Mayo Farmer - Murder or Manslaugter? Your thoughts

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?

civdef

If he'd killed him with the first shot, he'd probably have been acquitted - charges might not even have been pressed.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

civdef

Does anyone here believe the story that Ward was looking to buy a used car from Nally?

Blackjack

civdef wrote:

Does anyone here believe the story that Ward was looking to buy a used car from Nally?

I don't. I've read various different reports on this and many that appear to give direct quotes from the trial itself. Generally the chap was confident that Ward's intention was to rob the house, and when he went round the back the chap was crouched down pushing in the back door. Hardly the actions of a prospective buyer of your car.
Also, after Nally had fired the first shot, Ward came at him, instead of running away. Now before anyone starts, no, I don't think this means he deserved to be killed.

Personally I think Manslaughter was the correct verdict. I reckon that the man had a fit of rage, and bouyed by the adrenalin of having the physical altercation, and the fear that he had been in (justified or otherwise) was not quite thinking straight. I don't think that Murder would have been correct, as I don't believe that there was pre-meditation per se. I do think however that in re-loading the weapon, he had to get a conviction, be it Murder or Manslaughter.

Had the Judge not directed the jury, I suspect he would have been set free.

Had he not killed the traveller, he would probably be sued for the injuries caused.

Stabshauptmann

We (my family and I) came home once to find travelers on our property. The excuse given was that they were interested in a caravan of my fathers. Which couldnt be seen from the road. Similar things have happened to my grandparents, we needed to borrow tools etc or kids repeatedly comming in to get their ball back.

I dont believe Ward wanted to know if it was a good day for fishing or wanted to buy a car. His record would tend to corroberate this opinion. He was there to burgle Nally of that I have no doubt.

Did Nally need to kill him to stop the burglaries? If Nally disturbed Ward burglaring him in the middle of the night what would Ward do to him?
Ive more sympthy for Nally than for Ward. At the very least maybe this will make burglers think twice before attacking OAPs; they might not all be as defenceless as you think.

Stabshauptmann

ziggy67 wrote:

A) Where in the link does it say that Ward had broken into the house before?
Protect him from someone who asked if it was a good day to fish ?(albeit suspicously) What the Gards supposed to charge him with?

Career criminal was on the property - things go missing - do the math

Exactly what are the Gardaí able to do, not enough obviouly so Nally had to protect himself. The man lived in constant fear, unable to sleep and staying in a barn for 5 hours at a time with a loaded shotgun.

civdef

At the very least maybe this will make burglers think twice before attacking OAPs; they might not all be as defenceless as you think.

The tragic events in Waterford last week suggest not unfortunately.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Does anyone here believe the story that Ward was looking to buy a used car from Nally?

I certainly don't. I just don't believe that what Nally did was justified, and I'm damn sure that reloading a single-barrelled shotgun and shooting someone who's lying unconcious on the ground, with the confessed intent of ending his life cannot reasonably be considered manslaughter or self-defence.

As to the "what if he came back later with friends" argument, that same argument would also justify sneaking up on Ward's caravan in the middle of the night, locking it's door from the outside and then throwing a petrol bomb or two at it and burning him and his family alive.

You have to draw a line somewhere, and pretty much every civilisation draws it at the point where you cease to defend yourself from an immediate threat and start to plan to murder someone. Nally crossed that point.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.