Farmer Nally

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

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
 
daltonr said:
But neither family deserve to have lies published about them.
Click to expand...
Does speculation such as yours about what Mr. Ward might have done during this incident or afterwards constitute lies?
 
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
Click to expand...
Are you implying that Mr. Nally is the victim of a miscarriage of justice or otherwise didn't get a fair trial?
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
OK - I get you now. And I agree with you on this point.
 
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
 
daltonr said:
Have I sympathy for his family? None. They lived off his crime, this is the price you pay.
Click to expand...
His children didn't have a choice as to what income they lived off.
 
His children didn't have a choice as to what income they lived off.
Click to expand...

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
 
daltonr said:
The 18 year old son that drove him to Mr Nally's house certainly had a choice.
Click to expand...
But the other 10 children, particularly the younger ones, had no choice over how their father earned his living.
 
>>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.
 
But the other 10 children, particularly the younger ones, had no choice over how their father earned his living.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register