars.

As regards your " its not the wild west" comment, you'd be forgiven for thinking it is, given the state of lawlessness in the country:rolleyes:

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

Frankly thats ridiculous.
You don't and couldnt know what your friends might do when faced by an intruder.

The one who I know did produce a gun to deal with trespassers, needless to say, doesn't hold a licence any more...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

Wards conviction list.... his constant pestering of Nally(5 uninvited visits given Wards history would not be nice)
The legal system has dealt with this matter.It got a good hearing and if you disagree, well thats your perogative.
If it was premeditated murder as opposed to a pestered man going to far in the circumstances, there might be something to the fuss that you are making.

This is the 2nd ridiculous point you've made-the first being that Nally was a danger to all visitors when clearly he wasnt. (given that it took the 5th or 6th uninvited intrusion bu the same man to finally have him lose it)
Clearly in the eyes of his neighbours he wasnt either and clearly a judge and jury of his peers also thought this given the result of the case.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

The one who I know did produce a gun to deal with trespassers, needless to say, doesn't hold a licence any more...

Well I suggest you have a quiet talk with some Gardaí and ask them of the instances that a gun may have been pointed at an intruder-it happens every other day.
There are several cases,Id venture.

Now before we continue on this tit for tat waste of time posting crusade can we agree that you disagree and hold your opinion and thats that .
Because Frankly at the rate we are going I dont see it converging at all with the opposite view in this thread.

ishmael whale

oscarBravo wrote:

If someone with Ward's record was able to successfully intimidate a man to the point where he felt (rightly or wrongly) driven to kill him, doesn't it indicate that the state failed, in the first instance, to honour its side of that social contract?

I think that’s a very fair point. Many people do lack confidence in the effectiveness of the Gardai and a browse of the Morris Tribunal report gives credence to their views.

I’m not sure that the verdict would be different wherever the case was heard. From what we know of the facts, a conviction for murder would seem wrong. It looks like a person who honestly felt under threat overstepped the limit of what might be regarded as self defence in the heat of the moment.

Is six years too much? The judge commented he found it a hard call and it is. A second look at the sentence would be no more than just.

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

This is the 2nd ridiculous point you've made

You really think it ridiculous to point out that Ward was not actually committing a robbery or a violent act before someone decided to shoot him, blasting through his hip and hand, beat him so severely as to break his arm and split his head open, reload and shoot him again while he was in a crouched position and thereafter dump his body over a wall? I think it relevant tbh. You sure you aren't starting from the premise that Nally deserved leniancy and worked your way backwards to justify his actions?

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

With respect, you could make that statement for anyone living alone.
Fear is a state of mind.

True, but just because you are scared doesn't justify taking a defensive action against someone unless they are actually threatening your safety.

If I stayed up all night watching the Alien Quadology and then blew the milkmans head off because I was in such a hightened state of fear and alert, that still doesn't mean that is a justifable action against someone who actually isn't any danger to me, I just believe they are because I am so wound up.

Neighbours had commented that Nally had been in a hightened state of suspicion due to robberys in the local area. That may have effected his mental state, but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

And even if the inital attack had been motivated by panic and fear, what about the beating, the chase and the final killer shot? What exactly was Nally scared about then?

It was an act of frustration and anger, not panic and fear.

Earthman wrote:

I'll make a statement now of similar validity or probably more...Theres an awfull lot of afraid people living either alone or with their family miles from anywhere who might in some cases be driven to do the same or close to what

Driven? He was burgled once, had something stole from a barn another time. Seeing someone on your land is was hardly a sustained campaign of fear and intimadation. I have friends (living alone) who have had their apartments and houses broken into 3 or 4 times, they don't shoot people at their back doors, chase them for a bit and then shoot them again. I would suspect Nally let his paranoia and frustrations effect this mental state more than any external factors.

Earthman wrote:

Who are we to second guess what was lawfully done here, he and his case was given a full hearing as per the law.

Thats rather strange logic. Do you believe the Irish crimial justice system is infallible? Or only when you agree with the outcome?

Earthman wrote:

But that makes no allowance for the irrationality of the situation-its just pontification-an easy thing to do in front of a pc but not so easy at the coal face of a potential robbery or intimidation

But sure then any robber or criminal (or even Ward himself) could claim he was "scared" as justification for any act of violence and get man slaughter instead of murder.

