Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

It's a strange one, and one I'd really like to read the transcripts of. What's in the media is only part of the story, seems like there's a lot more to it. But, having read the below, I can't believe he was found guilty but the lad @Boggles posted in post #27 got off with it!

I can see an appeal.

That article is from the first trial. It's dated 11th Feb 2022 so nothing in it is relevant to evidence given in the most recent trial. By reading that article, you are reading the happenings of a different trial.

Dean Kerrie didn't give any evidence in the retrial which I think was why he lost this case.

Does this mean that we're back to where we were before the ruling in the McNally case? As it seems to be the case. The castle doctrine doesn't really seem to exist in Ireland if so, as this standard seems to be inline with the standard that exists outside of the "castle"

I'm pretty extremist when it comes to this stuff, as I think you should be able to do literally anything you want to someone who breaks into your home.

Is there a minimum sentence for this type of conviction. I'm trying to figure out if it's the judge or the jury or both who are the idiots here.

A skinny teenager is in his home when a grown man throws a rock through the window, enters the property and assaults him and possibly his mother. Who cares if the intruder was (still) armed or not after throwing the rock. I certainly wouldn't take a chance on him being unarmed in that situation. Put him down as quickly as possible using any weapon that comes to hand and if he dies, he dies. it's not as if the intruder came in to rob the TV and was in the process of fleeing with it when stabbed - in that case then yeah, the force would have been excessive.

I noticed at the end of the report he will have to engage with addiction services to have the last twelve months suspended. Was he intoxicated at the time of the incident? Such things could sway a jury.

If everyone was like them there would be no wars to worry about. I'd like to live in a world where people try everything to avoid killing someone, wouldn't you?

Baffling case given the precedent already set under the same defence.

Why his lawyers didn't put him on the stand for the second trial is a mystery.

Justice was not served here IMHO.

I believe in the right of citizens to defend themselves and their property but I would add one caveat for the purposes of this discussion.

Neither I nor presumably any other poster here has heard all the evidence in this case but the jury and judge did.

I hate hearing the idea of excessive force when it comes to self defence. As if the judge, were he to be suddenly awakened by a violent drunk, would pull his punches and in a split second assess just how much it's reasonable to hurt the sucker.

Ridiculous. It's not like this guy enjoyed the violence, it was brought on him. He didn't stab someone because that's his thing and he gets a kick out of it, he did it because he was scared shitless, adrenaline kicked in, and he did what he had to do. Something many if not most of us would do in the same circumstance.

Might as well just jail us all now, we're all guilty of this same crime of self preservation.

And rocks are for smashing windows of a house so a person can enter the said house and attack the occupant.!!

Your comments are full of "I know something you don't know", and with that username you're obviously local to the area and know the people involved. But comments like that are just pointless. Throwing shade at the shades without evidence is just as pointless. But your first line does ring true of most Waterford people I know. Doesn't make it right.

Like some have mentioned above, we don't have all the evidence in this case, but there is something off about it. I'm sure there'll be another case to come. And maybe eventually we'll get all the details.