# Farmer Nally



## markowitzman (12 Nov 2005)

Feel very sorry for this man. 6 years in prison. Thug plagued him for ages and the farmer finally lost it. Despite my sadness for him a custodial sentence I feel was warranted (as he reloaded and shot him in the back as he left the property) but 6 years is steep. He will have an awful time in prison as he is a marked man. RTE coverage of the aftermath it must be said is not that balanced. They should have had someone from the traveller community (if they would come on) on the late late show. Also Prime Time next week has interview. Hope they have more balance compared to Late Late.


----------



## delgirl (12 Nov 2005)

I too feel sorry for this farmer and would have liked to have seen a suspended sentence rather than a custodial one in light of the circumstances leading up to the shooting.

IMO, the law is biased in favour of criminals where law abiding people in their own homes are required to calibrate the extent of the menace before being allowed to defend their loved ones and property.


----------



## brodiebabe (12 Nov 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> IMO, the law is biased in favour of criminals where law abiding people in their own homes are required to calibrate the extent of the menace before being allowed to defend their loved ones and property.


 
I don't know of any law abiding people who have murdered someone.


----------



## Murt10 (12 Nov 2005)

Going back maybe 10 -15 years ago wasn't there a bunch of travellers who went round the Country attacking robbing and tieing up old people living in isolated areas on their own. 

If Mr Nally read about these at the time, he may have assumed that he was dealing with the same people. Also hadn't the dead traveller a conviction for assault with a slash hook and he was due in Court for a similar assault on a garda.

If I were in the same position as Mr Nally I don't think I would have reacted any differently.



Murt


----------



## delgirl (12 Nov 2005)

Murt10 said:
			
		

> Going back maybe 10 -15 years ago wasn't there a bunch of travellers who went round the Country attacking robbing and tieing up old people living in isolated areas on their own.


 
On Monday, Mr Nally spoke of an incident where two brothers living about eight miles from him were brutally assaulted and one of them died.  He had this uppermost in his mind when he saw the two men on his property and feared for his own life.


----------



## tomthumb (12 Nov 2005)

My sympathies lie completely with Mr. Nally.   The terror and fear in his heart that day would have blinded him and logic and calm went out the window.  If he had called the Guards they probably wouldn't have arrived for ages so what had he to do except defend himself and his property.   In that awful situation when you feel so threatened I can imagine how the mind would go blank and this terrible incident take place.   A suspended sentence would have be fair IMO.  As Murt10 rightly says the elderly have a huge fear of travellers arriving at their isolated farms and robbing and beating them up from past incidents.   That fear led to this fellows life being taken so those who caused that fear have a huge responsibility for the incident with Mr. Nally and that seems not to have counted?   God help Mr. Nally.


----------



## ajapale (12 Nov 2005)

My sympathies lie with Judge who had a very difficult case to try.

I for one am glad the we have an independant judiciary. The alternative is that we have mob law or trial by "Prime Time" or worse the "Irish Sun".

ajapale


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Nov 2005)

It's a tough one.

I feel sorry for people living in isolated areas who have been the victims of crime and whose neighbours have been the victims of crime.

If I came back to my home and found someone around the back where he shouldn't be, I would see little point in calling the police.

But, he was tried by a jury who heard all the evidence. They didn't just read the papers. They probably shared the same sympathies and prejudices which we have for the farmer. But, having heard all the evidence, they did find him guilty of manslaughter. I think we have to leave it up to them. 

The judge had to sentence him for the crime for which he was convicted. I feel sorry for the farmer, and I don't feel sorry for the guy he killed given his record, but what could the judge do? Not impose a custodial sentence? 

It's very tough.

Brendan


----------



## shnaek (12 Nov 2005)

The only thing to be done to help this situation is to introduce severe sentences for those caught robbing elderly people living in the country side. Alas this won't happen. I only read in the paper today about the 3 month sentences for the lads who put that librarian in a coma. Bloody disgraceful. When a criminal in this country does a cost-benefit analysis of robbing/mugging/attacking someone only an idiot would think the odds weren't in their favour.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Nov 2005)

shnaek said:
			
		

> The only thing to be done to help this situation is to introduce severe sentences for those caught robbing elderly people living in the country side.


Whilst my heart wouldn't disagree, my head wonders if there is any evidence that longer sentences actually serve as a deterrent.


----------



## CCOVICH (13 Nov 2005)

Also, is robbing elderly folk necessarliy a worse crime than robbing anyone else?  

And I dunno if the average criminal is conversant enough in finance/economics/whatever to conduct a cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## delgirl (13 Nov 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Whilst my heart wouldn't disagree, my head wonders if there is any evidence that longer sentences actually serve as a deterrent.


Maybe not longer sentences, but perhaps if people had the right to defend themselves in their homes to whatever degree they felt necessary this would be a sufficient deterrent to most/some burglars?  I don't know how a burglar thinks, but if I thought I might be seriously injured or shot while entering someone's home, I'd think twice about doing it.

We lived in South Africa in the 80's when it wasn't against the law to shoot an intruder.  Yes, it was during the apartheid years and yes, most of the intruders were black.  I understand that the law there has now changed and the number of buglaries has soared as the criminals no longer fear being shot.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Nov 2005)

brodiebabe said:
			
		

> I don't know of any law abiding people who have murdered someone.


Just to be clear - in this case the person involved was convicted of manslaughter and not murder.


			
				delgirl said:
			
		

> but perhaps if people had the right to defend themselves in their homes to whatever degree they felt necessary this would be a sufficient deterrent to most/some burglars?


Would that include shooting the intruder a second time in the back after he had fled having already been shot once and severely beaten?

It might also be pertinent to note that the person convicted in this case has accepted that there was no option but for him to receive a custodial sentence.


----------



## delgirl (13 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Would that include shooting the intruder a second time in the back after he had fled having already been shot once and severely beaten?


 _"Sgt Carroll agreed with defence barrister Mr Brendan Grehan SC, that Mr Nally had been living in fear after being robbed and unwelcome strangers had come to his house. _

_Sgt Carroll agreed with Mr Grehan SC that Mr Nally was "out of his mind with fear" on the day of the fatal shooting. _

_The court heard that Mr Nally used to record the registration numbers of cars coming to his farmhouse and would throw a bucket of water on soil at his gate in order to record footprints or tyre prints of anyone who would call while he was not at home._

_Mr Nally’s next door neighbour, Mr Michael Varley told defence barrister Mr Michael Bowman BL that he has known Mr Nally "all his life". _

_He said Mr Nally’s door was "always open to his neighbours". _

_Mr Varley said he noticed a change in Mr Nally from 2003 after he had been broken into and again in February 2004. _

_From then on, he said, Mr Nally wouldn’t stay long away from his farm and became pre-occupied with maintaining a presence at his farm. _

_Psychologist Dr John P. Bogue told the court that after he assessed Mr Nally he concluded that he was "quite a sincere and forthcoming man". _

_He said Mr Nally had been suffering from stress in the weeks before the fatal shooting. _

_"He was pre-occupied with intruders coming to his farm", Dr Bogue said. _

_He said Mr Nally was "coping quite poorly" with the stress. Dr Bogue said Mr Nally had entertained thoughts of self-harm before the incident."_

This was essentially a good, law-abiding man. Who can say how any of us would have reacted under such stress? 

The fact remains that but for Mr Ward's own actions, he would have been alive today.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Nov 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> We lived in South Africa in the 80's when it wasn't against the law to shoot an intruder.  Yes, it was during the apartheid years and yes, most of the intruders were black.  I understand that the law there has now changed and the number of buglaries has soared as the criminals no longer fear being shot.


The statistics shown  don't show any 'soaring' - There was in 2002/2003, but it did drop back for the most recent year recorded. There is an overall trend of a gradual increase, but certainly nothing that I would describe as 'soaring'.

I have little confidence that the average burglar gives serious consideration to the outcome of their actions, regardless of what kind of responses are legally permitted.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Nov 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> _Sgt Carroll agreed with Mr Grehan SC that Mr Nally was "out of his mind with fear" on the day of the fatal shooting. _



Is _Sgt. Carroll _a trained psychiatrist/psychologist?




> This was essentially a good, law-abiding man. Who can say how any of us would have reacted under such stress?