I admit the inital panic and fear of seeing Ward on his land could justify some sort of fight-or-flight response in Nally (maybe the inital shot that wounded Ward), but this was a sustained and continuous act of brutal violence. Hell he had to go and get his gun.

If this was a Gardi special weapons group and had chased an unarmed man up a path and shot them in the back, because they were "scared", would that be man slaughter?

Or, as I said before, if Nally had been snooping around a halting sight and had been found by Ward, shot, beaten and killed, do you think many would listen to Ward if claimed he was just really really scared at the time?

I my opinion this was far more an act of frustration and anger, than fear. Nally meant to kill Ward. And that is murder, not man-slaughter. The reason he only got man slaughter was emotional not justice.

seamus

Deleted User wrote:

Was Ward actually robbing the house or attacking Nally when he was killed? I didn't read that...

He was exiting Nally's house. Regardless of whether a robbery had occured, at the very minimum it's breaking and entering, and it's not a huge jump from there to burglary or attempted burglary.

Benedict XVI

Wicknight wrote:

but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

Wasn't a direct theat ????
Ward was at Nally's back door existing the house, on the property uninvited for the 6th time, if that is not a direct threat to Nally and his property what is. ?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

You really think it ridiculous to point out that Ward was not actually committing a robbery or a violent act before someone decided to shoot him, blasting through his hip and hand, beat him so severely as to break his arm and split his head open, reload and shoot him again while he was in a crouched position and thereafter dump his body over a wall? I think it relevant tbh. You sure you aren't starting from the premise that Nally deserved leniancy and worked your way backwards to justify his actions?

I think its ridiculous that , sitting at a PC, one presumes to know better that what the legal process has delivered.
I've not read that the body was dumped over a wall.
As regards shot guns-yes they blast.

As regards leniency.
Anything short of the full available sentence would be leniency ergo 6yrs by the eminent judge is leniency and thats a fact.I've already stated that given the circumstances up to this event, that I think the trial outcome was fair.
My position on the law in this case has alread been stated.
The judge agreed that everyone was agreed that Ward was up to no good

The judge accepted that Nally was initially protecting his property against an invasion from someone that he pointed out everyone agreed was up to no good. It was events after this point that informed his sentencing.

link so again frankly your implication that Ward was not up to any good doesnt hold up-his character and record was woefull.

Wicknight wrote:

True, but just because you are scared doesn't justify taking a defensive action against someone unless they are actually threatening your safety.

Correct and the law was enforced in this case to take account of what is and isnt justifiable.

If I stayed up all night watching the Alien Quadology and then blew the milkmans head off because I was in such a hightened state of fear and alert, that still doesn't mean that is a justifable action against someone who actually isn't any danger to me, I just believe they are because I am so wound up.

Oh in that case,If I were on the jury,I'd recommend the big house for you and the men in white coats.
It's different to a real person with a menacingly bad conviction history harassing you.

Neighbours had commented that Nally had been in a hightened state of suspicion due to robberys in the local area. That may have effected his mental state,

correct.

but it doesn't change the fact that Ward wasn't a direct theat to him.

Thats an unknown.

And even if the inital attack had been motivated by panic and fear, what about the beating, the chase and the final killer shot? What exactly was Nally scared about then?

he admitted himself that he finally went beserk.Theres no question of that.

It was an act of frustration and anger, not panic and fear.

Thats one opinion,I'd only partiall share.I'd say it was a combination of all four, with the latter two well documented in court.

Driven? He was burgled once, had something stole from a barn another time. Seeing someone on your land is was hardly a sustained campaign of fear and intimadation. I have friends (living alone) who have had their apartments and houses broken into 3 or 4 times, they don't shoot people at their back doors, chase them for a bit and then shoot them again. I would suspect Nally let his paranoia and frustrations effect this mental state more than any external factors.

Yes but you see there is a big difference between seeing regular intruders on an isolated farm and living in a town or city.
At least with the latter, theres help nearby-It may not come but at least its there.

Thats rather strange logic. Do you believe the Irish crimial justice system is infallible? Or only when you agree with the outcome?

I usually agree with the outcome of a court.

But sure then any robber or criminal (or even Ward himself) could claim he was "scared" as justification for any act of violence and get man slaughter instead of murder.

They would have to convince the jury though.
That takes some if not a lot of a component of truth to do and if its the truth, then I dont see a problem.

