Very difficult case
If he had just got up & shot the burglar I would agree with his actions 100%, cant remember all the facts but heard something about the burglar being stuck etc as well as Tony Martin lying in wait with a pump action shotgun which would make me have slight reservations about his actions.........
What would you do?
I think I would have done something similar to Martin, but wouldnt be discussing it close to the 10 year anniversary :-\
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/08/21/10-years-after-shooting-dead-teenage-burglar-farmer-tony-martin-says-i-have-no-regrets-86908-21613054/
TONY MARTIN has declared that he has no remorse about shooting dead a teenage burglar at his remote farmhouse 10 years ago.
The 64-year-old farmer insisted he was right to kill Fred Barras, 16, and seriously injure Brendan Fearon, 31, after they broke into his home.
Martin lay in wait with a pump-action shotgun on August 20, 1999, at Bleak House in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk. His home had been repeatedly raided.
The vigilante said: "I don't have any regrets at all - I don't see why I should.
"It was forced upon me and it would appear it wasn't a bad idea to happen.
Problem "We had no law and order and if I'm responsible for shooting those people, the police are equally culpable."
And Martin insisted little had changed in 10 years.
He said: "The police play this game where they say if you've a problem, give us a ring. When you do ring, they tell you why they can't do anything. "
His conviction for murder in April 2000 was reduced to manslaughter on appeal and he was released in 2003.
He added: "I've no more regrets than people who break into people's houses."
100% agree with him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jS7qw49q2r4
Proper order as well, two in the chest and one in the head just to be sure. One of them definitely never robbed anyone else again and I'd be pretty sure the other would have serious second thoughts about another.
I was speaking to a man who keeps guns and he would be very much from the Tony Martin school of thought too, he always said to me 'it takes two shots for a burglar, the first one in the head and the second one in the ceiling as a warning'
That article doesn't mention the multiple previous burglaries on the guy, which were reported to police with no arrests and the other robberies on his neighbours, also reported to the police with no arrests.
They got what was coming to them.
Edit: I see online one of the burglers attempted to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury suffered while trying to rob him.
Edit 2: Also according to the net Martin left the guy to de and didn't call the cops. I still agree with shooting them but he should have called the cops/ambulance.
He had ever right to protect his property however it does seem excessive to me what he did, that said if a sc**bag burgular gets killed robbing somebody I wouldnt have a lot of sympathy for them.
There isn't a single police force on planet Earth that would advocate a situation where you should be automatically permitted to kill an intruder. Tony Martin may have ice flowing through his veins but the rest of us would find it hard to pull the trigger and end up getting killed themselves by the crook who, by definition, is more inclined to acts of cruelty. This is what happened to a neighbour of mine (okay, he lived a few miles away) when he tackled an intruder having being filled with all manner of tales of what-exactly-you-should-do by a friend of his. So let's not make a hero of Tony Martin. It's only going to make situations like the one I've described more common.
Quote from: deiseach on August 21, 2009, 03:50:10 PM
There isn't a single police force on planet Earth that would advocate a situation where you should be automatically permitted to kill an intruder. Tony Martin may have ice flowing through his veins but the rest of us would find it hard to pull the trigger and end up getting killed themselves by the crook who, by definition, is more inclined to acts of cruelty. This is what happened to a neighbour of mine (okay, he lived a few miles away) when he tackled an intruder having being filled with all manner of tales of what-exactly-you-should-do by a friend of his. So let's not make a hero of Tony Martin. It's only going to make situations like the one I've described more common.
I would not hesitate to pull the trigger if my home was getting broken into if my wife and or one of my kids were there, I would however try to incapacitate them rather than kill them if they did not have a gun, if they had a gun I would shoot the fcukers head clean off.
We had two scumbags drive onto our property and they destroyed flower beds and they tried to take out the electrical circuts and the cable box which was on the ground at the edge of the property. I head the noise and grabbed the gun and fired two shots at the wheels of the car, the tramps took off but were caught shortly thereafter, they claimed I was a racist and that I tried to kill them and they wanted me locked up!!wtf. The cops told me that I was lucky I didnt shoot int the car or I would have been facing serious charges as they were not directly attacking my home. What a country. Needless to say i got off and the two hispanic scumbags got jail.
Oh yeah, they were at a neighbours house, after the dust settled I went to him and told him the days of him holding parties were over, half the tramps that frequent his place are illegal and I told him that if another property got touched and I even thought his pals were involved I would call immigration, I would do it too, These people have been getting hammered and wrecking around our neighbourhood for years, enough is enough.