Be that as it may, and I'm sure that all of us have it within us to kill somebody else, but that doesn't mitigate the seriousness of the crime that occurs when somebody kills another.
 



> The fact remains that but for Mr Ward's own actions, he would have been alive today.


I think it's more pertinent to state that but for _Mr Nally's _actions _Mr Ward _would be alive today.


----------



## extopia (13 Nov 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> We lived in South Africa in the 80's when it wasn't against the law to shoot an intruder.



I don't believe we have anything to learn here in Ireland from the enlightened policies of the South African government during the apartheid years.

I think this was a tough case and I believe Mr. Nally feared for his life. But he killed a man. The media played on the fact that the victim was a Traveller as if this had anything to do with it. Unless it's more OK to shoot Travellers than it is to shoot non Travellers? The media could just as easily have portrayed Mr. Ward as a "father of 11" or some such term.

Listening to "trial by Liveline" was sickening - all those anti-Traveller people phoning Joe Duffy baying for blood. Nally, to his credit, agrees that he did wrong and seems prepared to meet the consequences.

A lot of lives ruined, as is usually the case when someone snaps and takes the law into his or her own hands.


----------



## Observer (13 Nov 2005)

Brendan said:
			
		

> It's a tough one.
> 
> ...............................
> But, he was tried by a jury who heard all the evidence. They didn't just read the papers. They probably shared the same sympathies and prejudices which we have for the farmer. But, having heard all the evidence, they did find him guilty of manslaughter. I think we have to leave it up to them.
> ...


 
Actually, that's not quite true.  The judge DIRECTED the jury not to acquit him.  They were given a choice of a murder or manslaughter verdict but they were not allowed to acquit.

I find this to be the strangest aspect of this sad case.  And I didn't think judges could actually do this.  Certainly judges can and do direct juries to acquit (when the case warrants it) but, as an interested layman, I've never before heard of a judge ordering a jury to convict, and I didn't even think it was allowed.  Could one of our legally qualified contributors perhaps shed some light?  

For the record my sympathies are entirely with Mr Nally rather than with the deceased.


----------



## delgirl (13 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> I think it's more pertinent to state that but for _Mr Nally's _actions _Mr Ward _would be alive today.


Why is it more pertinant?  Surely if Mr Ward hadn't been there in the first place, doing whatever it was he was doing, Mr Nally wouldn't have had anyone to shoot?



			
				Rainyday said:
			
		

> The statistics shown  don't show any 'soaring' - There was in 2002/2003, but it did drop back for the most recent year recorded. There is an overall trend of a gradual increase, but certainly nothing that I would describe as 'soaring'.


The statistics you quote begin in 1994 - as I said, we lived there in the 80's - from 1983 to 1986.


----------



## extopia (13 Nov 2005)

Shame on you delgirl! Hardly qualifies you to have a balanced view on the Nally case, given that you chose to live in one of the most prejudiced societies in recent history.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Nov 2005)

delgirl said:
			
		

> Why is it more pertinant? Surely if Mr Ward hadn't been there in the first place, doing whatever it was he was doing, Mr Nally wouldn't have had anyone to shoot?


It's more pertinent because _Mr. Nally _is the only person to have been convicted of a crime in relation to this event as far as I know.


----------



## delgirl (14 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Shame on you delgirl! Hardly qualifies you to have a balanced view on the Nally case, given that you chose to live in one of the most prejudiced societies in recent history.


I fail to see how having lived in South Africa would preclude me from having an opinion on the Nally case - perhaps you'd like to expand on that in another thread?


----------



## extopia (14 Nov 2005)

delgirl, I didn't say you would be precluded from having an opinion. 

I said "balanced view."


----------



## quarterfloun (14 Nov 2005)

_Intemperate post deleted by RainyDay_


----------



## Janet (14 Nov 2005)

Was there ever any doubt that Mr Nally had done this?  If he didn't try to cover it up/hide what he had done then it seems reasonable that the jury were directed not to acquit him as the trial would have been about the severity of the charge rather than whether he had commited the crime or not.


----------



## Purple (14 Nov 2005)

ARAIK a dury can ignore the direction given by a Judge.


----------



## annR (14 Nov 2005)

I think that when a man plagues another man and robs him of peace and security, he is asking for it.  

Travellers like Mr Ward don't do the rest of them any favours when it comes to discrimination and fair treatment etc, and I think this case is a disaster in that respect.  It's caused real rancour.  I remember being in Western Australia and being a little surprised by the outright hatred people there seemed to have for Aborigines, and thinking ok many people in Ireland don't like travellers but I never got a sense of real rancour and hatred before . . . . .cases like this will bring us further along that road which is a sad thing.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

annR said:
			
		

> I think that when a man plagues another man and robs him of peace and security, he is asking for it.


Are you referring to _Mr. Nally _or _Mr. Ward _here? _Mr. Ward _was obviously not blameless in this but _Mr. Nally _deliberately killed him. I would have assumed that manslaughter was a greater crime than trespass.


----------



## extopia (14 Nov 2005)

annR said:
			
		

> Travellers like Mr Ward don't do the rest of them any favours when it comes to discrimination and fair treatment etc, and I think this case is a disaster in that respect.



You're probably right - but only because certain people generalise from the particular and assume that all Travellers are thieves.


----------



## delgirl (14 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> delgirl, I didn't say you would be precluded from having an opinion.
> 
> I said "balanced view."


I'd appreciate it if you could explain why my view on the Nally case is not balanced and I'm happy to take the subject out of this thread if anyone feels we're going off topic here.


----------



## DrMoriarty (14 Nov 2005)

As a child, I also lived in S. Africa in the "bad old days" - does that mean my views on the Nally case are inherently imbalanced? Or that all (presumably white?) South Africans are racist, regardless of their views on apartheid?  

For what it's worth (and if people want to start a separate thread on that topic?) — in Australia, it only became illegal to shoot an aborigine on your property in the mid-seventies. Just for trespass; you didn't have to have felt in any way threatened...


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

DrMoriarty said:
			
		

> For what it's worth (and if people want to start a separate thread on that topic?) — in Australia, it only became illegal to shoot an aborigine on your property in the mid-seventies. Just for trespass; you didn't have to have felt in any way threatened...


Are you saying that a law specifically dealing with the shooting of trespassing _Aborigines _was introduced or did the law apply to any trespassers regardless of ethnic origin?


----------



## DrMoriarty (14 Nov 2005)

I'd have to look it up, but my recollection is that it only applied to aborigines (who had no citizenship rights until the enactment of the 1975 Federal Racial Discrimination Act). A quick Google throws up  brief history, and further 'leftist propaganda' here.


----------



## quarterfloun (14 Nov 2005)

Please do not interpret my highlighting of Tony Martins actions killing a person who is not a member of the settled community as being inflammatory in any way just an observation that there seems to be some gene deficiency in their understanding of what is theirs and what is not. I have never gone into an encampment or farm, gone into a caravan or farmhouse, removed goods without permisssion from the farmer or unsettled person because I live within the law. If I choose to do these things and show no respect for the law then I strongly believe that I have no recouse to the Law that I have no respect for.

I also think that we should not draw the dangerous analogy that unsettled people of any nationality are all criminals - they are not. 

I can understand why Aborigines (as previously brought up and unmoderated) and Native South Africans (as previously brought up and unmoderated) may feel aggrieved somewhat in the way they have ended up (poor and unwelcome in their own lands) but I cannot understand why our indigenous unsettled "communities" would feel so aggrieved as to behave in a similar manner as they have not had their hunting lands removed from them by "The White Man" and they are certainly not poor unless they have borrowed these fine 4WD vehicles from a rich aunt.

I await your censure with baited breat Rainy


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> If I choose to do these things and show no respect for the law then I strongly believe that I have no recouse to the Law that I have no respect for.


Well that's not how it works. Equality before the law is a fundamental right . Breaking the law in no way abrogates a persons rights or obligations in this respect.



> I can understand why Aborigines (as previously brought up and unmoderated) and Native South Africans (as previously brought up and unmoderated) may feel aggrieved somewhat in the way they have ended up (poor and unwelcome in their own lands) but I cannot understand why our indigenous unsettled "communities" would feel so aggrieved as to behave in a similar manner as they have not had their hunting lands removed from them by "The White Man" and they are certainly not poor unless they have borrowed these fine 4WD vehicles from a rich aunt.