I admit the inital panic and fear of seeing Ward on his land could justify some sort of fight-or-flight response in Nally (maybe the inital shot that wounded Ward), but this was a sustained and continuous act of brutal violence. Hell he had to go and get his gun.

I'm aware he went beserk but I'm accepting the extenuating circumstances.

If this was a Gardi special weapons group and had chased an unarmed man up a path and shot them in the back, because they were "scared", would that be man slaughter?

Uhm I dont see the comparison.

Or, as I said before, if Nally had been snooping around a halting sight and had been found by Ward, shot, beaten and killed, do you think many would listen to Ward if claimed he was just really really scared at the time?

I'd imagine the court would decide on the evidence.

I my opinion this was far more an act of frustration and anger, than fear. Nally meant to kill Ward. And that is murder, not man-slaughter.

I'd agree with you to an extent, he probably did intend to kill him.But I doubt it was an intention rationally thought out.It was a heat of the moment intention which I wouldnt consider murder.

The reason he only got man slaughter was emotional not justice.

Well I'd like to think it was justice because to be honest with you,thats what I'd have conviced him of, if I was on that jury.
The jury was out for only two hours by the way which is indicative that they must have been solid in what they thought.

Zombrex

Benedict XVI wrote:

Wasn't a direct theat ????
Ward was at Nally's back door existing the house, on the property uninvited for the 6th time, if that is not a direct threat to Nally and his property what is. ?

What is? Ward attacking Nally.

My understand of the event is that Ward was found standing at Nally's back door. Nally went and got his shot gun came back and shot him. At no point was Ward a danger to Nally. At no point was it necessary for Nally to defend himself. If Ward had attack Nally he would have been justified in using the shot gun to defend himself. He didn't

Zombrex

seamus wrote:

He was exiting Nally's house.

I think the most likely reason Ward was there was to rob the house, but the Gardi said there was no evidence Ward had actually made it into the house. He was simply standing at Nally's back door.

Earthman

Earthman wrote:

I think its ridiculous that , sitting at a PC, one presumes to know better that what the legal process has delivered.

Which is a stock response that could be given to any post here. After all, isn't that what we are all doing, just sitting at PCs presuming to know better - or at least have differing opinions - and criticise others? Are you saying all of your posts amount to ringing endorsements of decisions made by others on the basis that they would naturally know better having spent more time on the matter? I agree with the Courts decision to convict, I think the sentence was unduly leniant, and I do not believe that the Courts are above adverse comment and censure - if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

I'd agree with you to an extent, he probably did intend to kill him.

Then it is pretty clearly murder.

If the inital shot had killed Ward, and the inital shot was fired in panic or a surge of anger, and Nally did not really realise his actions, yes you have a case for man slaughter. But it wasn't. Ward was shot again minutes after the inital surprise (it wasn't even much of a surprise, since Nally knew someone was on his property). Thats simply the shots, ingoring the beating and the chase.

The different between murder and man slaughter is malice. Did Nally mean to and want to kill Ward. It is pretty clear he did. Even if this malice was caused by a deep frustration and anger brought about by paranioa and fear, it is still murder. Nally killed Ward out of anger, not fear. You don't beat someone, chase them and shoot them twice because you are scared of them.

Earthman wrote:

It was a heat of the moment intention which I wouldnt consider murder.

But that's the point .. it wasn't a moment, it was a sustained act of violence, over minutes. If the inital shot had killed Ward, I would be right up there with the manslaughter verdict. But it wasn't the inital shot that killed Ward. There were plenty of times Nally could have stopped and realised what he was doing. He didn't, because there was malice in him to injure and kill Ward. At the time he wanted to do it. that is pretty clear. The justification for that anger (weak as it is) doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

Earthman wrote:

The jury was out for only two hours by the way which is indicative that they must have been solid in what they thought.

Like I said, emotional rather than rational. They didn't even take time to really consider what they had seen. Two hours consideration for a murder trial? That ridiculous.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Or the vast majorit of post on Boards.ie/Politics

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Which is a stock response that could be given to any post here. After all, isn't that what we are all doing, just sitting at PCs presuming to know better

We're not all presuming to know better than a court.

- or at least have differing opinions - and criticise others? Are you saying all of your posts amount to ringing endorsements of decisions made by others on the basis that they would naturally know better having spent more time on the matter?