Padraig Nally?
A 61-year-old Co Mayo farmer has been jailed for six years for the killing of a Traveller at his farm in October last year.
Padraig Nally, from Cross in south Mayo, was tried for the murder of 42-year-old John 'Frog' Ward in the Central Criminal Court in July. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
Sentencing Nally today, Mr Justice Paul Carney said it was the most difficult matter he had to deal with in more than14 years on the bench.
Nally shot Mr Ward twice and beat him 20 times with a stick.
The second and fatal shot was fired after Mr Ward had left Nally's farmyard in October 2004 and was limping down the road, in manifest retreat, Mr Justice Paul Carney said today.
Nally claimed in his defence that he believed his life was under threat and he was in the grip of fear.
In the 18 months before the shooting he said there were two break-ins at his property and he was growing increasingly paranoid and fearful.
The judge accepted that Nally was initially protecting his property against an invasion from someone that he pointed out everyone agreed was up to no good. It was events after this point that informed his sentencing.
Nally has no previous convictions and was considered a low risk of re-offending. Mr Justice Carney jailed him for six years. Mr Ward's widow, Marie, and other Ward family members have expressed disappointment at the jury verdict and the sentence.
Nally's legal team is seeking leave to appeal because they claim the trial judge usurped the jury's function when he refused to allow them to consider a full defence argument of self-defence. If this defence had succeeded Nally would have walked free.
How does the board find?
I remember reading the decision of Martin's case and the evidence tended to suggest that not only had Martin left Barras to die but that he had also shot both intruders in the back as they were leaving. It also suggested that Martin had seen them coming from a long way away and had planned how he was going to deal with them. For me that is murder so I have little sympathy for him
Quote from: David McKeown on August 21, 2009, 06:11:14 PM
I remember reading the decision of Martin's case and the evidence tended to suggest that not only had Martin left Barras to die but that he had also shot both intruders in the back as they were leaving. It also suggested that Martin had seen them coming from a long way away and had planned how he was going to deal with them. For me that is murder so I have little sympathy for him
I've no sympathy for the boys that broke in but I've also little sympathy for Martin. Cold blooded murder is what he's responsible for. This shite about him being a nervous wreck because he was robbed twice in 18 months, I once lived in a house that was robbed twice in 10 days! and continued to live there and didnt sit up with a gun.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on August 21, 2009, 06:44:04 PM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 21, 2009, 06:11:14 PM
I remember reading the decision of Martin's case and the evidence tended to suggest that not only had Martin left Barras to die but that he had also shot both intruders in the back as they were leaving. It also suggested that Martin had seen them coming from a long way away and had planned how he was going to deal with them. For me that is murder so I have little sympathy for him
I've no sympathy for the boys that broke in but I've also little sympathy for Martin. Cold blooded murder is what he's responsible for. This shite about him being a nervous wreck because he was robbed twice in 18 months, I once lived in a house that was robbed twice in 10 days! and continued to live there and didnt sit up with a gun.
Aye but you arent him pog and you arent 61 years old. You didnt live in his shoes and by all accounts yer man was a bad, bad bastid.
While I have sympathy for what happened to Nally and Martin we do not have the right to live in a vigilante society which justifies people taking the gun into their own hands and killing. Laws are there to be obeyed by everyone and not cherry picked because the likes of Joe Duffy, Stephen Nolan or Jeremy Kyle think that there is a "cause" to protect. The unfortunate thing is that there are many people like Nally and Martin but they don't pick up a gun, or a baseball bat or whatever they can to beat the living daylights out of someone who threatens them.
There is a social contract that people buy into. It is that the laws of the country will be obeyed and observed and if they are not then they will be reported to and dealt with by the appropriate authorities. If they are not dealt with that does not give a person the right to make themsleves judge, jury and executioner. There will always be gaps, there will always be mistakes and miscarriages of justice. We cannot as a civil society take it upon ourselves to bypass the system otherwise there would be anarchy.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 07:05:59 PM
While I have sympathy for what happened to Nally and Martin we do not have the right to live in a vigilante society which justifies people taking the gun into their own hands and killing. Laws are there to be obeyed by everyone and not cherry picked because the likes of Joe Duffy, Stephen Nolan or Jeremy Kyle think that there is a "cause" to protect. The unfortunate thing is that there are many people like Nally and Martin but they don't pick up a gun, or a baseball bat or whatever they can to beat the living daylights out of someone who threatens them.