When a settled person commits a crime do you attribute this action to their ethnic origin? If not then why do it when it involves other groups?


----------



## annR (14 Nov 2005)

Clubman,
>>Are you referring to _Mr. Nally _or _Mr. Ward _here? _Mr. Ward _was obviously not blameless in this but _Mr. Nally _deliberately killed him. I would have assumed that manslaughter was a greater crime than trespass.<<
Of course it is.  Look, my remark was just a remark, not an argument that trepass was a lesser crime.  I guess what I was trying to say, and tie yourself in knots over it all you want, was that I think anyone could have seen that coming including Mr Ward.  And if he couldn't he should have.  If you go around burgling people (and in this case driving someone to the edge with fear) I think you are running the risk of being retaliated against, that's the way the world is.


----------



## extopia (14 Nov 2005)

delgirl, you made a reference earlier that when you lived in SA it used to be OK to shoot black "trespassers". While you did not say you agreed with such behaviour, I assumed your point was that our own modern laws here are a little behind? Perhaps I misunderstood you. 

If your participation in the white SA regime was not of your own choice (or that of your family, assuming you share their values) --  or indeed if you were there to work with the dispossessed majority -- well then the fact that you lived in SA is irrelevant to your judgement of how best to deal with the transgressions of the "underclass", and if that's the case I apologise.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

annR said:
			
		

> Of course it is. Look, my remark was just a remark, not an argument that trepass was a lesser crime. I guess what I was trying to say, and tie yourself in knots over it all you want, was that I think anyone could have seen that coming including Mr Ward. And if he couldn't he should have. If you go around burgling people (and in this case driving someone to the edge with fear) I think you are running the risk of being retaliated against, that's the way the world is.


I am not tying myself in knots but you seem to be rationalising or condoning what happened on the basis of the victim's behaviour and I feel that this is a slippery slope if applied to similar crimes - e.g. should a rape victim bear some of the reponsibility for their assault if they are in a certain place and acting in a certain way at the time? Obviously not but that would be the logical extension of your sort of reasoning in this case.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if this farmer's property was broken into in the past then it would have a fairly severe impact on him,
and would almost certainly have lead to severe fear and paranoia. 

I'm not a psychologist, but from my own much less severe involvement with Crime, I know that I now have a completely different sleep pattern than I used to. Any sound outside the house at night will wake me and I'll be out of bed and at the window without even thinking about it.

Given that this criminal showed up on his property it would appear his worries were justified. Would we have preferred to read about a farmer beaten to within an inch of his life or worse? No. We've read that story too many times. And you can be sure that had this criminal gotten away with what he planned that night there would have been more robberies, and with 11 kids there was a whole new generation of thieves on the way.

Have I sympathy for his family? None. They lived off his crime, this is the price you pay. 

Personally if I owned a gun and encountered someone in my house I'd like to think I'd make damn sure I didn't need to reload. I certainly wouldn't waste my time calling the Gardai, been there done that.

The only arguments I've heard against this farmer are that he re-loaded and fired again? Would he have walked free if his first shot had been a kill? As for whether he was right to reload and finish the job. How would you feel knowing that this thug was out there willing and able to come back for revenge? It's not a justificiation, but It's something to consider. Do you think you'd ever sleep soundly again?

None of us thankfully know what it's like to be this man, but I hope he feels that his time in Jail will be worth it, and when he get's out he'll have years of peaceful nights sleep.

And hopefully the revolving door of our prisons get him out as quickly as the criminal that tried to rob him would have gotten out had be been caught.

Is Tresspass a lesser crime than Man Slaughter?
That's not the issue at all. Mr Ward was on someone else's property. WE have no idea how sever a crime he was willing to commit. What we do know is only one person was there with the intent to commit a crime.

We also know that Mr Nally is unlikely to ever commit a crime again, whereas Mr Ward would probably have committed more THAT NIGHT, and again, and again.

The right person is in the ground. Thank goodness.



> Obviously not but that would be the logical extension of your sort of reasoning in this case.


 
That's about as illogical an extension as I could imagine.   Having a crime committed against you while you yourself are in the process of committing a crime, is a completely different thing from having a crime comitted against you while you are doing nothing wrong.   

Even putting this aside Rape is a terrible analogy.  There is no way that rape can EVER be considered a defensive crime, whereas Manslaughter can be committed when defending yourself.



-Rd


----------



## Humpback (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> Have I sympathy for his family? None. They lived off his crime, this is the price you pay.


 
Slightly off topic, but I've been wondering recently why people didn't adopt this same thinking when it came to Liam Lawlor.


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> The only arguments I've heard against this farmer are that he re-loaded and fired again? Would he have walked free if his first shot had been a kill?


That's completely hypothetical since it did not happen and hence it's pointless speculating what might have happened if the crime, charge, prosecution, trial etc. had been different.



> As for whether he was right to reload and finish the job.


He was convicted of manslaughter so obviously he was wrong to do this.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

I do adopt this thinking when it comes to MR Lawlor.  Which is why I was quite happy to discuss is deeds good and bad immediately after his death.

I do have sympathy for them when it comes to their treatement by Independant News Papers.  They deserved criticism for living off his ill gotten gains, just as Mr Ward's family do.   But neither family deserve to have lies published about them.

-Rd


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> He was convicted of manslaughter so obviously he was wrong to do this.


 
I'd rather spend 6 years in jail for Man Slaughter than the rest of my live wondering if Mr Ward was going to come back and finish me off.

The Legal approach isn't always the right one.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> But neither family deserve to have lies published about them.


Does speculation such as yours about what _Mr. Ward _might have done during this incident or afterwards constitute lies?


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> I'd rather spend 6 years in jail for Man Slaughter than the rest of my live wondering if Mr Ward was going to come back and finish me off.
> 
> The Legal approach isn't always the right one.
> 
> -Rd


Are you implying that _Mr. Nally _is the victim of a miscarriage of justice or otherwise didn't get a fair trial?


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

No.  How do you get that from anything I said.

THe right thing to do isn't always legal.   But you can't have any complaints about paying the price for breaking the law.   Sometimes the pinishment for a crime is not as bad as the punishment for not comitting the crime.   It's terribly unfair to be in a position of having to make that decision,  but it happens to some people.

Mr Nally has my sympathy for being put in that position, but I don't think 6 years out in less than that is too big a price to pay.    I'd be delighted if he got a lesser sentance, but I don't think he was treated unfairly.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> THe right thing to do isn't always legal. But you can't have any complaints about paying the price for breaking the law.


OK - I get you now. And I agree with you on this point.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

I would hope that where someone finds themselves having to make such a decision, the legal sytem would hand down a lesser sentance. For example if Mr Ward had shot Mr Nally, but had only intended to rob the place, he could have been convicted of Man Slaughter, I would hope that he would have received a far more severe sentance.

The sentancing possibilities for Man Slaughter as far as I know the widest in our legal system. I'd hope that spread of possibilities allows for People like Mr Nally to receive far lighter sentances than people like Mr Ward.

(By people like Mr Ward I mean Criminals, not Travellers. I draw no distinction between criminals based on where or how they live).

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> Have I sympathy for his family? None. They lived off his crime, this is the price you pay.


His children didn't have a choice as to what income they lived off.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> His children didn't have a choice as to what income they lived off.


 
The 18 year old son that drove him to Mr Nally's house certainly had a choice.
I wonder if he got enough of an apprenticeship to be able to carry on the family business. 

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> The 18 year old son that drove him to Mr Nally's house certainly had a choice.


But the other 10 children, particularly the younger ones, had no choice over how their father earned his living.


----------



## annR (14 Nov 2005)

>>but you seem to be rationalising or condoning what happened on the basis of the victim's behaviour and I feel that this is a slippery slope if applied to similar crimes - e.g. should a rape victim bear some of the reponsibility for their assault if they are in a certain place and acting in a certain way at the time? Obviously not but that would be the logical extension of your sort of reasoning in this case.<<

I suppose I am rationalising Mr Nally's crime . . .so what.  I can see what led to this happening.  Can't you?  It's not the same as condoning it as you suggest.

