Farmer jailed for killing intruder

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Looks like the farmer finally snapped.


http://www.emigrant.ie/article.asp?iCategoryID=9&iArticleID=49596

Mayo farmer jailed for killing intruder


A Co. Mayo farmer who was found guilty of manslaughter after he shot and killed a Traveller last year has been jailed for six years. In October of last year Pádraig Nally, of Cross, shot and killed John Ward (43), a father of 11 with an address at a halting site on the outskirts of Galway city. During the trial it was claimed that Mr Ward entered Mr Nally's isolated home through a back door uninvited when the farmer was in an outhouse. Mr Nally fired a shotgun at Ward when he emerged, hitting him in the hip. He then beat him with a piece of wood about 20 times. When Ward tried to flee the area Nally reloaded the gun and shot him in the back, killing him. Evidence was given that Mr Nally had been living in fear since strangers had entered his home and robbed him on a number of occasions. It was also claimed that Mr Ward, who had 12 criminal convictions, and his son had called at the house on a number of occasions, sometimes using cars with false number plates. Mr Nally took a note of the registration numbers of all strange cars approaching his house. This was just one of a number of precautions he had been taking following the series of burglaries.

Mr Ward's family were bitterly disappointed that the verdict had not been one of murder and more disappointed at what they saw as a lenient sentence. Nationally there was great sympathy for both sides and a widespread belief that Mr Nally should not have received a custodial sentence. Justice Paul Carney said he was faced with the "most difficult sentencing matter" to come before him in 14 years in the Central Criminal Court. It had been "undoubtedly the most socially divisive case" he had dealt with. In an editorial the Irish Times commended the judge on getting the sentence about right. The matter was discussed in some detail on Pat Kenny's Late Late Show. Others who were faced with intruders spoke of their experiences and how they felt at the time. Some used force but they did not have guns. At the end, on a show of hands, the vast majority of the large audience felt that Mr Nally should not be in prison; only seven believed that he should have been jailed.

Considerable attention was also given to what was seen as the light sentences imposed on two men who assaulted a librarian so severely that he was left in a coma and remained in hospital for 25 days. Former Davis Cup tennis player Stephen Nugent (24), of Swords, and Dermot Cooper (29), of Stillorgan, will serve three months in prison following their plea of guilty to attacking Barry Duggan (37), a native of Sligo, as he cycled up Grafton Street after a night out. Judge Donagh McDonagh actually imposed three-year sentences, but suspended two years and nine months on the basis that the pair had clean records and were unlikely to come to the attention of the gardaí again. The judge added that he did not wish to "destroy young men's lives".

Mr Duggan was knocked to the ground and kicked on the head repeatedly. As a result he suffered severe brain and head injuries; he sustained a fractured skull as well as a broken jaw and eye socket. For five months after he was discharged from hospital he continued to require the support of a speech therapist, an occupational therapist and a physiotherapist.

The sentence attracted criticism from some politicians and Victim Support, who said that it was too lenient. Mr Duggan's GP, Dr Micheál Ó Tighearneaigh called for mandatory prison sentences for all those who kick people on the head. Whether the victim lives, dies or is left permanently disabled is simply a matter of luck, he said, and the way things stand the punishment for such attacks is equally a matter of luck.
 
Mr Duggan was knocked to the ground and kicked on the head repeatedly. As a result he suffered severe brain and head injuries; he sustained a fractured skull as well as a broken jaw and eye socket. For five months after he was discharged from hospital he continued to require the support of a speech therapist, an occupational therapist and a physiotherapist.

And the people that attacked him got three months to do.

You know, at one time Ireland was famed for it's judicial system, and the Irish team was the one to beat at the Palma matches.

*sigh*

LawDog
 
It is an organized group of "gypsies" Many families living together who are involved in organized crime cons, scams, theft etc..

They have been romanticized at times in the media but travellers have earned a reputation as unemployed grifters and miscreants.



No offense to the proper gypsies out there.
 
AFAIK Travellers are a kind of gypsy in Ireland. Poor, live in motor homes, looked down upon. Also they are suspected to be petty thieves, etc., but that could be some prejudice as well as fact.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that shooting someone in the back as he attempts to flee is not justifiable by any stretch?
 