There is a social contract that people buy into. It is that the laws of the country will be obeyed and observed and if they are not then they will be reported to and dealt with by the appropriate authorities. If they are not dealt with that does not give a person the right to make themsleves judge, jury and executioner. There will always be gaps, there will always be mistakes and miscarriages of justice. We cannot as a civil society take it upon ourselves to bypass the system otherwise there would be anarchy.
There is a case going on in the north right now where a hood threatened six men who stopped him from destroying the greens at a golf course, he swore revenge on them all after he was prosecuted, he delivered on that promise on three before breaking the jaw and giving the fourth a severe concussion, now this gentleman sent this victims family a message that he was going to do him again and again, he followed this victim a year later and before he could pounch on him again he himself was jumped upon by assailants unknown and got the living shite beat out of him. That to me is justifiable and given the history I would let the people charged with beating this sc**bag off without a problem, he will end up killing somebody and he picked on the wrong man to mess with.
If someone would go to those lengths, do that damage and then threaten more and the police and the laws of the land do nothing to protect you or your family then the only recourse has to be to drop him before he drops you.
Lawyer spake of social contracts etc are great BC but if good people who have never fallen foul of the law are not protected by the law then they may have to take said law into their own hands for self preservation purposes, I know I would.
Stew it wouldnt be so bad and more understandable if she shot once and then called the police or ambulance, it's his actions after the confrontation that's the main thing in my eyes.
Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion. Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue. Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that. The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after. This I cannot accept as a way to operate. As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 07:49:15 PM
Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion. Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue. Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that. The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after. This I cannot accept as a way to operate. As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.
That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?
Quote from: muppet on August 21, 2009, 07:52:38 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 07:49:15 PM
Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion. Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue. Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that. The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after. This I cannot accept as a way to operate. As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.
That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?
Of course it does, and no one is trying to defend them. The simple fact is that both people in this scenario are criminals. What makes one person's crime worse than the others and therefore less acceptable?
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 07:54:46 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 21, 2009, 07:52:38 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 07:49:15 PM
Stew, I know there are cases where you can may a semi-justifiable argument but society cannot operate in such an arbitrary fashion. Where someone is scared of their wits and in a flashpoint reaction pulls the trigger, I have no issue. Where a man l;ays in wait and shots someone in the back as they run away, I cannot accept that. The problem with the world is that a lot of people say "fcuk it I can do what i like" and take no responsibiltiy for their actions and show no regrets after. This I cannot accept as a way to operate. As soon as someone makes a conscious decision to stick a bullet in someone they have put themselves outside os the laws protection in my eyes.
That's fair enough, but does the same not apply to the guy who decides to break into some one else's property?
Of course it does, and no one is trying to defend them. The simple fact is that both people in this scenario are criminals. What makes one person's crime worse than the others and therefore less acceptable?
The same justification used in wars. i.e. they started it.
I don't get what you mean muppet? The rule of law has to be universal. If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished. The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation. In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down. They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.
While we should all be allowed to protect our property, we must do so within the law. I don't know much about the case in the UK, but I know that in the Nally case justice was not done. Nally was guilty of murder and should have been given a life sentence, the decision to free him was based on sentiment and not in law, the right to life is the most important, everything else pales into insignificance compared to that.
Saw the documentary afterwards and your guy Martins comes across as a complete bellend.
An old man I know locally used to run a post office in a very rural area. He was robbed once or twice and on one occasion took out his legally held shotgun and fired twice at the robbers. One shot was as one of the robbers was running ( sort of ) in his direction. The second shot was as the robbers were running away down the road. He hit one of the robbers somewhere round the ass with some buckshot from the shotgun with the second shot. The robbers were picked up within a couple of days and charged. The old man was threatened with prosecution for the second shot but the cops did not follow through as the guy was about 80 and it would not have lead to a conviction. From what the cops said if someone is coming towards you they are a threat and you can defend yourself, if they are running away they are no threat and you cannot use force against them.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 08:14:00 PM
I don't get what you mean muppet? The rule of law has to be universal. If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished. The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation. In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down. They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.
If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.
When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?
Muppet that post is cobblers. If the guy is in your house you can legally throw him out since you did not invite him in or make a citizens arrest. If he tries to threaten or attack you you can use force to defend yourself. What you cannot do is assault or shoot someone who is running away and not posing a threat.