>>e.g. should a rape victim bear some of the reponsibility for their assault if they are in a certain place and acting in a certain way at the time? <<

For example?  In what place and acting what way?  Go on, please clarify your analogy.  It will be off topic though so maybe it needs another thread.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> But the other 10 children, particularly the younger ones, had no choice over how their father earned his living.


 
They have my sympathy for being born the children of such parents. It's their father through the life he chose that left them fatherless. When it comes to the specific events of that day, I can't honestly say that my thoughts go to the "Poor Children"

Whatever sympathy I might have for the parents they got, I don't feel any sympathy for the fact that one of those parents is now gone and unable to influence the children any further.

That might sound heartless, but that's how I feel.

-Rd


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2005)

Yep, sounds heartless to me. It is clear that your thoughts hadn't gone to the children. That's why I was kind-of forcing you to think about the children. Regardless of who you blame, 11 children are now fatherless. They are also very likely to build up resentment of the settled community and grudges for 'the system'. I very much doubt that the best way to turn these children into upstanding members of our community was to shoot their father.


----------



## quarterfloun (14 Nov 2005)

Clubman - you point me to the constitution to tell me what rights I have. Is every Constitution in the world 100% right? I agree with your point that that is what the Constitution says and that is the law we live under - fine no problem. Perhaps missing from this Deified (in your eyes) document is a line that says "you waive all rights to the law if you waive the law". Why should decent folk have to elevate our criminal brethren to our level? If we do we effective allow them to dip in and out as they see fit cherry picking a place in society that never contributes and always takes. Who ends up paying for our criminals rights to the constitution - you and me.  So not only do we under the Constitution pay for the entire infrastucture of  upholding the constitution, we allow criminals access to law (though they choose to live outside it), we then fund their "defense" and ultimately provide them with  shelter & food.
Whilst I agree this is the practise of a civilised society, ultimately we  should try and resolve the issues not the crimes. In the meantime we should balance the  scales of justice  to protect the victims rather than ensure the criminals rights are well preserved under the constitution.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> That's why I was kind-of forcing you to think about the children.


 
Thanks for looking after my morals and conscience. What would I do without you?



> I very much doubt that the best way to turn these children into upstanding members of our community was to shoot their father.


 
I very much doubt it'll make a difference. I suspect had their father lived and continued to make an income by robbing people and wielding his slash hook at gardai, the kids would have been more likely to follow in his footsteps than become upstanding citizens.

We don't know what will happen. I'm as entitled to say they're better off without him as you are to say the opposite. 

In any case it wasn't Mr Nally's job to turn them into good citizens. It was his job to protect himself and his property.    Perhaps the state should have thrown out the charges against Mr Ward for attacking a Garda,  for fear that it might build up resentment against the system in Mr Ward's 11 children.

-Rd


----------



## annR (14 Nov 2005)

Rainyday

What you are saying goes back to what I was originally saying.  I think this is really sad because of the damage it will do to relations between settled and traveller communities.  People who are working in this area must feel awful.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> In the meantime we should balance the scales of justice to protect the victims rather than ensure the criminals rights are well preserved under the constitution.


 
Ideally the scales should be balanced so that it's difficult to convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit.   The price we pay for that is that some guilty people go free.   

The question that some of us are asking is whether we have gone too far in that, to the point where it's now difficult to convict a guilty person,  and otherwise innocent people end up taking the law into their own hands, and ultimately fall foul of it.

This is far from unique to Ireland of course.   

-Rd


----------



## delgirl (14 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> delgirl, you made a reference earlier that when you lived in SA it used to be OK to shoot black "trespassers". While you did not say you agreed with such behaviour, I assumed your point was that our own modern laws here are a little behind? Perhaps I misunderstood you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, you misunderstood me - I never said it was ok to shoot black trespassers. It was acceptable then to use a firearm to defend yourself and _*most*_ of, not all, the intruders were black. This law also included intruders who were white, coloured's, Cape Malay and Indians.

I went to South Africa on a Government sponsored training programme which aimed to train black, coloured and ethnic Indians to take over the role of Management in the particular sector of the serivice industry I was involved in. 

When I left my first assignment, an ethnic Indian lady by the name of Ella Govender took over as outlet manager and I am still in touch with her to this day.

On completion of my second assignment, a Tswana man called Laurence Magano took over the management of that outlet.

So you see, even back in the 80's the Government were working towards education and training, although you probably wouldn't have heard much about that over here.

I'm very proud of what I achieved in South Africa and have great respect for all the South African people regardless of their race.

I am also married to a non-EU national - so to suggest that I am in any way racist is just a non-starter.

I also never mentioned Mr Ward's ethnicity - it doesn't interest me at all. If it had been a settled person, I would say exactly the same thing - if you go out with the intention of burgling someone's home, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences if the homeowner decides to protect himself, his family and property.


----------



## quarterfloun (14 Nov 2005)

I'm with you Rd, I think the gentlemans (I have to be nice to keep Rainy off my back  ) demise was unfortunate due to his choice of profession and standards of citizenship and his children are going to grow up perhaps the better for it. When the dust settles and these children and mother have finished from grieving hopefully will  look at the facts and realise that crime does not pay. Perhaps the Widow will meet a nice man (from any community - settled or unsettled) who has more moral fortitude than her previous selection and can provide these orphans with a more suitable (in terms of law abiding and respect for others) role model. Thus I can see good coming out from this situation.


----------



## Humpback (14 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> I'm with you Rd, I think the gentlemans (I have to be nice to keep Rainy off my back  ) demise was unfortunate due to his choice of profession and standards of citizenship and his children are going to grow up perhaps the better for it. When the dust settles and these children and mother have finished from grieving hopefully will look at the facts and realise that crime does not pay. Perhaps the Widow will meet a nice man (from any community - settled or unsettled) who has more moral fortitude than her previous selection and can provide these orphans with a more suitable (in terms of law abiding and respect for others) role model. Thus I can see good coming out from this situation.



Now the comments are just getting plain ridiculous. 

I'm sure all gentlemen posting here would consider themselves as a "nice man", but what are the chances that if any of you would be in the position to meet this widow and even consider marrying, settling down, that you actually would? 

Given you're lack of sympathy for the man himself, and the children, aren't you by extrapolation going to think less of this widow as well.

As in, what kind of woman would marry and have children with a man like this? 

She's damned as much as the rest of the sorry people in this discussion on the basis of what a lot of comments are reflecting here, so the chances of her meeting a "nice man" are slim to none.

(And please don't come back with the "I'm married already" response. You're all talking about hypothetical situations here anyway, so leave that one out of it too.).


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> Clubman - you point me to the constitution to tell me what rights I have.


No problem - .



> Is every Constitution in the world 100% right?


Eh? Not sure what other constitutions have to do with this issue but in relation to our own it is (to quote _OASIS_):


> the fundamental legal document that sets out how Ireland should be governed and the rights of Irish citizens.


As such, until such time as it is amended it is 100% "right" if you want to put it that way.



> Perhaps missing from this Deified (in your eyes) document


What do you mean by "Deified"? I never mentioned anything like this in relation to the constitution.



> is a line that says "you waive all rights to the law if you waive the law".


Yes - such a line is indeed missing and if you think that it should be included then you should start a campaign to have it amended appropriately and see how much support you get. On the other hand given that our legal system assumes innocence until proven otherwise you have a bit of a chicken and egg situation in that you can only prove that somebody has "waived the law" as you put it by trying and convicting them at which stage you have already granted them access to the law. How would you determine a priori and without a trial by one's peers (let's ignore the sticky issue of the no jury  for now shall we?) that somebody had "waived the law" for example?



> Why should decent folk have to elevate our criminal brethren to our level?


I disagree that equality before the law is elevation to anybody's level but one has to do this because the consistution guarantees it as a fundamental right. As above, if you want it changed get going.



> If we do we effective allow them to dip in and out as they see fit cherry picking a place in society that never contributes and always takes.


I don't understand this point at all.



> Who ends up paying for our criminals rights to the constitution - you and me.


Not necessarily - convicted criminals can pay by losing their freedom when convicted of crimes. Just look at _Mr. Nally's _case for example.



> So not only do we under the Constitution pay for the entire infrastucture of upholding the constitution, we allow criminals access to law (though they choose to live outside it), we then fund their "defense" and ultimately provide them with shelter & food.
> Whilst I agree this is the practise of a civilised society, ultimately we should try and resolve the issues not the crimes. In the meantime we should balance the scales of justice to protect the victims rather than ensure the criminals rights are well preserved under the constitution.


