Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Read the OP and tell me if you think Pádraig Nally is:

Guilty of Murder41%41% - 33
Guilty of Manslaughter31%31% - 25
Not Guilty27%27% - 22
Total: 80
2006-12-15 05:41:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6982
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1214/nallyp.html

Pádraig Nally, a farmer living in rural Ireland, had put up with many months of harassment from members of the traveller community who had camped in the locality. Among this constant harassment was an incident where his house was broken into. (Traveller Community (Ireland) = Pikey (UK) = Trailer Trash (US) = Gypsy (Elsewhere))

In October 2004 John 'Frog' Ward again trespassed on Nally's property but this time Nally was prepared. He shot him in the hip with a single barrel shotgun. A fight ensued where Nally punched Ward about 20 times. Ward then purportedly shouted for his son to come to his aid. Nally ran back to a shed to get some more shotgun cartridges. He returned to find Ward having exited the gate of the premises walking towards the town of Cross. He shot him in the back from 4.5m away, killing him instantly. Nally's defence was that this was an act of self defence.

In the original trial the court found Nally guilty of manslaughter but not murder. This decision was deemed unconsitutional as the judge did not afford the jury the option of finding the defendant not guilty. The retrial finished yesterday and the jury acquitted him of all charges: not guilty. An act of self defence.

What say you?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-15 05:57:57)

2006-12-15 05:53:21
Gh0sT_RIder
Member
+35|6852
I wouldnt like to see him go down for murder, as it was that asshole who broke into his house. Although shooting him in the back seems to me like in some way a kind of murder, as it was an offensive act rather than self defence. Any way the gypsy brought it on himself i think.



Damn pikeys
2006-12-15 05:56:04
WoSL ChemWarrior
Member
+3|6770|Pennsylvania
A man who is walking away is a man who is no longer a current threat to life or limb. At least that's how the law would work in the US. If he is not in your house or an immediate threat to yourself or your family you will be tried for murder
2006-12-15 05:58:16
11sog_raider
a gaurdian of life
+112|6885|behind my rifle

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

A man who is walking away is a man who is no longer a current threat to life or limb. At least that's how the law would work in the US. If he is not in your house or an immediate threat to yourself or your family you will be tried for murder
2006-12-15 06:03:45
Switch
Knee Deep In Clunge
+489|6890|Tyne & Wear, England
Murder.

He had already been 'incapacitated' and was attempting to get away.

The shotgun blast to the back was an act of revenge.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
2006-12-15 06:05:10
teehee1988
Member
+5|7064|Birmingham, UK
It's murder!
He's already been shot once!! Then walks away, only to be shot in the back.
2006-12-15 06:13:18
pedigreeuk
I'm English, not British!
+113|7197|Rotherham, England
How do any of you know that he wasn't walking towards his son, the rest of the wankers (sorry, "travellers") or to fetch his own gun? And then to come back and reap revenge.

The wankers are known trouble cause's and will generally stop at nothing to get revenge and that would include rape, murder and destruction of property.

So in my eyes and without seeing the rest of the evidence

Not guilty
2006-12-15 06:35:35
WoSL ChemWarrior
Member
+3|6770|Pennsylvania

pedigreeuk wrote:

How do any of you know that he wasn't walking towards his son, the rest of the wankers (sorry, "travellers") or to fetch his own gun? And then to come back and reap revenge.

The wankers are known trouble cause's and will generally stop at nothing to get revenge and that would include rape, murder and destruction of property.

So in my eyes and without seeing the rest of the evidence

Not guilty
I can only go off the info that was presented, and the laws that I know. In the state of Pennsylvania in the US, if there is someone in your house and you shoot them and they were unarmed you will be tried for manslaughter. If they are outside your property, or making an attempt to get away, and you shoot them in the back then you will be tried for murder. Please keep in mind that I am also writing this as a licenced gun owner and formar military member.

By using your logic, I could go down the street and shoot any random person and say that they gave me a dirty look and I thought they might be trying to get a gun to kill me. Or a more realistic scenario, I got in a bar fight with this guy last week so when I saw him this week I shot him on sight, because I felt he might want revenge.

Just food for thought.
2006-12-15 06:47:13
Colfax
PR Only
+70|7070|United States - Illinois
Voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind. The most common example is the so-called heat of passion killing, such as where the defendant is provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child.

There have been two types of voluntary manslaughter recognized in law, although they are so closely related and in many cases indistinguishable that many jurisdictions do not differentiate between them.

Provocation. This is a killing caused by an event or situation which would probably cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and kill.
Heat of Passion. In this situation, the actions of another cause the defendant to act in the heat of the moment and without reflection.

