HE FOLLOWED HIM DOWN THE STREET. if he wouldve seen his buddies coming dont you think he wouldntve followed him down the fucking street. now it just became a hunt. not self-defensepedigreeuk wrote:
Link
Just have a little read of that and then comment on whether you still think Nally was being paranoid.
Edit: @ WoSL ChemWarrior
Poll
Read the OP and tell me if you think Pádraig Nally is:
| Guilty of Murder | 41% | 41% - 33 | ||||
| Guilty of Manslaughter | 31% | 31% - 25 | ||||
| Not Guilty | 27% | 27% - 22 | ||||
| Total: 80 | ||||||
I was in Court in Tuam Co. Galway, once. I was the last case up. There was about 20 cases of assault, robbery, molestation all sorts, read out, all Wards. Not one of them showed up in Court....nice family.CameronPoe wrote:
In October 2004 John 'Frog' Ward again trespassed on Nally's property
Someone comes onto your property and assaults you, you should be able to defend your property with what ever you have to hand, in this case a shotgun. That guy could have been going to a car to get a shot gun himself, or to come back later. Good result. Sends a message to people that they can't rob and assault people with impunity.
Exactly. In all probability had he not been shot, Nally would have been knifed, or burned inside his house.JahManRed wrote:
I was in Court in Tuam Co. Galway, once. I was the last case up. There was about 20 cases of assault, robbery, molestation all sorts, read out, all Wards. Not one of them showed up in Court....nice family.CameronPoe wrote:
In October 2004 John 'Frog' Ward again trespassed on Nally's property
Someone comes onto your property and assaults you, you should be able to defend your property with what ever you have to hand, in this case a shotgun. That guy could have been going to a car to get a shot gun himself, or to come back later. Good result. Sends a message to people that they can't rob and assault people with impunity.
true u should be able to defned your property but he was already off his proprety when he shot him a second time. Nally followed him to the street and shot him again, that sounds like a hunt to me not defending his property.JahManRed wrote:
I was in Court in Tuam Co. Galway, once. I was the last case up. There was about 20 cases of assault, robbery, molestation all sorts, read out, all Wards. Not one of them showed up in Court....nice family.CameronPoe wrote:
In October 2004 John 'Frog' Ward again trespassed on Nally's property
Someone comes onto your property and assaults you, you should be able to defend your property with what ever you have to hand, in this case a shotgun. That guy could have been going to a car to get a shot gun himself, or to come back later. Good result. Sends a message to people that they can't rob and assault people with impunity.
i agree with jaman about being able to defend your property but my whole argument is on the fact that ward was walking away from his property to safety, we call asll say that if he wouldve lived that he couldve gotten a bunch of buddies together but we will never know.
Last edited by ShellShock.PwN (2006-12-15 08:00:21)
My understanding is that if you 'think' you are in danger then it's self defense. That means you've done nothing wrong.
As that judge said, it's difficult. I mean, if you'd been in constant fear of your life for a long period (five months for example) and someone came to your house and you thought they were a threat, and you shot them, you can't really have done anything wrong.
I guess the issue here is what was his intent? Self defense or malice? If he really believed he had to shoot him again to defend himself then he's done nothing wrong (morally at least, legally is not the same).
I haven't voted in the poll yet, I can't make a decision on the evidence before me. That's why I'm not a judge.
As that judge said, it's difficult. I mean, if you'd been in constant fear of your life for a long period (five months for example) and someone came to your house and you thought they were a threat, and you shot them, you can't really have done anything wrong.
I guess the issue here is what was his intent? Self defense or malice? If he really believed he had to shoot him again to defend himself then he's done nothing wrong (morally at least, legally is not the same).
I haven't voted in the poll yet, I can't make a decision on the evidence before me. That's why I'm not a judge.
Agreed. What you can't do is go and get another weapon, in this case extra cartridges, and when you know you're not in danger, shoot again.JahManRed wrote:
I was in Court in Tuam Co. Galway, once. I was the last case up. There was about 20 cases of assault, robbery, molestation all sorts, read out, all Wards. Not one of them showed up in Court....nice family.CameronPoe wrote:
In October 2004 John 'Frog' Ward again trespassed on Nally's property
Someone comes onto your property and assaults you, you should be able to defend your property with what ever you have to hand, in this case a shotgun.
