Guilty of manslaughter of Waterford fisherman

The witnesses was friends with the dead man. So whatever association you want to apply has a different target.

He was in the car when his soon to be dead friend drunkenly crashed it into a pole and then both went to the house believing he'd damaged the wing mirror. That'd be the wing mirror of the car the drunk dead man crashed.

You would think that a jury would intuitively side with the guy whose home was broken into, so I wonder what the evidence was that convinced them the use of force was excessive, even if the defendant honestly believed it was necessary.

Would his past not inform this decision too? Surely it would. Well known to the Guards apparently as locals have said. Many people saying he was terrorising the area, and the guards failed to deal with him.

As opposed to the main witness for the prosecution who admitted drinking all day and actively participated in smashing up the house with golf clubs? 😂

There was only one person on trial, there was multiple victims.

Unless you think people who get assaulted and have their private property smashed by up by drunken / drugged up thugs are not victims, if so you'll have to explain that one?

Isn't lethal force acceptable when there's an immediate threat to life, i.e entering a bedroom? Sentence is ridiculous in this case and some of the comments on here about running out of the house to call gardai are laughable softie nonsense.

If you break into someone's house and then enter a bedroom you should not expect to be leaving alive.

Who's to say what's excessive? If a guy breaks in armed with a hammer and I have a knife, I'm not going to give him one poke of it and tell him to leave am I? I'm going to poke him repeatedly with it until he is no longer able to pose a threat.

a jury decides if it is excessive.

Of course you can as long as the Jury do not deem it excessive.

The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.

So in circumstances where you have a genuine belief that the intruder is likely to cause injury or death to an occupant of the house, putting them down is a perfectly legitimate response. I'm baffled as to why this guy got jail time given the circumstances outlined

no, there were three options put to the jury. They could decide the force used was objectively reasonable i.e. not excessive and find him not guilty. they could find the force was excessive but that he thought it was reasonable in which case he was guilty of manslaughter. they could find that he knew the force was excessive in which case he was guilty of murder

Yes your right, I got it from Facebook, where people have their full identity on show and where they're from. Not reliable enough for you is it not? I must have read about 30 odd independent comments saying that Kerrie was a trouble maker in a gang. And in the small world of boards there are posters here in the apparent know of the full context of what went on.

Also I didn't say he had previous convictions, but given the above I'm sure he has been complained about and was known by guards. Plus I said his mate Dylan Jones (the initial trial witness) who was there that night vouching for him had convictions for robbery!

Do normal people hang about with house robbers?? Do you? I've a Funny feeling this chap was no angel by any stretch. I've lived in a lot rough areas growing and there are young lads that can make your life an absolute nightmare that the guards can essentially do nothing about.

Not discounting what the deciesed had done. He should not have behaved that way. But a fuller context needs to be provided. If you are tormenting people you need to bear some responsibility imo.

Except the law itself doesn't say that it's the **** judge saying it.

If acting in self defence which they found then he was not guilty of an offense, it doesn't say then he's guilty of a lesser one.

That is the judge's role - to interpret the law and explain it to the jury.

Every judge in the country would have a more relevant view of the law than you, why do you think you're right and they are wrong?