There's a community of Travellers in western SC. Sometimes known as Irish Travellers.

Scam artists, arranged marriages for the females at ages below the age of consent in many cases, insular. In a Traveller community you will see mansions next door to dilapidated trailers. Kinda like Mexico.
 
Vigilantism

Quote:
Am I the only one who thinks that shooting someone in the back as he attempts to flee is not justifiable by any stretch?

"He broke in, he'll be back with his gang of thugs, you can't stay awake 24/7."

Shooting someone who is both unarmed and fleeing in the back strikes me as a pretty good example of murder. Let's review:

"...Mr Ward entered Mr Nally's isolated home through a back door uninvited when the farmer was in an outhouse."

If the door was open, it's not even "breaking," although it is certainly unauthorized entry and trespass, as Ward was neither a licensee nor an invitee.

Neither did he pose a threat at that time; the trespass could easily have been reported; Ward could even have been held pending the police arriving on scene (depending upon what constitutes "false imprisonment" in the RoI).

Rationalizing a murder on the basis of what MIGHT have happened does not fly. :scrutiny:
 
Speaking as someone who has had an 'unauthorized' visitor in my home; I believe the laws should be changed. From murder or voluntary manslaughter to 'performing a public service,' perhaps paying a bounty for 'eradicating a pubic health threat.'

Someone who will come into a house, locked or unlocked, will do much more if given the opportunity. I'm in favor of letting the miscreants know before hand that not only is it probably fatal but there is no legal protection for him. Oh, yeah, if any associates escape death at the hands of the homeowner; they should be charged with felony murder. And executed.

Legislators can make shooting a home invader illegal if they choose. There will never be a conviction for such if I'm on the jury.

In Georgia and South Carolina, it's legal to use lethal force against a person who has entered the home forcibly. No requirement for the invader to be armed. They can be fleeing while still in the home. While shouting of their lifelong pacifism.

vigilantism

n : the actions of a vigilance committee in trying to enforce the laws


I didn't realize a committee killed the Traveller.:)
 
Byron Quick said:
In Georgia and South Carolina, it's legal to use lethal force against a person who has entered the home forcibly. No requirement for the invader to be armed. They can be fleeing while still in the home. While shouting of their lifelong pacifism.

That's pretty much the case in Arkansas -- the law presumes any force used against an intruder or arsonist is reasonable.

But here's the problem:

Mr Nally fired a shotgun at Ward when he emerged, hitting him in the hip. He then beat him with a piece of wood about 20 times. When Ward tried to flee the area Nally reloaded the gun and shot him in the back, killing him.

I'd let him off on the first shot, but not the second.

Of course, I'd have the police authorities serve his time in the same cell -- if they'd do their jobs, he wouldn't have had to put up with continual harassment and attacks by these people.
 
I'd let him off on the second. Why let a person flee who has shown he has utter contempt for you and yours? So he can gather accomplices and equipment to return and do the job right? Laws prohibiting shooting fleeing felons ignore how often those felons return. I don't believe they should be left with the means to return.

If someone wants to be shielded by a civilized society's respect for human life then they should demonstrate that respect themselves. To do otherwise is to place one's self as an outlaw. And I mean that in the old term, outside the protection of the law. I'm all for having rule of law and the protection of rights regarding a citizen's interactions with the state and its justice. However, trespassing and entering homes is a horse of a very different color.

If someone commits a crime on a man's property, is caught on the property, and is killed on the property...it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't on the man's property. Simple solution there, Rufus. Stay off of other people's property without permission. Get the permission in writing.
 
Byron Quick said:
I'd let him off on the second. Why let a person flee who has shown he has utter contempt for you and yours? So he can gather accomplices and equipment to return and do the job right? Laws prohibiting shooting fleeing felons ignore how often those felons return. I don't believe they should be left with the means to return.

It ain't like the perp was gonna get away -- after all, he had been marked for identification.:D

You use deadly force when facing an immanent threat to life or of grrevious bodily harm. That immanent threat was not there when the second shot was fired. Just call the cops and let them pick up the bleeding carcass of the intruder.