First he shoots the guy and immobilizes him, when the guy was walking away he shot him the the back, not necessary.
Commie Killer wrote:
First he shoots the guy and immobilizes him, when the guy was walking away he shot him the the back, not necessary.
Did either of you actually read any of this thread other than the OP?kmt wrote:
Murder.
How can you shoot someone in the back! I would only even try that if that person was a threat to me. Someone wounded walking away from you isn't a threat in my opinion the weakest thing you can do is shoot/stab/ (I'll leave fuck out ) in the back. (My opinion then. )
Last edited by pedigreeuk (2006-12-15 08:10:24)
They are just stating an opinion related to this post, i dont see why they would need to read the op ( whatever it is. Official Post?). He wouldve been fine if he wouldve let ward run away and (nally) call the police but he took the law into his own hands by shooting him the second time when he was already off his property and trying to escape. i dont know how many times ive said it but that sounds like a hunt.pedigreeuk wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
First he shoots the guy and immobilizes him, when the guy was walking away he shot him the the back, not necessary.Did either of you actually read any of this thread other than the OP?kmt wrote:
Murder.
How can you shoot someone in the back! I would only even try that if that person was a threat to me. Someone wounded walking away from you isn't a threat in my opinion the weakest thing you can do is shoot/stab/ (I'll leave fuck out ) in the back. (My opinion then. )
Just read another thing, on that first post it says when he shot hime the sencond time it says from 4.5 m now 4.5m isnt that far away, and in the second link it says he was trying to scare him or something. Trying to scare a man from 4.5m? sounds like bullshit to me.
Last edited by ShellShock.PwN (2006-12-15 08:31:16)
OP = Opening Post
Where does it say he was trying to escape? or even off his property for that matter it only says he went through his gate.
And as said before, If Ward had got away he would have been back with a vengeance. Nally would probably not be breathing very well anymore
Where does it say he was trying to escape? or even off his property for that matter it only says he went through his gate.
And as said before, If Ward had got away he would have been back with a vengeance. Nally would probably not be breathing very well anymore
I'd have to say Manslaughter, due to the assault and the fear of the assalint comeing back he was defending himself from harm.. In the back is the reason I"m saying manslaughter and from the sounds of it he was outnumbered and probably scared.
But he still did shot him in the back and I'm not sure about the gypses, but this wouldn't have been a matter taken to the police? Those people live off the "radar" and would have came back and probably killed him, but I still don't think that the man who did the killing can get off scot free
But he still did shot him in the back and I'm not sure about the gypses, but this wouldn't have been a matter taken to the police? Those people live off the "radar" and would have came back and probably killed him, but I still don't think that the man who did the killing can get off scot free
a jury would try him for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. however a strong jury could call it premeditated murder, as he was prepared to kill as he had a loaded weapon, then went to reload that weapon with the intent on killing that trespasser or wounding with intent. highly complex, but at the end of the day he DID kill someone.
Last edited by [=][=]DADDYOFDEATH (2006-12-15 09:25:29)
Good decision. The guy wouldn't have hurt anyone had they not fucked with him persistently. Fair play to him I say, maybe the victim's pikey mates will stay the fuck away and think twice before pissing others off.CameronPoe wrote:
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 RicardoBlanco (2006-12-15 09:33:02)
"He then reloaded the gun and followed Mr Ward down the road and fired a second shot at him. Mr Nally said he meant to frighten the Traveller and the shot accidentally hit him."
2nd link, and how do you know for sure that he wouldve gone back there, maybe he wouldve ran for his life. theres no way you can or cant say he wouldve gone back. but he was leaving the property wether or not he was going to get friends.
even if the road= hisdriveway there was still no need to go reload and shoot him again.Once he got up and went in the direction of the gate or street or w.e the iminate danger was gone, he shouldve called the police and let them deal with it.