How was justice imbalanced in this case? _Mr. Nally _was convicted of killing a man unjustifiably and received a custodial sentence. Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

I'm not sure what point you're making ronan.   I don't think quarterfloun should necessarily be willing to marry the woman in order for his point to be valid.

-Rd


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?


 
No.  That would be ridiculous.   Imagine if the people who murdered hundreds of people in the North were just allowed to remain at large!   No-one would ever stand for that.   
I mean,  Irish Society as we know it would decay into Anarchy!

-Rd


----------



## extopia (14 Nov 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> I've been wondering recently why people didn't adopt this same thinking when it came to Liam Lawlor.



Well I would adopt that kind of thinking readily. And there are plenty of people I'd add to the list.

Personally, I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death. I have sympathy for Mr. Nally because I believe he was driven to distraction by fear and paranoia. But he committed the ultimate crime, the taking of a human life, and I don't for a second believe he will ever sleep soundly again. To be fair to him he made no bones about what happened and seems prepared to face the consequences.


----------



## DrMoriarty (14 Nov 2005)

By his own account he'll sleep more soundly in prison...


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> No. That would be ridiculous. Imagine if the people who murdered hundreds of people in the North were just allowed to remain at large! No-one would ever stand for that.
> I mean,  Irish Society as we know it would decay into Anarchy!


Families such as the _McCartneys, McCabes _and _Rafferteys _among many others might agree with you alright.


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death


 
I guess the mistake made by the other elderly people killed in their homes is that they waited until the intruder comitted his ultimate crime before they tried to defend themselves.  Had they shot their intruders too soon they'd have been sentancing them to death for nothing more than trespassing.

Of course they'd still be alive themselves which might be some small consolation.

-Rd


----------



## extopia (14 Nov 2005)

delgirl, I was wrong about you. Sorry (again).


----------



## Murt10 (14 Nov 2005)

*South Africa*

Speaking of South Africa earlier in the thread, you have to admire some of the ways people have of defending themselves against attack in their cars. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232777.stm


Murt


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> Families such as the _McCartneys, McCabes _and _Rafferteys _among many others might agree with you alright.


 
I'm sure they would.

Isn't this part of our problem.  We fudge anything we want to when it's poitically expedient.   We fudge the punishing of terrorists,  we fudge what it means to be Neutral,  we fudge the punishment of Tax Cheats with Amnesty after Amnesty, we fudge responsibility for millions wasted by ministers.

And people are surprised when the public want to see a Farmer get off after shooting a criminal who was trespassing on his property.

Maybe we should start joining the dots here.   If you want to stop people taking the law into their own hands you don't do it be coming down hard on Mr Nally,  you do it by having some respect for the law in the first place.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> If you want to stop people taking the law into their own hands you don't do it be coming down hard on Mr Nally, you do it by having some respect for the law in the first place.


I think it's obvious that the vast majority of individuals do have respect for the law notwithstanding the fudges that may be made in other contexts. Otherwise the majority of people would have criminal convictions for law breaking. In what way do you think that anybody (commentators? the courts? etc.) came down hard on _Mr. Nally_?


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> I think it's obvious that the vast majority of individuals do have respect for the law notwithstanding the fudges that may be made in other contexts. Otherwise the majority of people would have criminal convictions for law breaking.


 
I have very little respect for the Gardai, virtually no respect for the government, and I'm appalled by the various fudges.   But I don't have any criminal convictions.   Don't mistake a lack of criminal convictions for widespread respect for the law.

I break the law a fair bit,  as do an awful lot of people,  they/we just tend not to get convicted.   I don't break the law out of any attempt to get revenge for anything,   there are just certain laws I see no point in obeying.

Sadly I didn't manage to do anything bad enough to avail of any of the really big amnesties.   



> In what way do you think that anybody (commentators? the courts? etc.) came down hard on _Mr. Nally_?


 
He can't quibble too much about being in Jail,  but I think he'd be justified in asking why he is treated more harshly than terrorists who deliberately set out to kill.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> I have very little respect for the Gardai, virtually no respect for the government, and I'm appalled by the various fudges. But I don't have any criminal convictions. Don't mistake a lack of criminal convictions for widespread respect for the law.


I don't consider respect for the _Government _or the _Gardaí _as necessary precursors to respect for the law itself.



> I break the law a fair bit, as do an awful lot of people, they/we just tend not to get convicted. I don't break the law out of any attempt to get revenge for anything, there are just certain laws I see no point in obeying.


What laws do you and others break habitually?



> He can't quibble too much about being in Jail, but I think he'd be justified in asking why he is treated more harshly than terrorists who deliberately set out to kill.


Is he being treated more harshly than these people? Many of them served even longer sentences even if they were eventually granted early release (often under license).


----------



## daltonr (14 Nov 2005)

> What laws do you and others break habitually?



* As I've said before I don't declare goods that I bring into the country 
   when I go on Holiday or abroad.

* On the M50 I usually don't bother slowing down where the speed limit drops 
   to 100KM/h

* If I'm given a €20 for helping someone sort out a problem on   
   their  PC, or whatever,   I don't declare it as income.



> Is he being treated more harshly than these people? Many of them served even longer sentences even if they were eventually granted early release (often under license).



Some of the On The Runs have never spent a day in prison and never will.
And what does Under Licence mean?    A promise not to break the law again.   Isn't that good of them.   What a concession we got out of them there eh!.

-Rd


----------



## delgirl (14 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> delgirl, I was wrong about you. Sorry (again).


Hi extopia, thanks for that!  



> How was justice imbalanced in this case? _Mr. Nally _was convicted of killing a man unjustifiably and received a custodial sentence. Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?


A suspended sentence would have, IMO been more appropriate as Mr Nally had no criminal record and is unlikely to reoffend.

He is to seek leave to appeal on December 5th and I for one wish him every success.

Tuesday night 9.30pm Prime Time on RTE1 - Mr Nally's story.


----------



## RainyDay (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> I very much doubt it'll make a difference. I suspect had their father lived and continued to make an income by robbing people and wielding his slash hook at gardai, the kids would have been more likely to follow in his footsteps than become upstanding citizens.
> 
> We don't know what will happen. I'm as entitled to say they're better off without him as you are to say the opposite.
> 
> ...



Your gross exaggeration on the 'resentment' issue is offensive. No-one suggested that legitimate actions of the state or the Gardai should be concerned about this. 

The general approach that you appear to be condoning is verging into dangerous territory. The guy wasn't a good father, so it's OK to shoot him in the back? So let's get the records of all the fathers in the state into the public arena then - How many are screwing around with other women (or men)? How many are fiddling their taxes? How many are speeding? How many are dealing in illegal drugs? Are we allowed terminate the life of anyone we judge to be not a good father? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....


----------



## ClubMan (14 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> Some of the On The Runs have never spent a day in prison and never will.


Whatever about those released under the _GFA _I didn't think that the situation of the _OTRs _had been regularised yet although I'm open to correction on this.


> And what does Under Licence mean?    A promise not to break the law again.


Does it also involve periodic signing on for the remainder of the custodial sentence? I'm not sure. One way or another, whatever you think of it as a "concession" it does involve some erosion of an individual's liberty that other non offenders are not subject to.


			
				delgirl said:
			
		

> A suspended sentence would have, IMO been more appropriate as Mr Nally had no criminal record and is unlikely to reoffend.


Obviously the trial judge in his wisdom, experience and knowledge of precedent thought differently than you.


----------



## daltonr (15 Nov 2005)

> Your gross exaggeration on the 'resentment' issue is offensive. No-one suggested that legitimate actions of the state or the Gardai should be concerned about this.



The only thing I find offensive here is your complete invention and attributing of things to me that I never said.



> The guy wasn't a good father, so it's OK to shoot him in the back?





> Are we allowed terminate the life of anyone we judge to be not a good father? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....



That is an absolutely obscene misrepresentation of what I said.  In fact it's so far from what I said that it's generous to call it misrepresentation,   It's pure invention.  I rarely get genuinely angry reading AAM but this post from you is a step too far. 