Quote from: muppet on August 21, 2009, 09:37:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 08:14:00 PM
I don't get what you mean muppet? The rule of law has to be universal. If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished. The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation. In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down. They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.
If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.
When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?
No muppet if you follow the rule of law and someone breaks into your house you can use reasonable force to eject/restrain them. You cannot wait in the shed with a rifle for them and blast hem in the back as they run away or shot them and then beat the shite out of them with a stick.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 10:03:59 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 21, 2009, 09:37:29 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on August 21, 2009, 08:14:00 PM
I don't get what you mean muppet? The rule of law has to be universal. If someone breaks the law then they need to be punished. The severity of the punishment will be deterimined by mitigation. In my eyes the Tony Martin's of the world are no different from the drunk driver who gets in a car and knocks someone down. They may not have meant to kill someone but what they did was reckless to the consequences and consequently should be dealt with accordingly.
If you follow the rule of law you must sit and watch a thief in your house. The most you can do to him legally is offer a cup of tea. If he doesn't threaten you in any way you can't claim self defense if you attack him. So you phone the Gárdaí and wait. Meanwhile the thief can leave uninterrupted.
When the Gárdaí arrive the first thing they will say 'off the record' is why didn't you lamp him?
No muppet if you follow the rule of law and someone breaks into your house you can use reasonable force to eject/restrain them. You cannot wait in the shed with a rifle for them and blast hem in the back as they run away or shot them and then beat the shite out of them with a stick.
And if there are 2 of them as there was in this case? Or the Nally case? And if they keep coming back as in both cases? And if the police do nothing about it?
Do you still do nothing? I don't advocate blowing his head off, but I definitely understand it.
reasonable force to get them away, incapacitate them if needs be. Once they are no longer a threat that enough. if they're lying on the ground with half a shin blown off they won't do you too much harm. then you can call the police, they'd be there sharpish if you tell them you've just shot someone
I once read a story about a burglar who broke into a person's house, and, while robbing the house, subsequently dropped a TV on his foot. Since it was on the guy's property he sued the homeowner. And won. €20,000. The system really does fail a lot of people .
I've been looking for this stoy but can't seem to find it online, still a massive indication that the system dosen't work.
That story is a myth.
Maybe not that story but a few others.....
http://www.zipadeeday.com/viewarticle.asp?article=151
Quote from: Agnes Dipesto on August 21, 2009, 11:56:54 PM
Maybe not that story but a few others.....
http://www.zipadeeday.com/viewarticle.asp?article=151
Hmmm,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-30-tort-reform_x.htm
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2009, 12:14:10 AM
Agnes' link tells us that they are myths.
Eastern Pride is some boy.
What did I do now?
Quote from: hardstation on August 22, 2009, 01:44:23 AM
Made stuff up.
I'm sorry I read a wrong f**king story, I don't have the world's media lying in front of me
I agree with BC's reasoning, but I do have one dilemma. You hear a burglar in your house. You arm yourself with your bedside protector (in my case, a two-foot length of inch-diameter insulated cable that's effectively like a flexible iron bar). You're dealing with a criminal, by definition - someone who is prepared to operate outside the law. You don't know how far outside the law he's prepared to go. He may also be armed - certainly more likely to be than a random member of the public. Your compensating advantages are surprise and the persuader you're carrying.
The dilemma: do you give up one of your advantages and possibly give him a better opportunity to harm you and your family by asking him to stop and leave or do you preserve your advantage and lamp him first. And is the answer different depending on whether you're 22 or 82?
Topical........
West Ham footballer Calum Davenport and his mother are both in a "serious condition" after being stabbed at their family home.
The 26-year-old defender is undergoing surgery on both legs after being set upon in the Bedford property late last night.
West Ham released a statement on the stabbing which read: "West Ham United can confirm that Calum Davenport was being treated in hospital on Saturday afternoon after an incident late on Friday night.
"The 26-year-old defender and his mum both suffered stab wounds at home in Bedford.
"His mum is recovering while Calum underwent surgery this morning and his injuries were described as serious by doctors.
"The club's medical team are in contact with hospital staff.
"The thoughts of everyone at West Ham are with Calum and his family and, due to the ongoing police investigation, no further information will be released at this time."
The former England Under-21 international joined the Hammers in the summer for £3m.