Last edited by Colfax (2006-12-15 06:48:33)

2006-12-15 06:48:13
pedigreeuk
I'm English, not British!
+113|7197|Rotherham, England
But once again, how do you know he was trying to get away?

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

By using your logic, I could go down the street and shoot any random person and say that they gave me a dirty look and I thought they might be trying to get a gun to kill me. Or a more realistic scenario, I got in a bar fight with this guy last week so when I saw him this week I shot him on sight, because I felt he might want revenge.
No thats a little too extreme and taking my statement way out of context. Travellers have a proper history of violence and would not think twice about killing or seriously injuring Mr Nally because of what he did to Ward. So a threat of revenge would have to be seriously considered.
2006-12-15 06:59:05
WoSL ChemWarrior
Member
+3|6770|Pennsylvania

pedigreeuk wrote:

But once again, how do you know he was trying to get away?

WoSL ChemWarrior wrote:

By using your logic, I could go down the street and shoot any random person and say that they gave me a dirty look and I thought they might be trying to get a gun to kill me. Or a more realistic scenario, I got in a bar fight with this guy last week so when I saw him this week I shot him on sight, because I felt he might want revenge.
No thats a little too extreme and taking my statement way out of context. Travellers have a proper history of violence and would not think twice about killing or seriously injuring Mr Nally because of what he did to Ward. So a threat of revenge would have to be seriously considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defen … f_property

I stand corrected.

Wikipedia wrote:

The modern law on belief is stated in R v Owino (1996) 2 Cr. App. R. 128 at 134:

A person may use such force as is [objectively] reasonable in the circumstances as he [subjectively] believes them to be.
In this case, he might be entitled to a Not Guilty verdict if he felt he was in grave personal danger. Like I said, the laws in the US are somewhat more clearly defined. Basically, "They better have a weapon or you are going to jail"
2006-12-15 07:03:06
Deader
Member
+7|7219|TN, USA
And you think they'll be any less likely to seek revenge since he killed him?


In the US Ward would be tried and most likely convicted of Murder if he didn't plea it down to a lesser charge.

A man off your property, wounded, and walking a way is no longer an immediate threat. Here the first thing Mr. Ward would have been expected to do after breaking off the initial encounter would be to call the police and an ambulance for Nally. It would be acceptable for him to reload his weapon in preparation for a possible further assault, but to go after him on the street when he no longer presents an immediate threat becomes murderous.
2006-12-15 07:09:57
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6982
More info coutesy of Wikipedia:

Mr. Nally arrived at his farmhouse on the afternoon of October 14, 2004 when he saw a car parked beside an overgrown lane next to his house with a man sitting in the driver`s seat. The man was Mr. Ward's son, Tom. Tom Ward testified that he and his father used to buy old cars, fix them up and sell them. He said that morning he went with his father to the hospital where he was a daycare patient. He said they later took a spin down by Mr Nally's house, his father spotted an old car, they reversed into the drive and the dead man went in to knock on the door to see if the owner was in.He said Mr. Nally approached the car saying: Who's gone in there? Tom Ward maintaineed that he told him his father was gone in to see about the car. According to Tom Ward, Mr. Nally replied: "He won't be coming out alive."

Mr Nally got a gun from the shed and, as he confronted him at the back door, shot Mr. Ward in the side. Mr. Nally then beat Mr. Ward repeatedly with a stick. As Mr. Ward was trying to leave the property, Mr. Nally went back to the shed, reloaded his shotgun, went back to Mr. Nally, and fired a second, fatal, shot at Mr. Ward.

Garda sergeant James Carroll, one of the first officers on the scene, told the court there was no forensic evidence to show that Mr Ward had been in Nally`s house.

During the first trial, the court heard that Mr. Nally had become increasingly agitated and worried that his property would be targeted by local thieves as a number of farms in the area had recently been burgled. His own home had been broken into in 2003 and a chainsaw stolen from one of his sheds in February 2004. Friends and neighbours noted Nally had become preoccupied with looking after his farm and terrified that the robbers would return.

Mr. Nally pleaded not guilty to murder and manslaughter charges. He was acquitted of murder, but convicted of manslaughter. The judge, Mr Justice Paul Carney, refused to allow the jury to consider a full defence argument of self-defence.

Sentencing Nally to six years for the manslaughter conviction, Mr Justice Paul Carney said: "This is undoubtedly the most socially divisive case I have had to try. It is also the most difficult one in which I have had to impose sentence."
2006-12-15 07:12:13
pedigreeuk
I'm English, not British!
+113|7197|Rotherham, England

Deader wrote:

And you think they'll be any less likely to seek revenge since he killed him?