The rights and wrongs of shooting him have NOTHING to do with what kind of father he was.   The only context In which I even spoke about his parenting is when I discussed whether or not I feel sympathy for him or his family.  A topic you seemed to think I needed to consider more.

I'm not asking you to agree with who I feel sorry for in this case.   But please argue the rights and wrongs of my opinions, don't create opinions for me.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2005)

daltonr said:
			
		

> Ideally the scales should be balanced so that it's difficult to convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit.


Can you explain if/how this comment relates to the _Nally _conviction please?


----------



## delgirl (15 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Obviously the trial judge in his wisdom, experience and knowledge of precedent thought differently than you.


You're absolutely right ClubMan, mine is a purely emotional response based on a huge amount of empathy with a frightened elderly man who feels safer in prison than in his own home.

It is also based on the fact that my elderly parents, who lived in a rural area, were similarly invaded by two travellers - a male and female.  The female kept my mother in the kitchen while the male ransacked the house.  My father was outside in the garage at the time.  When they finally left, my mother called to my father to tell him what had happened and this 73 year old man gave chase with a hammer.  What he would have done to them if he had caught them, I do not know.

My parents weren't physically harmed, but the trauma caused by the violation of their 'safe haven' stayed very much with them.


----------



## daltonr (15 Nov 2005)

> Can you explain if/how this comment relates to the _Nally _conviction please?


 
I was replying to a comment about the scales of justice made by another poster.   I explained it in the post where I made it (that you quoted from).  I don't see much point in jumping back from where the thread is now to some minor comment made back then but if you want to discuss it further I will.

Where otherwise decent people feel that the legal system is not capable of protecting them or their property,  and not capable of punishing criminals even when they are caught, then they are more likely to take the law into their own hands.  They are more likely to turn to groups like SF and vigilante's to deal with problems.  In Rural areas they are more likely to use a shot gun or a hurley, or a hammer.

Doing so isn't legal and leads to them falling foul of the legal system that they feel let them down in the first place.

Many people have been asking for some time now whether the Scales of Justive have tipped too far in favour of the criminal and whether it might be time to consider alternative legal systems like for instance the French system.

It's a minor point,  I'm not sure it deserves revisiting.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2005)

I only revisited it because I hadn't seen it earlier and only saw it on reviewing the thread. Fair enough if you think that some of your own points are not worth discussing.


----------



## quarterfloun (15 Nov 2005)

Clubman, instead of picking out bits of a thread that suit your ultra conservative view why not read the rant as it stands and make a general comment on the feeling in the post. I also think that if you looked at the people posting on this thread the majority of us are in empathy with the farmer and could not give a fig for the dead man. Its not nice but that is how it is. So nit pick away about how wonderful the constitution is, how great the law and its enforcers are, how great our politicians are but those of us with exposure to reality who go through life as non intentional criminals and law abiding citizens who read about how criminals get off on technicalities, how pensioners get robbed etc. etc. allow us to feel that justice has been served to BOTH parties. Look into the papers today - Drug war deaths - again who really cares how many of these guys are pushing up daisies by the end of the week. I know where I would rather see them - in jail - long term. But, say for example, if the bloke down the road did what the law did not,  I'd be fighting to get to the front of the queue to buy the man a drink. COS THERE WOULD BE A QUEUE. And you can sit in the corner of the virtual pub on your own and drink the inadequate systems health.


----------



## ClubMan (15 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> Clubman, instead of picking out bits of a thread that suit your ultra conservative view


Two points (a) I am not picking out bits of the thread to support my views and (b) I don't think that I have untra conservative views on this or most other matters.



> why not read the rant as it stands and make a general comment on the feeling in the post.


Sorry - haven't a clue what you mean here.



> I also think that if you looked at the people posting on this thread the majority of us are in empathy with the farmer and could not give a fig for the dead man. Its not nice but that is how it is.


So what? I never said that I had no empathy with the farmer or that I had any feelings for the dead man.



> So nit pick away about how wonderful the constitution is, how great the law and its enforcers are, how great our politicians are but those of us with exposure to reality who go through life as non intentional criminals and law abiding citizens who read about how criminals get off on technicalities, how pensioners get robbed etc. etc.


Where did I _"nit pick away about how wonderful"_ any of these were (whatever that means)?



> allow us to feel that justice has been served to BOTH parties. Look into the papers today - Drug war deaths - again who really cares how many of these guys are pushing up daisies by the end of the week. I know where I would rather see them - in jail - long term. But, say for example, if the bloke down the road did what the law did not, I'd be fighting to get to the front of the queue to buy the man a drink. COS THERE WOULD BE A QUEUE. And you can sit in the corner of the virtual pub on your own and drink the inadequate systems health.


Again I'm not sure what the purpose of this rant is but feel free to explain if you want and can.


----------



## quarterfloun (17 Nov 2005)

Clubman, you are intelligent enough to understand my point about the feel of a post compared to picking it apart line by line.

We are too soft on these HABITUAL criminals. You do not take a slash hook to Guards - did his parents teach him that? I would have thought not so I must assume that he was a man responsible for his own actions. Well he may not have thought himself accountable in this life but St. Peter will be going though his misdemeanors before opening the big pearly ones. 

And if you want to censure this comment " Live by the sword - die by the sword" so be it, but you cannot censure the word of the Lord -  "Then said This post will be deleted if not edited immediately unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)"


----------



## onekeano (17 Nov 2005)

Observer said:
			
		

> Actually, that's not quite true.  The judge DIRECTED the jury not to acquit him.  They were given a choice of a murder or manslaughter verdict but they were not allowed to acquit.
> 
> ................
> For the record my sympathies are entirely with Mr Nally rather than with the deceased.



That IS news to me, I hadn't been aware of it! Never heard of such a situation before and would be interested in the legal reasoning behind it.

Roy


----------



## quarterfloun (17 Nov 2005)

Look what I found!



And I thought I was a bit OTT


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> And if you want to censure this comment &quot; Live by the sword - die by the sword&quot; so be it, but you cannot censure the word of the Lord -  &quot;Then said This post will be deleted if not edited immediately unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)&quot;


 Bit ironic that you were the one accusing me of being ultra conservative in the light of that quotation!? When it comes to fundamental rights and jurisprudence in _Ireland_ the _Constitution_ and our laws thankfully take precedence over the sacred books of all religions and barring the (I believe) anachronistic preamble to the _Constitution_ we live in a largely secular and pluralistic society.


----------



## quarterfloun (17 Nov 2005)

You introduced the constitution to this thread not me. As for rights - where were Lallys being respected? What about all the people that get mugged, raped, robbed, have their car radios nicked, their houses burgled etc. What about the law abiding citizens having their rights respected for a change instead of pandering to the criminals? Serial criminals (say 10  crimes and over) should be denied free access to a solicitor. Why should the taxpayer keep lawyers in work defending serial offenders when the money would be better spent on more police stopping them offending in the first place?


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> You introduced the constitution to this thread not me.


 Er, I know - but you are quoting the _Bible_ which has no legal standing in _Ireland_ last time I checked. What relevance has the _Bible_ in these matters on a statutory, whatever about a personal, level? Not everbody believes in or lives by that particular book.  





> As for rights - where were Lallys being respected? What about all the people that get mugged, raped, robbed, have their car radios nicked, their houses burgled etc. What about the law abiding citizens having their rights respected for a change instead of pandering to the criminals?


 Who's pandering to criminals? I never said people who break the law should not face the repercussions that arise. But equally I don't believe that people can take the law into their own hands and kill them. I'm sure that your _Bible_ also has something to say about the sanctity of human life if that's your touchstone in this context.  





> Serial criminals (say 10  crimes and over) should be denied free access to a solicitor. Why should the taxpayer keep lawyers in work defending serial offenders when the money would be better spent on more police stopping them offending in the first place?


 Not all accused individuals qualify for legal aid. If you think that there should be changes to the way in which this system operates then maybe you should start a campaign to have [broken link removed] changed?


----------



## oulu (17 Nov 2005)

Normally I dont agree withe the way the yanks do it, but they where up to no good, the son on prime time said they where not there to steal yet car was revving mad waiting to get away, simple u live by the sword you know the rest, he should of pleading he was insane at the time  spend some time with people who care, if eg 5% of us rob houses / beat people up  in settled community I would in my opinion say for travellers it would be about 80% plus


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

oulu said:
			
		

> simple u live by the sword you know the rest


 Yes - you (_Mr. Nally_ in this case) do the time for the crime.  