Now if they come back . . . that's a horse of a different color.
 
You use deadly force when facing an imminent threat to life or of grevious bodily harm. That imminent threat was not there when the second shot was fired. Just call the cops and let them pick up the bleeding carcass of the intruder.

Yeah....so the S.O.B. can come back and sue you. If you're in my house and I find you, you're gonna get shot. I've got a couple signs outside that say so.

Keep out or get dead....quick....period

What in the hell happened to this country that we can't protect our own property? Thieves have more rights than property owners. I understand this isn't in the States, but makes no difference

The Irish Travellers are well known in this area. As above, bands of thieves that shoplift/rob/steal/murder...whatever and however they can make a buck. Should all be shot in the head and used for fertilizer

Mr Duggan was knocked to the ground and kicked on the head repeatedly. As a result he suffered severe brain and head injuries; he sustained a fractured skull as well as a broken jaw and eye socket. For five months after he was discharged from hospital he continued to require the support of a speech therapist, an occupational therapist and a physiotherapist
.

And somebody explain why I'm too "radical" after reading this
 
Hoist by your own petard....

"In Georgia and South Carolina, it's legal to use lethal force against a person who has entered the home forcibly."

Read the story, Top Gun. There was NO forcible entry; neither was the intruder in the home when shot.


"If someone commits a crime on a man's property, is caught on the property, and is killed on the property...it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't on the man's property. Simple solution there, Rufus."

So we have summary executions of people crossing your yard or kids eating apples from your trees? You've gone from "simple solution" past simple-minded to simply murder. Nice job advancing civilization there, Ace. :barf:
 
Yeah....so the S.O.B. can come back and sue you.

You shoot someone, whether you kill him or not, whether it's justified or not -- you're going to be sued.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

What in the hell happened to this country that we can't protect our own property? Thieves have more rights than property owners. I understand this isn't in the States, but makes no difference

The use of deadly force is justified only in self-defense, not in defense of property. Now, if you find someone in your house, you can (in Arkansas, anyway) use deadly force. But not if he's in your barn.

Of course, you can go armed to the barn, tell him he's under citizen's arrest and if he attacks you . . .
 
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Sorry is right

Compare these two...

So we have summary executions of people crossing your yard or kids eating apples from your trees? You've gone from "simple solution" past simple-minded to simply murder. Nice job advancing civilization there, Ace.

Mr Duggan was knocked to the ground and kicked on the head repeatedly. As a result he suffered severe brain and head injuries; he sustained a fractured skull as well as a broken jaw and eye socket. For five months after he was discharged from hospital he continued to require the support of a speech therapist, an occupational therapist and a physiotherapist

Should be self-explainatory

The judge added that he did not wish to "destroy young men's lives".

Somebody got their life destroyed alright. The libriarian that had the audacity to work every day and mind his own business.

Explain to me again why they shouldn't be shot in the head and used for fertilizer
 
Of course it seems wrong to shoot someone fleeing in the back, that's pretty clear (unless you're law enforcement under certain circumstances, yes yes).

But what I wonder is this:

How do they know that's what happened? IF the farmer told them he shot a man in the back, then he did not follow Rule #3. As I understand it, you don't have to incriminate yourself in western democracies.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
You shoot someone, whether you kill him or not, whether it's justified or not -- you're going to be sued.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

this kind of silliness is almost as bad as 'over penetration' and 'a prosecutor will crucify you for using handloads'.
From what I have seen, the vast majority of rightous shootings are NOT attended by a civil case.

stop scaring the campers vern :)
 
No sympathy for the scummies, the farmer did what he had to do -

FWIW, we do have more than a couple "Traveller" clans running around the U.S. The do a lot of scams involving 'home improvement', flea market stuff, or show up after natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, etc), but a lot of states have clamped down on licensing and bonding requirments to help clamp down on them, but only with limited success.
 
Anyone remember the case back, oh maybe a year or so ago, where a woman was arrested for beating her kid in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart after being tossed out for trying to "return" stuff she hadn't bought there? The security cameras picked her up shaking and beating the kid and Wally World security called the police.

She was a traveller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top