Quote from: Hardy on August 22, 2009, 10:59:06 AM
I agree with BC's reasoning, but I do have one dilemma. You hear a burglar in your house. You arm yourself with your bedside protector (in my case, a two-foot length of inch-diameter insulated cable that's effectively like a flexible iron bar). You're dealing with a criminal, by definition - someone who is prepared to operate outside the law. You don't know how far outside the law he's prepared to go. He may also be armed - certainly more likely to be than a random member of the public. Your compensating advantages are surprise and the persuader you're carrying.
The dilemma: do you give up one of your advantages and possibly give him a better opportunity to harm you and your family by asking him to stop and leave or do you preserve your advantage and lamp him first. And is the answer different depending on whether you're 22 or 82?
The law failed Nally. That is where the problem starts, what do you do then?
Froggy Ward had 4 bench warrants out for his arrest on charges including one for assaulting a Gárda with a slash hook. Despite the warrants it wasn't as if Ward was in hiding, he was frequently seen in Headford shortly before he was killed driving his untaxed and uninsured vehicle.
I don't usually advocate breaking the law, but I understand why Nally did it. Hand on heart I think I would have done the same.
Quote from: muppet on August 22, 2009, 05:59:25 PM
The law failed Nally. That is where the problem starts, what do you do then?
Nally broke the law, he murdered Ward. He is no better than Ward. End of story. He should be serving a life sentence, not being treated as a hero by some. The State/Garda let Nally down, they failed to do their job and protect him and his property, but that does not give him the right to murder anyone.
In the same vein, the state let Ward down as well. If the state had done its job correctly this situation would never have arisen. Ward was entitled to the same protection from the state that Nally should have expected. If the Garda had locked Ward up then none of this would ever have happened.
Quote from: Cúig huaire on August 23, 2009, 12:54:36 PM
Quote from: muppet on August 22, 2009, 05:59:25 PM
The law failed Nally. That is where the problem starts, what do you do then?
Nally broke the law, he murdered Ward. He is no better than Ward. End of story. He should be serving a life sentence, not being treated as a hero by some. The State/Garda let Nally down, they failed to do their job and protect him and his property, but that does not give him the right to murder anyone.
In the same vein, the state let Ward down as well. If the state had done its job correctly this situation would never have arisen. Ward was entitled to the same protection from the state that Nally should have expected. If the Garda had locked Ward up then none of this would ever have happened.
Ward knowingly went to nally's home to rob him, he had a history of robbing him and he knew the man was scared out of his wits, I can understand how nally snapped, the pressure on him would have been great, what i cannot understand is the beating he inflicted after he gunned ward down.
I have no sympathy for scumbags that rob houses or steal cars etc, Ward got killed because a man he was trying to steal from had had enough and shot him dead and now the Wards think that the man who shot him should have got more time>
Maybe if mammy and daddy ward had brought the son up to be fit to do a days work like everyone else he wouldnt have had to rob the people of that area of the country blind. Where is the accountability for Wards family>
Yes, Ward knowingly went to Nallys home to rob him, but that does not give Nally the right to take a life. Nally shot Ward, reloaded and shot him while he was lying wounded on the ground. That was murder pure and simple. While I have a lot of sympathy for Nally and his predicament I think the Gardai should have done more to protect the community from the likes of Ward. As I said before if Ward had been locked up on those warrants these events wold not have taken place.
Its a strange case where there are no winners, but Ward paid the ultimate price for his actions. I suppose it all boils down to how we value a life.
Quote from: Cúig huaire on August 23, 2009, 01:37:54 PM
Yes, Ward knowingly went to Nallys home to rob him, but that does not give Nally the right to take a life. Nally shot Ward, reloaded and shot him while he was lying wounded on the ground. That was murder pure and simple. While I have a lot of sympathy for Nally and his predicament I think the Gardai should have done more to protect the community from the likes of Ward. As I said before if Ward had been locked up on those warrants these events wold not have taken place.
Its a strange case where there are no winners, but Ward paid the ultimate price for his actions. I suppose it all boils down to how we value a life.
I value it a lot more if it does not involve some tr**p scaring the shite out of a man nearly pension age, robbing him repeatedly and driving to drastic action for self preservation. How long is enough for a man to be living under pressure like that.
Shooting him the second time was wrong, batin the shite out of him afetr shooting him twice was wrong but I can only imagine the mental anguish the man had to be experiencing. he did deserve to go to jail however, even the likes of ward have rights and he did not deserve to die in that fashion.