> he should of pleading he was insane at the time  spend some time with people who care


 Who?  





> if eg 5% of us rob houses / beat people up  in settled community I would in my opinion say for travellers it would be about 80% plus


 Care to back those wildly speculative generalisations up with some facts?


----------



## RainyDay (17 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> Serial criminals (say 10  crimes and over) should be denied free access to a solicitor. Why should the taxpayer keep lawyers in work defending serial offenders when the money would be better spent on more police stopping them offending in the first place?


Why not go further than funding the police, which still ignores the real root cause. Why not fund the education & equality that just might help to ensure that everyone is an equal stakeholder in society?


----------



## quarterfloun (17 Nov 2005)

100% with you on that Rainy. We should do exactly that but unfortunately too many people who already have a foot on the ladder of "society" are unwilling to help or even recognise the fact that there are too many out there less fortunate (in terms of ability, access to information, understanding of the information etc.) never mind materialistic wealth.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

What rate of tax would each of you be prepared to pay to fund greater expenditure on security and social services just out of curiosity?


----------



## Omega (17 Nov 2005)

if the judge directed the jury like that, what's the point of having a jury?


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

I always wondered about that myself. According to : 





> 7.  At the end of the trial, the judge will sum up the case for the jury. He/she will explain the jury's function and direct the jury to confine itself to the evidence presented in court and to disregard any media reports.
> 
> 8. The judge must direct the jury on any legal points that arise. For example, he/she may explain the legal ingredients of the offence of murder so that the jury can arrive at a verdict that conforms to that legal rule.


 I'm not sure what the circumstances must be for the judge to direct the judy's verdict in the case and, in such a situation, if they can ignore the direction (although I would assume that this would simply leave strong grounds for appeal by the defence or prosecution)?


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Nov 2005)

> Why not fund the education & equality that just might help to ensure that everyone is an equal stakeholder in society?





> What rate of tax would each of you be prepared to pay to fund greater expenditure on security and social services just out of curiosity?



Travellers in general have a notoriously poor record of participation in the State education systems. It is difficult to see how spending more tax resources on education will change this.

Also, given the well-known reluctance or inability of many travelling salespeople to provide vat invoices or documentation of sales to customers, there is strong reason to believe that many within this sub-group do not participate fully in the tax system that finances our education systems.


----------



## MOB (17 Nov 2005)

Two comments:

1.  I didn't follow the case closely, and I don't do criminal work, so I am not speaking as an expert.  However, if Mr. Nally admitted the facts, and if those admitted facts were only consistent with a verdict of murder or manslaughter, then it would appear appropriate for the judge to so direct the jury.

2.  I am astonished at the "stormfront" website.  I suppose it shows up my small town parochialism a wee bit, but it is difficult for me to accept the American argument that people should be free to spout this sort of stuff.   It is at least as objectionable as pornography.


----------



## sherib (17 Nov 2005)

In relation to the Nally case, I wonder would the outcome of these Discussion Papers have had a bearing on the case for the defendant? [broken link removed]
*Criminal Law: Defences *
The Commission is engaged in an ongoing review of the various defences to criminal charges. 

In 2003, the Commission published a _Consultation Paper on Provocation_. The Consultation Paper provisionally recommends that the subjective test, which is currently applied in Ireland, should be replaced with a version of the objective test, which is applied in every other common law jurisdiction. 

A second Consultation Paper in this series will deal with the defences of duress and necessity, and will be published in late 2005. This will deal with the circumstances in which a person commits what would otherwise be a criminal act under a threat which then person considers will be carried out (duress by threats) or in the context of specific circumstances (duress of circumstances). This Paper also considers the related issues of acting under necessity and coercion. 

A third Consultation Paper in this series, on legitimate defence, is also being prepared and will be published in late 2005 or early 2006. The Paper examines the traditional rules for the defence, including the threat requirements (namely, that life is endangered, and the threat is imminent and unlawful) and the response requirements (namely, that the defender's response is necessary and proportionate). The Paper also considers which standard is most appropriate to the defence, namely an objective, a subjective, or a mixed or dual standard. 

While my sympathy is divided between the parties, I admit to a biased subjectivity towards Mr. Nally. However, if Mr. Nally was 'out of his mind' with fear and paranoia, which seems very likely, wasn't it open to his defence to have pleaded insanity? It seems to me that would have been a reasonable and credible defence for shooting and killing a man who was already wounded, immobilised and in retreat. Perhaps Mr. Nally rejected this as a defence which might explain his own acceptance of a custodial sentence.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> 2.  I am astonished at the &quot;stormfront&quot; website.


 What's this all about? The _Nazi_ bulletin board? Was that mentioned in the context of this thread or something?


----------



## MOB (17 Nov 2005)

yes - there is a discussion of the Nally case on this website; quarterfloun posted a link by way of illustrating what a truly OTT perspective looks like.


----------



## ClubMan (17 Nov 2005)

OK - thanks. I missed that reference.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Nov 2005)

ubiquitous said:
			
		

> Also, given the well-known reluctance or inability of many travelling salespeople to provide vat invoices or documentation of sales to customers, there is strong reason to believe that many within this sub-group do not participate fully in the tax system that finances our education systems.



One could say the same (not participate fully in the tax system) about vast swathes of the Irish building industry and many other parts of the 'settled' community. My first introduction to 'discount for cash' many years ago came not from a brickie or a chippie, but from a solicitor whom I had engaged on a civil matter. It seems like little has changed, based on the married solicitor/barrister couple who offered a friend of mine €50k cash for a particular construction job recently.


----------



## CCOVICH (18 Nov 2005)

quarterfloun said:
			
		

> Look what I found!
> 
> 
> 
> And I thought I was a bit OTT


That seems like a well balanced website. I especailly liked the "White Pride World Wide" logo in the top left hand side of the screen .


----------



## MOB (18 Nov 2005)

"My first introduction to 'discount for cash' many years ago came not from a brickie or a chippie, but from a solicitor whom I had engaged on a civil matter."

For years now, I have had a polite way of avoiding this.  When clients ask about getting a discount for cash, I say something along the lines of "well, you know, that sort of thing would be alright, but we are on record as acting in this transaction and the Revenue will want to see a fee in our books;  If your transaction shows up as having a smaller fee than similar transactions, they will assume we have taken cash, so we just can't do it"

In my experience, far fewer people today ask for a "cash discount" than say ten years ago.   I can't say whether this is because they know I am not amenable or because standards are improving.   The former I suspect, the latter I hope.


----------



## Observer (18 Nov 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> 1. I didn't follow the case closely, and I don't do criminal work, so I am not speaking as an expert. However, if Mr. Nally admitted the facts, and if those admitted facts were only consistent with a verdict of murder or manslaughter, then it would appear appropriate for the judge to so direct the jury.


 
At last! Thanks MOB - I thought I was alone in wondering about this. Just to follow up - I've always understood that a judge can (and must) GUIDE/DIRECT a jury along the lines of "if you find that Mr x did action y, then that amounts to crime z and you must therefore convict." However I didn't think the judge could ORDER a jury along the lines of "the evidence shows that Mr x did y and that amounts to crime z and you must therefore convict." Is this not a clear violation of the principle that juries make findings of fact in criminal trials?

In any event, it looks like the question will be answered by the Court of Criminal Appeal [broken link removed]



> Mr Brendan Grehan, SC for Nally, immediately sought leave to appeal the decision and the Judge told them he would hear them on the matter in the Four Courts on Monday December 5.
> The legal team has already made the case that the decision of the trial judge to direct the jury to find Nally guilty of manslaughter, having failed to agree a conviction for murder, was something that can be questioned.
> They will also make the case that, at the sentencing hearing, Mr Justice Carney failed to advert to the fact that there were two men on Nally’s premises and thereby failed to take account of the fear that Nally had of being attacked by the second man.