In the US Ward would be tried and most likely convicted of Murder if he didn't plea it down to a lesser charge.

A man off your property, wounded, and walking a way is no longer an immediate threat. Here the first thing Mr. Ward would have been expected to do after breaking off the initial encounter would be to call the police and an ambulance for Nally. It would be acceptable for him to reload his weapon in preparation for a possible further assault, but to go after him on the street when he no longer presents an immediate threat becomes murderous.
This is not a street as you are thinking of. The location was more of a (see image below) https://www.toscanahouses.com/images/property/50327/0001302/50327-0001302a-248x186.jpgorhttps://www.holidaylets.net/owners/9820/15025_thumb.jpg
where as walking out of his gate does not necessarily mean he has left the property or boundary. But what it does mean is that Ward was not shot in the middle of a street where other people are likely to be around, He shot him in a rural location a while away from anywhere so if Ward had got away and able to fetch his son/family/group members Mr Nally would have been unable to do anything other than take the beating or whatever else the gypsies would have done!

Last edited by pedigreeuk (2006-12-15 07:17:42)

2006-12-15 07:16:18
WoSL ChemWarrior
Member
+3|6770|Pennsylvania

pedigreeuk wrote:

Deader wrote:

And you think they'll be any less likely to seek revenge since he killed him?


In the US Ward would be tried and most likely convicted of Murder if he didn't plea it down to a lesser charge.

A man off your property, wounded, and walking a way is no longer an immediate threat. Here the first thing Mr. Ward would have been expected to do after breaking off the initial encounter would be to call the police and an ambulance for Nally. It would be acceptable for him to reload his weapon in preparation for a possible further assault, but to go after him on the street when he no longer presents an immediate threat becomes murderous.
This is not a street as you are thinking of. The location was more of a (see image below) http://www.toscanahouses.com/images/pro … 48x186.jpgwhere as walking out of his gate does not necessarily mean he has left the property or boundary. But what it does mean is that Ward was not shot in the middle of a street where other people are likely to be around, He shot him in a rural location a while away from anywhere so if Ward had got away and able to fetch his son/family/group members Mr Nally would have been unable to do anything other than take the beating or whatever else the gypsies would have done!
But is being shot twice and killed by someone that seems to be nothing more than a paranoid a justifying punishment for a possible simple assualt (again I have to go with US terms) in which it is less likely that someone would have died?
2006-12-15 07:21:02
ncc6206
=BIG= BAD AND UGLY
+36|6906
Shooting someone in the back does not constitue self defence. It is an act of premediated murder.  In the act of retrieving more shells to assist his father constitutes premediation for self defense. What makes it murder is when Ward had left the premises and was walking away when he was shot in the back. Since he was not in imment danger it was not an act self defence.  Now a defences to the prosecution he could use was that he was in the heat of the moment when he shot Ward but even then sometime must have transpired by the time he retrieved the shells and caught up to Ward.
2006-12-15 07:23:08
pedigreeuk
I'm English, not British!
+113|7197|Rotherham, England
Link

Just have a little read of that and then comment on whether you still think Nally was being paranoid.

Edit: @ WoSL ChemWarrior

Last edited by pedigreeuk (2006-12-15 07:24:31)

2006-12-15 07:27:34
pedigreeuk
I'm English, not British!
+113|7197|Rotherham, England

ncc6206 wrote:

Shooting someone in the back does not constitue self defence. It is an act of premediated murder.  In the act of retrieving more shells to assist his father constitutes premediation for self defense. What makes it murder is when Ward had left the premises and was walking away when he was shot in the back. Since he was not in imment danger it was not an act self defence.  Now a defences to the prosecution he could use was that he was in the heat of the moment when he shot Ward but even then sometime must have transpired by the time he retrieved the shells and caught up to Ward.
Who says he wasn't in imminent danger?

Has imminent got a time scale?

The Free Online Dictionary wrote:

Adj.    1.    imminent - close in time; about to occur; "retribution is at hand"; "some people believe the day of judgment is close at hand"; "in imminent danger"; "his impending retirement"
2006-12-15 07:30:44
WoSL ChemWarrior
Member
+3|6770|Pennsylvania

pedigreeuk wrote:

Link

Just have a little read of that and then comment on whether you still think Nally was being paranoid.

Edit: @ WoSL ChemWarrior
No... Well... Sort of... Unfourtunatly he now sounds slightly paranoid, and totally inept with a weapon. He wants a jury to believe that he "accidentally" shot this man twice, once in the hip, and once fatally in the back? The part with sitting in the shed for hours? Yes, sounds paranoid. I have lived in some areas with high crime rates, and sitting there waiting for something bad to happen is kind of the definition of paranoid.