Nope,I'm just indicating that I'm not convinced by any stretch here that justice wasnt done in this case.

I agree with the Courts decision to convict, I think the sentence was unduly leniant, and I do not believe that the Courts are above adverse comment and censure - if they were not, there wouldn't be an appeals procedure to begin with...

Well I'll accept the appeal in this case too.I just havent seen anything compelling to convince me theres a need for an appeal.
I have however seen a poster use an emotive description of a beating and a wrongfull killing and beating as a justification for not agreeing with a sentence.I'd prefer to look at the full picture not just part.
Different posters-different ways of looking at it.

Wicknight wrote:

Then it is pretty clearly murder.

Nope-there were several extenuating circumstances that led to this.It wasnt long in the planning.

If the inital shot had killed Ward, and the inital shot was fired in panic or a surge of anger, and Nally did not really realise his actions, yes you have a case for man slaughter. But it wasn't. Ward was shot again minutes after the inital surprise (it wasn't even much of a surprise, since Nally knew someone was on his property). Thats simply the shots, ingoring the beating and the chase.

All of which ignores extenuating circumstances which cannot and shouldnt be ignored in a fair trial.

The different between murder and man slaughter is malice. Did Nally mean to and want to kill Ward. It is pretty clear he did.

No It is not, it is far from clear that he rationally decided to kill him.

Even if this malice was caused by a deep frustration and anger brought about by paranioa and fear, it is still murder. Nally killed Ward out of anger, not fear. You don't beat someone, chase them and shoot them twice because you are scared of them.

Theres no basis for that-even the jury who did not decide on the length of sentence but rather on the conviction disagree with you there and they attended the entire case.

But that's the point .. it wasn't a moment, it was a sustained act of violence, over minutes. If the inital shot had killed Ward, I would be right up there with the manslaughter verdict. But it wasn't the inital shot that killed Ward. There were plenty of times Nally could have stopped and realised what he was doing. He didn't, because there was malice in him to injure and kill Ward. At the time he wanted to do it. that is pretty clear. The justification for that anger (weak as it is) doesn't change the fact that it was murder.

With respect thats your own conjecture, you werent there and Nally plus his legal team convinced an 11 person jury who attended a 6 day trial otherwise.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I'll fervently disagree with it.

Like I said, emotional rather than rational. They didn't even take time to really consider what they had seen. Two hours consideration for a murder trial? That ridiculous.

The trial lasted six days not two hours.
The two hours reflects the honest opinions of those who looked all involved in the case in the eye.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

Nope-there were several extenuating circumstances that led to this.It wasnt long in the planning.

What, that he was scared and pissed off?

Earthman wrote:

All of which ignores extenuating circumstances which cannot and shouldnt be ignored in a fair trial.

I am not ignoring them, I just think it is ridiculous to say that the fact that this man was frustrated by local robberies means it wasn't a malicious act to chase a man down with a shot gun beat him and shoot him in the back.

Earthman wrote:

No It is not, it is far from clear that he rationally decided to kill him. Theres no basis for that-even the jury who did not decide on the length of sentence but rather on the conviction disagree with you there and they attended the entire case.

Did they hear something we didn't?

Cause my understanding is that upon seeing Ward at his back door Nally went away, came back with a gun, shot Ward, beat ward 20 times, fracturing his skull, pushed Ward into a pile of nettles, chased him up a lane way, shot him in the back and put him over a wall. All this over a time of about 5 minutes.

That doesn't sound like a panic response to be, it doesn't sound like self-defense, it doesn't sound like a temporary loss of control. It sounds like a malicious murder. Nally was worried sh*tless of robbers so he murdered, out of frustration and anger, the next one that came by.

Earthman wrote:

With respect thats your own conjecture, you werent there and Nally plus his legal team convinced an 11 person jury who attended a 6 day trial otherwise.

So?

As I have already said I believe that verdict was ruled by emotion rather than rational. A scumbag traveller got shot robbing a house, no point convicting a nice man like Nally of murder over a robber, we will let him off with man slaughter. Nally's legal team gave the jury a way out (he was insane at the time and didn't realise what he was doing) and they took that cause they couldn't stomach convicting this man of murder. Isn't the first time its happened, won't be the last.

Earthman wrote:

The two hours reflects the honest opinions of those who looked all involved in the case in the eye.