2nd link, and how do you know for sure that he wouldve gone back there, maybe he wouldve ran for his life. theres no way you can or cant say he wouldve gone back. but he was leaving the property wether or not he was going to get friends.
even if the road= hisdriveway there was still no need to go reload and shoot him again.Once he got up and went in the direction of the gate or street or w.e the iminate danger was gone, he shouldve called the police and let them deal with it.
Last edited by ShellShock.PwN (2006-12-15 10:29:36)
I am very glad Nally was cleared and let free. Frog Ward would still be alive if he had not decided to trespass on Mr. Nally's land, simple as that. I'm a big believer in personal justice and i think the world has too much sympathy for the offender and not enough for the innocent these days.
There was a number of similar cases in that area of Ireland before that case where vulnerable older people were continually harassed by known villains from the traveling community (one resulting in an old couple being tied up and tortured for their valuables in their own home, how did Nally know a similar fate was not waiting for him had he not acted there and then? I believe that was part of his defence's argument).
I'm a firm believer in minding your own business, you can't go wrong when you do that ....Frog Ward should've left Nally in peace.
I've heard that it's recommended in America that if you tackle an intruder you should do your best to kill them as there's less chance of legal recourse, is this true or is this an exaggeration?
There was a number of similar cases in that area of Ireland before that case where vulnerable older people were continually harassed by known villains from the traveling community (one resulting in an old couple being tied up and tortured for their valuables in their own home, how did Nally know a similar fate was not waiting for him had he not acted there and then? I believe that was part of his defence's argument).
I'm a firm believer in minding your own business, you can't go wrong when you do that ....Frog Ward should've left Nally in peace.
I've heard that it's recommended in America that if you tackle an intruder you should do your best to kill them as there's less chance of legal recourse, is this true or is this an exaggeration?
I have an Aunt who lives on a farm in Ireland, but I think she would be more likely to invite the traveling people to dinner than even own a gun.
I wouldn't recommend inviting a gang of travelers over for dinner. Ever seen the film Snatch? Not a million miles from the truth.
That said, they aren't all bad, they're a very secretive and often misunderstood people. You have to admire many aspects of them.
That said, they aren't all bad, they're a very secretive and often misunderstood people. You have to admire many aspects of them.
Are there really still bands of Gypsies roaming Europe?
That said, I won't try and pass judgment on this guy, but it does really sound like murder. I doubt that the jury in this case would rule that way, though, since I doubt a lot of sympathy will be felt for Ward.
That said, I won't try and pass judgment on this guy, but it does really sound like murder. I doubt that the jury in this case would rule that way, though, since I doubt a lot of sympathy will be felt for Ward.
Not guilty I say. He was harassed so many times and this guy trespasses on his property. I'd probably hurt him too. Not to that extent, but still.
for sure murder.. what he shoulda done is just got rid of the body then you go with "prove it" cause im sure nobody would care too much about another missing gypsy
Murder. No need to shoot the guy in the back at 4.5m away.
Murder. He shot him in the back as he was walking away.
Unless, of course, a psychologist believes there is something more to it (i.e. something akin to battered woman syndrome).
Unless, of course, a psychologist believes there is something more to it (i.e. something akin to battered woman syndrome).
Excuses are like assholes.Bubbalo wrote:
Murder. He shot him in the back as he was walking away.
Unless, of course, a psychologist believes there is something more to it (i.e. something akin to battered woman syndrome).
Not when they're actual medical conditions. I always raise an eyebrow when a psychologist comes forward to declare a rich person committed a crime because they were crazy............................
One thing about traveler culture in Ireland (I cant speak for the rest of Europe or America) is that revenge is something they take very seriously. There's a saying in Ireland 'if you're gonna shoot a tinker, make sure you kill him' (not my own personal belief). I have a friend from Thurles, Tipperary in Ireland (an area with a strong traveler population) who knew a local who got in a fight and shot a traveler after the traveler initiated the confrontation, he didn't kill him but he had to leave the country and go into hiding for fear of fatal retribution.
For the record UGADawgs there are several thousand Irish travelers in the U.S. too, they're not just in Europe!
For the record UGADawgs there are several thousand Irish travelers in the U.S. too, they're not just in Europe!