Quote from: Cúig huaire on August 23, 2009, 01:37:54 PM
Yes, Ward knowingly went to Nallys home to rob him, but that does not give Nally the right to take a life. Nally shot Ward, reloaded and shot him while he was lying wounded on the ground. That was murder pure and simple. While I have a lot of sympathy for Nally and his predicament I think the Gardai should have done more to protect the community from the likes of Ward. As I said before if Ward had been locked up on those warrants these events wold not have taken place.
Its a strange case where there are no winners, but Ward paid the ultimate price for his actions. I suppose it all boils down to how we value a life.
I am not advocating random shootings but if Nally hadn't done it the likelihood is that Ward would have robbed him and robbed him again. He may even have added to his collection of warrants and us moral guardians would be none the wiser.
Quote from: muppet on August 23, 2009, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: Cúig huaire on August 23, 2009, 01:37:54 PM
Yes, Ward knowingly went to Nallys home to rob him, but that does not give Nally the right to take a life. Nally shot Ward, reloaded and shot him while he was lying wounded on the ground. That was murder pure and simple. While I have a lot of sympathy for Nally and his predicament I think the Gardai should have done more to protect the community from the likes of Ward. As I said before if Ward had been locked up on those warrants these events wold not have taken place.
Its a strange case where there are no winners, but Ward paid the ultimate price for his actions. I suppose it all boils down to how we value a life.
I am not advocating random shootings but if Nally hadn't done it the likelihood is that Ward would have robbed him and robbed him again. He may even have added to his collection of warrants and us moral guardians would be none the wiser.
As someone who lives quite close to Nally, he was dead right to kill him. This f*****r had the whole area robbed and terrorised. Swap places with some of these elderly people who live in terror of these scumbags. A neighbour of mine recently had their yard tarmacadamed because she was too afraid to tell them to go away. 1500 euros for oil and chippings. They arrived on a day when there was a local wedding and most of the neighbours were away, handy that. These people deserve everything they get if they arrive on any ones property to terrorise or extort money. One thing for sure is since Nally shot ward there has been a dramatic drop in the number of unwanted "visitors" to farmyards in the area. There was a murder in Charlestown area a few years ago that went unpunished, an elderly man was tied to a chair and left to die over a number of days. Nally saw justice was done for his death as well. Let anyone come and try and extort money from my elderly uncle who lives next door to me and there will be a double barrell welcome for them too.
Quote from: stew on August 23, 2009, 03:38:19 PM
Shooting him the second time was wrong, batin the shite out of him afetr shooting him twice was wrong but I can only imagine the mental anguish the man had to be experiencing. he did deserve to go to jail however, even the likes of ward have rights and he did not deserve to die in that fashion.
Nallys state of mind should have been a factor in his sentence, though he should still have been sentenced for murder, in saying that it was a strange case and who knows what any of us would do in a similar situation. The point I am trying to make is that the whole system is wrong, the system let Nally down time and again, the same system allowed Ward to carry out these crimes against isolated, elderly people time and again, but that same system allowed sentiment to get in the way of justice and that is probably the greatest injustice here.
Quote from: Cúig huaire on August 23, 2009, 06:23:30 PM
Quote from: stew on August 23, 2009, 03:38:19 PM
Shooting him the second time was wrong, batin the shite out of him afetr shooting him twice was wrong but I can only imagine the mental anguish the man had to be experiencing. he did deserve to go to jail however, even the likes of ward have rights and he did not deserve to die in that fashion.
Nallys state of mind should have been a factor in his sentence, though he should still have been sentenced for murder, in saying that it was a strange case and who knows what any of us would do in a similar situation. The point I am trying to make is that the whole system is wrong, the system let Nally down time and again, the same system allowed Ward to carry out these crimes against isolated, elderly people time and again, but that same system allowed sentiment to get in the way of justice and that is probably the greatest injustice here.
Agree with that.
And don't forget the oul Political Correctness thingy ....Traveller = Good,"Settled People" = bad "
Quote from: Rossfan on August 23, 2009, 07:37:02 PM
And don't forget the oul Political Correctness thingy ....Traveller = Good,"Settled People" = bad "
Or rather
Traveller:"Good", Traveller getting in my heir way , living near them: "bad"
Quote from: Rossfan on August 23, 2009, 07:37:02 PM
And don't forget the oul Political Correctness thingy ....Traveller = Good,"Settled People" = bad "
What has that to do with a sc**bag thief terrorising a local community?