Thats my point, they didn't reflect on anything, they had made up their minds before the end of the trial, before everything had been presented. Scum bag traveller vs Nice farmer, it isn't a surprise it wasn't a murder conviction. I am just pointing out it wasn't justice.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote:

What, that he was scared and pissed off?

I think we already know you think, his worries were trivial, it's easy for you to say that.I'll go with the court and agree that they werent trivial.

I am not ignoring them, I just think it is ridiculous to say that the fact that this man was frustrated by local robberies means it wasn't a malicious act to chase a man down with a shot gun beat him and shoot him in the back.

You are either trivialising them or ignoring them tbh.I'll run with you thinking they are trivial given that you dont think they were as important than your conjecture that the jury were emotional.

Did they hear something we didn't?

Are you suggesting trial by media is better than trial in a court of law now/ Or that trial by threaded post having read the newspapers carries more weight than a court of law?

Cause my understanding is that upon seeing Ward at his back door Nally went away, came back with a gun, shot Ward, beat ward 20 times, fracturing his skull, pushed Ward into a pile of nettles, chased him up a lane way, shot him in the back and put him over a wall. All this over a time of about 5 minutes.

That doesn't sound like a panic response to be, it doesn't sound like self-defense, it doesn't sound like a temporary loss of control. It sounds like a malicious murder. Nally was worried sh*tless of robbers so he murdered, out of frustration and anger, the next one that came by.

5 minutes isnt temporary? 20 minutes isnt temporary.
I wouldnt fancy your chances convincing a psychologist of that.

So?

your conjecture Vs the result of a law case heard by 12 jurors

As I have already said I believe that verdict was ruled by emotion rather than rational. A scumbag traveller got shot robbing a house, no point convicting a nice man like Nally of murder over a robber, we will let him off with man slaughter. Nally's legal team gave the jury a way out (he was insane at the time and didn't realise what he was doing) and they took that cause they couldn't stomach convicting this man of murder. Isn't the first time its happened, won't be the last.

We're all entitled to hold beliefs, but beliefs arent necessarally facts.You dont know what the jurors were thinking other than obviously they disagree with you ergo, you are just expressing an opinion and darn it, thats fine,I'm of the opposite opinion

Thats my point, they didn't reflect on anything, they had made up their minds before the end of the trial, before everything had been presented. Scum bag traveller vs Nice farmer, it isn't a surprise it wasn't a murder conviction. I am just pointing out it wasn't justice.

We dont know.
But I wouldnt agree with dissing the result of a jury verdict without good reason and there is no reason to diss this one.
(If you had evidence that the jury was tampered with I'd be of a different opinion.)

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

You dont know what the jurors were thinking other than obviously they disagree with you

We should also bear in mind that we are (unless someone was present at the trial or has read the transcripts) basing our opinions on what the media have variously reported. The 12 jurors were - hopefully - basing theirs on the testimonies provided at the case.

In short, we probably don't even know what they were basing their opinions on in detail.

Zombrex

Earthman wrote:

I think we already know you think, his worries were trivial, it's easy for you to say that.I'll go with the court and agree that they werent trivial.

I don't think they were trivial, I don't think they justify the idea that he was legally incapable of understanding what he was doing when he beat, chased and shot to death an unarmed and largely defenseless man.

Earthman wrote:

Are you suggesting trial by media is better than trial in a court of law now/

I am suggesting that it is incredable niave to believe that the verdict of the jury means the story is true. Lawyers have been manipulating the emotions of juries since the conception of the legal system.

Again I ask where is this blind faith in the legal system coming from? Do you believe the Irish legal system is infallable?

Earthman wrote:

5 minutes isnt temporary? 20 minutes isnt temporary.

No, not after he has had plenty of time to realise and reflect on what he is actually doing.

Earthman wrote:

We're all entitled to hold beliefs, but beliefs arent necessarally facts.You dont know what the jurors were thinking other than obviously they disagree with you

I find my version of events, including the emotions of the jury, more plausable than the idea this man was actually so scared for his life he was legally insane at the time.

Earthman wrote:

But I wouldnt agree with dissing the result of a jury verdict without good reason and there is no reason to diss this one.

Other than the fact they only consulted with each other for 2 hours, on a case with a very very shaky defensive argument.

mike65

If you're quick you can hear part of the interview with Nally on The Last Word Today Fm 100-102 right now.

Mike.

oscarBravo

Wicknight wrote:

...he beat, chased and shot to death an unarmed and largely defenseless man.

It's amazing what you can argue with partial context. If I knew nothing about this case, and went by your posts alone, I'd have a vision of a terrified innocent man who stopped to ask directions or something, and was terrorised by a berserk farmer.

From what I heard, Nally shot Ward. Ward then tried to take the gun from Nally. After a struggle, Nally overcame Ward (probably due in large part to Ward's injuries), and started to beat him with a stick before shooting him again.

Describing a man who was awaiting trial for attacking a Garda with a slashhook as "largely defenceless" is a distortion at best.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Describing a man who was awaiting trial for attacking a Garda with a slashhook as "largely defenceless" is a distortion at best.

And complaining about the way certain events have been depicted while neatly summarising another event as 'X attacked Y with a slashhook' is distorting matters as well. In a similar vein one could boil the Nally trial down to 'he beat a man and shot him dead', but that wouldn't say much for any of the shades of grey...

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote:

And complaining about the way certain events have been depicted while neatly summarising another event as 'X attacked Y with a slashhook' is distorting matters as well. In a similar vein one could boil the Nally trial down to 'he beat a man and shot him dead', but that wouldn't say much for any of the shades of grey...

Unless you're trying to suggest that Ward wasn't a violent man, I'm not clear what your point is.

KieranusTyranus

Can any of you honestly say that you would have acted any differently if you where in the same situation? If I was confronted by a known scumbag in my house my first instinct would be to attack him. Also I bet many of the people saying he was wrong live in safe areas near to Garda stations.

KieranusTyranus

[QUOTEAgain I ask where is this blind faith in the legal system coming from? Do you believe the Irish legal system is infallallible?[/QUOTE]

Actually I have to agree with this. Thats why I Think the Rossport 5 should be kept free and Shell told to **** off but thats another story.

Wheely

For my two cents, I dont believe the Irish Legal system to be infallible, but then again I dont believe any system is. To allow Nally to go free would arguably have set a legal precedent whereby any person who broke into your home was a legitimate target. Now i know that there are those out there who might agree with this but I am not one of them. And thankfully the law as it stands is on my side, not their's. We dont have the edath penalty in Ireland anymore, it was abolished years ago and when we did have it, Burglary certainly didnt carry it. Neither did assault, neither did repeated acts of either. Im firmly opposed to the death penalty in any form for any offence not to mention the aforementioned. So it follows that i cannot and will not condone the type of vigilante justice dolled out by Mr Nally regardless of his motivations be they fear, anger, revenge or any other. And as for the infallibility of our legal system, it happens to be why i will never approve of the death penalty. That said i will always adhere to its ruling and the rule of law.....its called democracy.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

We should also bear in mind that we are (unless someone was present at the trial or has read the transcripts) basing our opinions on what the media have variously reported. The 12 jurors were - hopefully - basing theirs on the testimonies provided at the case.

In short, we probably don't even know what they were basing their opinions on in detail.

True.
I'm forming my opinion on what I've seen in the media and agreeing with what the court decided.

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think they were trivial, I don't think they justify the idea that he was legally incapable of understanding what he was doing when he beat, chased and shot to death an unarmed and largely defenseless man.

The more I actually read into this case, the less,I'm inclined to that version

I am suggesting that it is incredable niave to believe that the verdict of the jury means the story is true. Lawyers have been manipulating the emotions of juries since the conception of the legal system.

Again I ask where is this blind faith in the legal system coming from? Do you believe the Irish legal system is infallable?

Thats like me asking you where your [ apparentlly ] blind lack of faith in this jury is coming from... I've simply formed an opinion based on what I've seen and read, the same as you have.

No, not after he has had plenty of time to realise and reflect on what he is actually doing.

Again I doubt that would get beyond a psychologists analysis of what has been described as a kind of terrified fury.It didnt get beyond 12 jurors and it certainly didnt get beyond an eminent judge given his comments and the length of sentence he handed down.
But if you know better-thats ok for you but it's not ok for me.

I find my version of events, including the emotions of the jury, more plausable than the idea this man was actually so scared for his life he was legally insane at the time.

Same reply as in italics above tbh.

Other than the fact they only consulted with each other for 2 hours, on a case with a very very shaky defensive argument.

And again the same reply as above.