----------



## ClubMan (18 Nov 2005)

I thought that the judge had to direct at least a guilty manslaughter verdict because, even apart from the fact that he shot, beat and then reloaded and shot again, _Mr. Nally_ clearly admitted in evidence and/or his statement that his intention was to kill _Mr. Ward_. On this basis I'm surprised that he didn't direct a guilty murder verdict. But, as I also mentioned above, I'm still not clear if a jury can ignore a judge's directions in this sort of matter or if, in doing so, they would simply leave open strong grounds for an appeal by one side or another.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Nov 2005)

MOB said:
			
		

> "My first introduction to 'discount for cash' many years ago came not from a brickie or a chippie, but from a solicitor whom I had engaged on a civil matter."
> 
> For years now, I have had a polite way of avoiding this.  When clients ask about getting a discount for cash, I say something along the lines of "well, you know, that sort of thing would be alright, but we are on record as acting in this transaction and the Revenue will want to see a fee in our books;  If your transaction shows up as having a smaller fee than similar transactions, they will assume we have taken cash, so we just can't do it"
> 
> In my experience, far fewer people today ask for a "cash discount" than say ten years ago.   I can't say whether this is because they know I am not amenable or because standards are improving.   The former I suspect, the latter I hope.



Just to be painfully clear, I did not ask the solicitor for 'discount for cash'. I expressed horror at the fee that he was charging me (I was naive enough in those days not to have clarified the fee up front). The solicitor's immediate response was to suggest a discounted cash payment.


----------



## Cahir (18 Nov 2005)

I remember when I was on a Jury for a rape case and the judge strongly suggested that we find the defendent not guilty.  I can't remember exactly how he worded this.  We ended up finding him guilty.  I never found out what he was sentenced to.


----------



## Ham Slicer (18 Nov 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> It seems like little has changed, based on the married solicitor/barrister couple who offered a friend of mine €50k cash for a particular construction job recently.



Given the high moral ground that you normally take on these matters.  I assume you have reported this matter to Revenue and/or the law society.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Nov 2005)

Ham Slicer said:
			
		

> Given the high moral ground that you normally take on these matters.  I assume you have reported this matter to Revenue and/or the law society.


Given that I know nothing about the couple other than that a barrister is married to a solicitor and they live in D4, I don't think it's really worth my while - do you?


----------



## extopia (19 Nov 2005)

No one seems to have mentioned the fact that there were no witnesses to the shooting and that we have to take Mr. Nally's word that he saw Ward "coming out the back door" of his house.

Another thing that struck me about the Prime Time interview -- Nally's head never moved an inch as he told his story. The cameraman could have locked off the camera and gone for a walk, he was so still. And the story he told was inconsistent. He said the gun went off accidentally because he was nervous. Later he said that first shot was a warning shot...

RTE let him away pretty lightly. Probably couldn't believe he agreed to be interviewed and didn't want to rock the boat.


----------



## Observer (20 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> No one seems to have mentioned the fact that there were no witnesses to the shooting and that we have to take Mr. Nally's word that he saw Ward "coming out the back door" of his house.


 
It's uncontradicted evidence - why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you doubt evidence from Mr Nally that is entirely consistent with Mr Ward's previous record of criminality. Surely you don't believe the Wards were on the premises in an effort to buy/sell a car????


----------



## ClubMan (20 Nov 2005)

Surely _Ward's _son was a witness to the shooting/beating/shooting? 

Where can one access the transcripts of trials?


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2005)

Observer said:
			
		

> It's uncontradicted evidence - why shouldn't we accept it? Why do you doubt evidence from Mr Nally that is entirely consistent with Mr Ward's previous record of criminality. Surely you don't believe the Wards were on the premises in an effort to buy/sell a car????



Uncontradicted yes -- because as I said there were no witnesses.

Surely you don't believe that it's OK to shoot dead a person you may believe to be thief?


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Surely _Ward's _son was a witness to the shooting/beating/shooting?
> 
> Where can one access the transcripts of trials?




Don't know about transcripts, but according to the son himself on Prime Time he did not see the shooting, but heard the shots and drove off "to get help."


----------



## ClubMan (21 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Don't know about transcripts, but according to the son himself on Prime Time he did not see the shooting, but heard the shots and drove off "to get help."


 Be that as it may, I presume that he was called as a witness? If so, what did he say in court as opposed to in media interviews?


----------



## ClubMan (21 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Another thing that struck me about the Prime Time interview -- Nally's head never moved an inch as he told his story. The cameraman could have locked off the camera and gone for a walk, he was so still.


 So what? I don't get the relevance of this to the veracity or otherwise if his version of events? If, as you subsequently say, he was obviously contradicting himself then that's another matter. Ultimately what matters is what was presented in court though. I heard a snippet of an interview with him on the radio. When was the interview conducted? Before or after his conviction? If it was after then does anybody know what the protocol is for media interviews of convicted criminals?


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2005)

As far as I know the interview was conducted before his conviction, then withheld until after the sentencing. Indeed there would not have been an opportunity to interview Nally in his own property -- including taking pictures of him sitting in his shed squinting out through the slats looking for intruders, in a bizarre "recreation" of his paranoid behaviour -- following the conviction.

I mentioned Nally's demeanor during the interview because it struck me as odd, something I have never seen before.

The son's testimony in court? Don't know what he said. I'm referring to what he said on TV. I'm sure if it was markedly different to what he said in court it would have been brought to our attention.

The Prime Time piece was very sympathetic to Nally. The question to Nally following his description of clubbing Ward 20 times with a heavy stick, "Do you have a temper, Padraig?" was "balanced" by the question to Ward's widow: "Did he ever beat you?" Disgusting.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> Indeed there would not have been an opportunity to interview Nally in his own property -- including taking pictures of him sitting in his shed squinting out through the slats looking for intruders, in a bizarre "recreation" of his paranoid behaviour -- following the conviction.


Weren't these shots done as a reconstruction with an actor, rather than with Mr Nally himself?


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2005)

RainyDay said:
			
		

> Weren't these shots done as a reconstruction with an actor, rather than with Mr Nally himself?



The reconstruction was done with an actor. However Nally was filmed sitting in his shed peering out, seperate from the reconstruction of the day's supposed events.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Nov 2005)

extopia said:
			
		

> The reconstruction was done with an actor. However Nally was filmed sitting in his shed peering out, seperate from the reconstruction of the day's supposed events.


Are you really, really sure about this? I've replayed the show from [broken link removed]. The shots in the shed are at about 4.55 to 5.05, and even with freeze-framing, it's impossible to see who's face is in the shed. Given that all the other on-site shots were with an actor, what makes you think that these shots are with Mr Nally?


----------



## Observer (21 Nov 2005)

I've just looked at the clip and I think it's fairly clear that it's the actor in the shed and not Mr Nally.  The actor has strong curly hair, Nally's is more flat.


----------



## extopia (21 Nov 2005)

Take another look. It's clearly Nally and not the actor, (who bears only a slight resemblance to Nally in my opinion). RTE even uses the shed clip behind Mark Little's introduction to the piece.

There are plenty of shots of Nally throughout the piece: around the farmyard, feeding the chained-up dogs, walking the land etc.


----------



## podgerodge (21 Nov 2005)

No sympathy for the deceased.  If I was terrified I'd also make sure he was dead or I'd never sleep waiting for him to come back for revenge.

But then, I agreed with the main character's outlook in "Death Wish".


----------



## ClubMan (21 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> oulu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I take if from the silence that you are unable to back those figures up so.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Nov 2005)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> Whatever about those released under the _GFA _I didn't think that the situation of the _OTRs _had been regularised yet although I'm open to correction on this.


As I thought...


----------



## Omega (6 Dec 2005)

I just LOVED Judge Kearney's comment yesterday that he wouldn't be able to look Mrs Ward in the eye if he had allowed the jury to consider self-defence as a possible outcome. It's not exactly as if His Honour would be in same social circles as Mrs Ward and would be embarassed by meeting  her frequently.....


----------



## dam099 (6 Dec 2005)

pgf5312 said:
			
		

> I just LOVED Judge Kearney's comment yesterday that he wouldn't be able to look Mrs Ward in the eye if he had allowed the jury to consider self-defence as a possible outcome. It's not exactly as if His Honour would be in same social circles as Mrs Ward and would be embarassed by meeting her frequently.....


 
Can't see how that is relevant.

Anyway it is quite possible Mrs Ward as an interested party in this case was sitting in the courtroom observing the trial when the judge gave his summing up he could have meant then.


----------