Also, the defense that could have worked in the US is the temporary insanity plea, with the line of "my mind was gone" he could have gotten away with everything. At the same time, if your mind becomes gone under stress you have no business owning or holding a loaded weapon
2006-12-15 07:35:13
Deader
Member
+7|7219|TN, USA

pedigreeuk wrote:

Link

Just have a little read of that and then comment on whether you still think Nally was being paranoid.

Edit: @ WoSL ChemWarrior
If you assume his story is true it's still manslaughter at best. If you just shot me at close range with a shotgun and I was still alive I would try to take the gun from you to prevent you from doing it again as well.

And yes, imminent does have a time scale. If it might happen in a couple of hours it's not really imminent is it? If he could be back in a few minutes to shoot you then it is pretty immenent.
2006-12-15 07:39:55
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7219
Salient points I picked out of the story:

1.  The pikey was trespassing on the farmer's property.
2.  The farmer shot the pikey in the hip (but the wound wasn't exactly serious, judging from what followed)
3.  A fight ensued
4.  The farmer went to get some more cartridges
5.  The farmer shot the pikey in the back, outside his farm.

While pikeys are evil scum who tarnish the generally good name of the Romani people and generally deserve everything they get, I don't think being shot in the back is right.  And going to get more ammo, reloading and shooting an unarmed person when there's no other threat in sight, that's got to be MURDER.

Still, Viz magazine had it right with their cartoon strip "Thieving Gypsy Bastards."

Edit: replaced "The pikey had broken into the farmer's house" with what's now at 1.

Trespassing on the farmer's property may be as simple as walking across a field where there's no "right of way" or being in the farmyard.  It's not as serious as breaking into the house.

Definitely murder.  Send him down.

Last edited by aardfrith (2006-12-15 07:47:09)

2006-12-15 07:42:57
Deader
Member
+7|7219|TN, USA

aardfrith wrote:

Salient points I picked out of the story:

1.  The pikey had broken into the farmer's house
2.  The farmer shot the pikey in the hip (but the wound wasn't exactly serious, judging from what followed)
3.  A fight ensued
4.  The farmer went to get some more cartridges
5.  The farmer shot the pikey in the back, outside his farm.

While pikeys are evil scum who tarnish the generally good name of the Romani people and generally deserve everything they get, I don't think being shot in the back is right.  And going to get more ammo, reloading and shooting an unarmed person when there's no other threat in sight, that's got to be MURDER.

Still, Viz magazine had it right with their cartoon strip "Thieving Gypsy Bastards."
Agreed, and worse that there was no evidence the guy had broken into the farmers house.
2006-12-15 07:46:04
ncc6206
=BIG= BAD AND UGLY
+36|6906

pedigreeuk wrote:

ncc6206 wrote:

Shooting someone in the back does not constitue self defence. It is an act of premediated murder.  In the act of retrieving more shells to assist his father constitutes premediation for self defense. What makes it murder is when Ward had left the premises and was walking away when he was shot in the back. Since he was not in imment danger it was not an act self defence.  Now a defences to the prosecution he could use was that he was in the heat of the moment when he shot Ward but even then sometime must have transpired by the time he retrieved the shells and caught up to Ward.
Who says he wasn't in imminent danger?

Has imminent got a time scale?

The Free Online Dictionary wrote:

Adj.    1.    imminent - close in time; about to occur; "retribution is at hand"; "some people believe the day of judgment is close at hand"; "in imminent danger"; "his impending retirement"
As a matter of fact it does.  Imminent danger constitutes what a reasonable person would consider to be a life threatening danger at that point in time.  If a person walks away and a person has a chance to retrieve additional shotgun shells then the immediate threat is no longer there. Now a jury of their peers can decide otherwise based on the facts presented in the case.  In my opinion only based on what I have read, the immediate danger did not exist because the man was unarmed and was walking away.
2006-12-15 07:46:15
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7076

pedigreeuk wrote:

Link

Just have a little read of that and then comment on whether you still think Nally was being paranoid.

Edit: @ WoSL ChemWarrior
After reading that, I'm more of the opinion that it's manslaughter rather than murder. However, it's just a Pikey, so not exactly much of a loss to society. I'm sure this makes me sound like a complete bastard, but I don't really care.

I fucking hate Pikey's.
2006-12-15 07:46:31
ShellShock.PwN
Member
+31|7214|Barrie Ontario
Murder, he had the chance to end it without killing, the man was already incapacitated and injured he tried to flee and th guy shot him in the back. after the first shot and 20 punches he had the chance to walk away and report it to the police or whatever but he went 1 step too far.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard