After Nally's Acquittal: Vigil forTravellers' Rights

by Daniel Jackson Fri Jan 05, 2007 18:42

This is a political mine-field. And almost impossible to predict what, if any, good could come of it.

I think most on the left understand this and have no problem with the line their representatives have taken.

That said, a candidate whose credentials in this area are impecible could at least raise these issues publically without too much hassle.

It would be a brave and honorable position to take and would certainly have my support. There are a number of people in a position to do this but again this would have to be entirely at their discretion.

by Lisa Brennan Fri Jan 05, 2007 18:28

After the verdict there where a lot of FG Cllrs on the radio (particularly from Mayo) and their delight was almost palpable. Some PD supporters even going as far as saying he got what he deserved. (just read some of the posts above)

I agree that the trial and travellers rights are separate issues and I find your decision to revoke support for Pavee Point a principled one.

It is sad that they have not made a distinction between the two and took a similar principled stand.

But this needs to be said publicly and by a public representative. That representative would have to be some-one with a committed history to Travellers rights otherwise it would not be taken seriously.

by arch Fri Jan 05, 2007 17:45

"Politicians of the Right have been falling all over themselves to get on the air-waves and underpin this particular verdict with their seal of approval."

I don't really think that's true.

Many Government members have said more or less "we support / trust the justice / jury system".

Interpreting that as an "underpinning" of the verdict is a bit of a stretch. If they had found him guilty I reckon a lot of these right-wingers would be saying the same thing! Not pro- or anti-traveller particularly, just pro-justice system.

I think that any left or right politician who tries to talk about this trial in the same breath as travellers rights would be foolish from a political point of view.

The trial and it's outcome is a very different issue from traveller's rights. Aligning the two is very very foolhardy. I've attended and supported Pavee Point fundraisers in the past. I will NOT be doing so again because of their manipulation of this trial.

by Lisa Brennan Fri Jan 05, 2007 17:27

I didn’t’ realise a need to unmask? I am new to this thread and was only looking for opinion.
In addition I agree with your take on this and believe Nally’s testimony.

So, on those points we are in complete agreement.
As for politicians from the left, I just want their opinion on the record.
A lot of people from the left have posted here making a lot of sense (especially in relation to Traveler groups and their responsibilities in all this) including you.

But alas Pat, you are a not an elected representative.

by pat c (Pitirim) Fri Jan 05, 2007 17:13

I decided to come out from behind the mask. What exactly do you want left wing politicians to say? That Ward was a great guy, a martyr? That there should be special courts for those who commit crimes against Travellers?

Lets just focus in on the facts: a huge forty year old who had a history of violence against his family, against other Travellers, against settled people, against the Gardai, confronts a frightened 60 year old farmer. This farmer sees Ward coming out of his house (dont bother with the Ward wasnt in the house guff, I believe Nally) and feels in danger. Nally is aware that in the past farmers have been beaten to death by burglars. Nally fires at Ward, Ward charges him and tries to get the gun off of Nally. A savage fight ensues. Ward is roaring for his son. Nally can hear the car being revved up. (All of this information comes from Nallys first statement. He had no legal advice at this stage.)

Now what Nally did next was terrible but it has to be seen in the context of nally suffering burgalaries, other elderly people being beaten to death. Nally at this stage being out of control with fear and anger. Yes, Nally shot Ward while he was moviong away. Terrible.

But Ward was a terrible person. The jury took that into account when they came to their verdict.

If Ward had come from Ballyfermot or Darndale, I am convinced that the jury would have come to the same verdict. I am also certain that ypou would not be posting here if Ward had come from the Settled community. There would have been no vigils.

Martin Collins and Pavee Point are coming out with absolute nonsense. There was nothing racist about the killing of Ward, nor was the verdict racist. Ward was a lumpen criminal who preyed on weak people. Thats what he should be remembered as.

by Lisa Brennan Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:56

Politicians of the Right have been falling all over themselves to get on the air-waves and underpin this particular verdict with their seal of approval.

I was high-lighting the difficulty this verdict represented in that it was seemingly popular but still a brutal act. This in itself should have stirred some reaction.

I was, and remain curious as to what elected representatives of the left have to say.
Those who rightfully support Traveler groups and rights are only yielding consensus to these bigots by remaining silent.

by Dave Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:45

Politicians rarely comment on the verdict of criminal cases.

Nor should they, unless it is believed that the law should be changed.

Jury trial = trial by evidence + opinion.

What did I learn from this? Don't be a career criminal wife beating thug, or someone might shoot you...

by Lisa Brennan Fri Jan 05, 2007 16:42

To highlight the difficulty associated with this particular verdict it is noticeable that politicians normally associated with Travelers group and Travelers rights have remained implicitly silent on this.

I agree that stoicism is required on this debate, but I would like to hear the opinions of elected representatives (other than the FG/PD loons who’ve filled the airwaves in the interim) on this matter. Especially those of the left and having a track record of supporting Ttravelers rights.

by Dave Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:22

"Ward should not be seen as a Traveller or as being representative of Travellers.

.....

Travellers Organisations should be saying that Ward represented everything that was dysfunctional in Traveller society.

.....

The Settled community has its Wards as well.

.....

Travellers and settled people should unite and drive the criminal elements out of their communities."

Worth repeating this, so I am.

by pitirm Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:09

"No-one on the left would agree with your crude hypothesising."

I dont think that Daniel was at all crude, I'm on the left and I agree with him. Being a socialist does not mean that you have to support lumpen criminals. Ordinary people have the right to defend themselves against lumpem criminals. It should not matter whether those criminals are settle or Traveller.

"Bigotry is very much at the centre of this verdict in that the jury where unduly biased by the fact that Ward was a member of the travelling community."

I dont accept that. Ward was 20 years younger than Nally and he was twice his size. The jury would have taken that into account. If Ward had been from Tallaght or Ballymun I doubt if the jury would have seen things differently. And if Ward was a settled criminal I doubt very much that you would be posting comments here.

"Your sterile oversight of this fact speaks volumes"

No oversight. Its just a question of his opinion being different from yours.

Ward should not be seen as a Traveller or as being representative of Travellers. Ward was a career criminal, a burglar, a violent thug, he battered his wife, he attacked his enemies with swords, he threatened Gardai with a slah hook, he attacked a Garda car with a slash hook. All of this is documented and came out in court.

Far from making Ward into a martyr, Travellers Organisdations should be saying that Ward represented everything that was dysfunctional in Traveller society. The Settled community has its Wards as well. Gangs of settled criminals also prey on the rural and urban elderly.

Travellers and settled people should unite and drive the criminal elements out of their communities.

by Have to disagree Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:25

You have avoided the thrust of my post which was the jury itself was unduly biased therefore the verdict was tainted.
No one on the left would agree with you. Travelers and minorities rights are fundamental to any Socialist.
The verdict and the rights of the traveling community are inclusive.
Nothing emotive about that Daniel.

by Daniel Jackson Fri Jan 05, 2007 00:01

Your presumption that you speak for the left is arrogant and some what laughable.

I did not overlook the fact that Ward was a traveller I merely pointed out its irrelevance. There is no concrete left and right on this.

Ward was a criminal. All the other emotive contrivances and apoplectic smears of bigots/facists/nazis et al smacks more of threadbare RW diversionary propaganda than considered socialist synopsis

Discuss the issues not the people.

What does this verdict really mean? What can be done as a result? etc etc

by have to disagree Thu Jan 04, 2007 21:19

No-one on the left would agree with your crude hypothesising.
Bigotry is very much at the centre of this verdict in that the jury where unduly biased by the fact that Ward was a member of the travelling community.
Your sterile oversight of this fact speaks volumes

by Daniel Jackson Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:08

I'm afraid you are going to be banging your head off a wall trying to debate this Patsy guy.

Unfortunately the travellor issue has muddied the waters on this and allowed apologists like patsy assume a position of moral superiority which in this case is unjustifiable.

Ward was a criminal. Nally a frightened old man. Who was 'settled' and who was a 'traveller' is not relevant.

The verdict itself does raise questions, which need to be discussed as they impact on socialist thinking and in a small way validates the 'everyman for himself' mantra favoured by RWingers.

In this context alone I feel the real issues lie, not the hysterics we have read here and in other posts.

by Pitirim Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:09

If you werent denying that this had happened then why were you constantly demanding proof? You are truly a disgrace. So the fact that the 2 brothers were killed in the 1980s makes it somehow less relevant to you? It was relevant to Padraig Nally and every elderly person in the area. What about the old man who was tied up during a burglary a few years ago?

If you bothered to read the pieces that I posted and had went to the link you would see that the Garda gave evidence about where the two elderly brothers were beaten to death. Yes, it was close to Padraig Nallys farm.

But is there a certain distance wherby it wouldnt have relevant? If it was ten miles away would think that the beating to death of two old men didnt count? You have a strange way of thinking Patsy. I would suggest that you stop digging because you arent doing yourself or Travellers any favours.

by Patsy Wed Jan 03, 2007 21:35

Pitirim said:
"I think this deals with your question. I must admit though that I am appalled that anyone would suggest that elderly people had not been beaten to death. I wonder what your motivation could possibly be."

Dont bother being appalled Pitirim. You have no need to. Who suggested elderly people were never beaten to death or died during robberies? - not me anyway. Indeed i have previously mentioned the death of Eddie Fitzmaurice in Charlestown during a robbery some years back. So please retract that, its not true and you really shouldnt lie.

You said in an earlier post that

"People living nearby had been beaten to death by burglars."

I merely asked you where exactly it happened and when. It was a simple question but one you obviously were hesitant in answering. Why did I ask it? Because I wasnt aware of any such killing in Mayo in the past decade or longer (other than the Fitzmaurice one, which is nowhere near Nallys locality) and was curious as to the case. I never suggested it didnt happen, only looking for some information on it.

You have said that a Garda said: "There had been an incident in the early 1980s in south Mayo before he joined the gardaí when two elderly brothers were tied up. Both of them died as a result of the incident."

Is this the incident you were referring to, well over twenty years ago? Did they live near Nally?

by Pitirim Wed Jan 03, 2007 16:31

I think this deals with your question. I must admit though that I am appalled that anyone would suggest that elderly people had not been beaten to death. I wonder what your motivation could possibly be.

Det Sgt Carroll agreed there was a fear among elderly people in the area of people coming over to their houses.

There had been an incident in the early 1980s in south Mayo before he joined the gardaí when two elderly brothers were tied up. Both of them died as a result of the incident.

Another elderly man had been tied up in Charlestown eight years ago, in a crime which is still unsolved.

In 2004, he said there had been 20 crimes against property in the local garda sub district including burglary and theft from the person or a vehicle. However, he agreed this had dropped to three, up to November 1 this year.

Interesting drop in the burglary rate.

Heres Padraig Nallys account of what took place:

Reading from the statement Det Sgt Carroll said Mr Nally told him that after meeting the deceased's son Tom Ward in a car in his driveway, he saw John Ward going in the back door of his farm.

He said he went back to his shed and took a gun, which was already loaded, out of a barrel there. He said he recognised Mr Ward Snr from a Saturday a fortnight before, when he had driven a black car and asked Mr Nally for directions to the lake to go fishing.

Speaking about the day of the killing Mr Nally told gardaí: “I said what are you doing in there you rogue.”

He said he was not sure if he aimed the gun but it went off with excitement, hitting Mr Ward on the right hip.

At this point he said Mr Ward went straight for him and a fight began. He kicked Mr Ward on the broad of his back and he said the pair exchanged blows. He said Mr Ward tried to pull him by the collar and kick him in the stomach “and the balls”.

He said the deceased had tried to grab the gun, but Mr Nally said he put him up against the jam in the kitchen door in a “real movie type effort”.

“I struck him on the head and hands and feet. I must have struck him 20 times anyways.”

He said Mr Ward was shouting: “Tom, Tom” for his son, who he could hear revving the car. He gave him a push and kicked him on the broad side of the back as he lay in a heap of nettles.

He said he then went into the shed to get more cartridges and when he came out he said he saw Mr Ward walking along the road towards the village of Cross.

He pulled up the gun and shot him again. He said he died instantly and he lifted up the body and threw it over a wall.

After going to a neighbour’s house to contact gardaí Mr Nally said he was suicidal and did not know if he would shoot himself or not.

He said: “I was out of my mind for these lads calling to my house all year.”

He said they had burst in on February 20 that year and taken a chainsaw.

by Snailerman Fri Dec 29, 2006 21:52

Would you support the killing of all criminals? Perhaps we should issue guns to all people with no criminal convictions and allow them to kill everyone that has a criminal conviction? After all, they would deserve it, wouldnt they?

by mercurysnail - personal capacity Fri Dec 29, 2006 21:48

What about the right of hard-working people to be left in peace? What about the right not to be terrorised by criminals? So what if Ward was a "Traveller"? He was a criminal and a terrorist in the true sense of the word. He got what he deserved.

by redjade Fri Dec 29, 2006 02:27

Congrats to those that made the Global Indy Feature possible.

Let's make this a media model of things to come in 2007

let global indy know the secret that ireland is the centre of the world (i'm not joking)

screenshot: dec 29 2006

by Justice for all Thu Dec 28, 2006 22:21

Paragraph 1. Author - Ciaron O'Reilly. link: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78620

The jury, randomly chosen from the community, is viewed by society as "the conscience of the community". The jury in the Pit Stop Ploughshares case spoke with one voice that U.S. military equipment at Shannon Airport destined to Iraq "threatens life and property" in Iraq. The jury spoke with one voice that non-violent resistance to the U.S. military deploying to Iraq should not be considered a criminal act.

Now for a quick spot of editing:

Edit number 1.
Replace "Pit Stop Ploughshares" with "Nally"
Well, why not? Principles of justice apply to all defendants, don't they?

Edit number 2.
Replace "U.S. military equipment at Shannon Airport destined to Iraq" with "violent marauding criminals in rural Ireland"
Fair enough. Bullying and thuggery is wrong whether done by big states or single individuals.

Edit number 3.
Replace remaining instances of "Iraq" with "Ireland"
Justice miust apply everywhere, eh?

Edit number 4.
Replace "non-violent resistance to the U.S. military deploying to" with "reasonable force used against violent marauding criminals in"
Sauce for the goose......

This produces paragraph 2, below.

The jury, randomly chosen from the community, is viewed by society as "the conscience of the community". The jury in the Nally case spoke with one voice that violent marauding criminals in remote rural areas "threatens life and property" in Ireland. The jury spoke with one voice that reasonable force used against violent marauding criminals in Ireland should not be considered a criminal act.

Surely Indymediazens couldn't disagree???????????

by Starstruck Thu Dec 28, 2006 21:11

This may already have been pointed out but I diont have the time to run through all the comments-thgis story is on the front page of the Global Indymedia site-congrats I think

See

http://www.indymedia.org

by leper o'corn Wed Dec 27, 2006 22:18

nice one opinionated. that everyone totally ignored your dispassionate and considered piece about underlying causal factors only goes to show that they're up for a ruck rather than a solution. let 'em swing handbags. if you want to vent some anger you should join a boxing club. if you want to gain understanding through discourse, step outside your own tribal/life experience prejudices and accept that all issues comprise shades of grey. then you're in a position to join those of us trying to make progress through an honest interchange of ideas.

by straight talker Wed Dec 27, 2006 01:05

There is no question whatever that the settled community has a very negative opinion of Travellers. The reasons are not a great mystery. If you are a young urban-dweller with yourself and your partner both working all the hours God gave to pay a mortgage on your 'starter' home the last thing you need in your neighbourhood is a Traveller encampment. The Travellers move in. They turn the locality into an unsightly tip. Property values head south. Serious shit if you eak out your existence on the dizzy cusp between positive and negative equity. If you are a rural dweller, Travellers in the neighbourhood bring the prospect of burglaries and constant probing visits by Traveller prowlers looking for something to rip off. Remote rural dwellers fear even greater horrors.

Despite all of this it never seems to have occurred to the Pavee Point crowd that the behaviour of a large number of their clients might have something to do with the distaste and fear of the settled community towards Travellers and that these negative attitudes might not just be rooted in mindless motiveless prejudice on the part of the settled community.

Neither do the 'tinkerologists' of Pavee seem to bother much that the primary victims of the Traveller 'culture' are not the settled community but the young and female members of the Travelling community. There are many 'Frog' Wards in the Traveller community. These grim Traveller 'Kings' control the lives of their hapless communities - inculcating the young into lives of crime, violence, and faction-fighting. The constant movement which they impose on their families (Often to keep one step ahead of the law rather than a 'lifestyle' choice), blights the educational stability and prospects of young Travellers. Their attitude to the women in their community - violence included - makes the Taliban look enlightened.

Has anyone in the Pavee gang the honesty and guts to tell their clients that behaviour change on the part of Travellers might be a necessary prerequisite both to improving relations between settled and Traveller communities, and in improving the life-chances of young and female Travellers?

by Reality check Tue Dec 26, 2006 20:11

"if you opposse the death penalty your in disagreement with the majority of the Irish people particularly working class people and majority of the worlds population and just to annoy the fanatical left-wingers here in agreement with the establishment and more then likely the majority of the D4 set"

Ah, so that would be why the Irish people voted to do away with the death penalty in any circumstances a few years back. They were just confused by the ballot paper and didn't realise what they were voting for I guess.

Well, at least you're no more contemptuous of facts than most of the people posting on this thread

by . Tue Dec 26, 2006 18:40

unless you know of a better system to protect the ordinary citizen from oppressive laws and government.

In this case Mr. Nally has a perfect case for compensation against the 'Republic' for his unlawful imprisonment pending appeal while he had never in fact been found guilty under due process of law.

That should be good for at least €500,000 in compensation (under ideal conditions it would be taken from the pocket of the judge who denied him a fair trial first time around, as opposed to the tax-payer). Hopefully he will have the wisdom to enjoy it with his mouth shut, however, the signs on that front do not look good.

As a result of this case the legal position on self-defence has not been altered in the slightest.

by omega supreme Mon Dec 25, 2006 18:15

This is the first place I've seen that anyone thinks Nally should have done any time in prison, everyone I've talked to about this thinks the case should never have gone to trial. Face facts Nally was acting in self defence and Ward's death is no loss to society.

Travellers seem to be argueing that this some how reflects that their all viewed as criminals and settled people aren't. True to an extent but take into account that settled people from certain areas are sometimes viewed as criminals due to the area their from as well, for example not everyone from Dolphins Barn is a heroin addicted mugger and burglar, not everyone from Limerick carries a knife constantly and not everyone from Clanbrassil Street is a car thief etc. However in common with these areas I can't see that the opinions have no basis in reality althought it is a generalisation based on disproportionate crime rates in these communities. Also the area people are from is commonly known to have an effect on court decisions.

As for the right to use the death penalty, if you opposse the death penalty your in disagreement with the majority of the Irish people particularly working class people and majority of the worlds population and just to annoy the fanatical left-wingers here in agreement with the establishment and more then likely the majority of the D4 set. Maybe you should take into account the case of Ian Huntley guilty by his own admission, DNA evidence and the statements of his girlfriend. Both he and his mother have said he deserves to face the death penalty. And just so as you can't just then post about objections to the death penalty, this case has nothing to do with it. The case is about a isolated vunerable farmer acting in self defence of himself and his property, nothing to do with the rights of the state but the rights of an individual, no one can be expected to place the safety of a burglar above their own.

Just for my two cents anyone settled, traveler, black, white, ANYONE who comes on my property threatening my family, myself or the possessions I've worked long and hard for, forfeits their right to life. Which ironically can be easily justified under the social contract theory some of you seem to espouse.

by Opinionated Mon Dec 25, 2006 00:32

I have read the entire thread. As an ordinary joe having lived in a rural area and an urban area with both direct and indirect experience of crime at the hands of travellers and settled people, I think that this case is interesting as it brings together a number of issues.

Ok, I read the thread, and here are some mildly relevant thoughts to possibly divert you all from fighting with each other ( and probably get you all fighting with me instead! :) )

Today, many people live in fear of their stuff being taken and violence being enacted on them by people who have nothing to lose.

Gangland crime is rife and has become very lucrative as more well paid people create a greater demand for recreational drugs and more gardai pressure does not really stop the trade, they fail to incarcerate those at the top and it only serves to push up the street prices of the merchandise and make the trade even more profitable, hence even worth killing for in the eyes of some. Also the free flow of citizens from poorer eastern bloc countries has brought not only a wealth of talented and hard working people but also their organised crime networks which tend to thrive in poorer nations where honest hard work does not really seeem to pay.

Meanwhile, the psychiatric support structures for whatever reasons receive less and less relative funding and support, so some quite disturbed and violent people are left to carry on their lives out on the streets as we pretend they are just perfectly well adjusted and ordinary people.

The so called celtic tiger economy has in reality benefitted a small number and left the rest struggling to put a roof over their heads and survive as prices spiral and bureaucracy flourishes to absorb and waste any benefits from the tax bonanza. All generating a widening divide between haves and have nots, a sure way to increase crime rates in deprived areas if serious social issues are ignored at the same time.

Then add to this, a marginalised community many members of which have often had to live outside the law somewhat. Once you are outside, what have you to lose really? After that first dose of prison.

Try settling and getting a job as a traveller. Try going against your culture and embracing the settled community's ways. stay in school, Go to university, Get a good job and a mortgage. Imagine how much more difficult it is for a traveller to do that. It's hard enough for someone from the settled community. So much easier to slip into a life of crime when drugs or robbery etc are so lucrative. Especially if you are a bit disturbed and should really be in an institution somewhere being treated for serious psychological illness. (frog ward was a known psychiatrically disturbed individual). So much easier really. And you can cry "bigot" if they catch you too. That's where the holier than thou brigade help compound the problems by making it easier for violent criminal individuals to avoid taking sufficient responsibility for their actions. Surely it's unsurprising and understandable that there is a higher level of criminality in a community like the travellers?

The fact is, We as a community are more and more aware of the breakdown of law and order in our society. We are pumped up more and more with fear by the media and political vested interests. Crime HAS increased because of imbalances in our society, growing social problems, and on top of all the things I mentioned there are also rapid technological, media, educational and political changes which keep altering the face of our society. The way things are today, there are a lot of us just a couple of weeks wages from the gutter. and those are the successful ones!

Today there are criminals of many more kinds and races in our society. We are all pumped up with fear. We fear the unknown. We wanted to put a face on this fear and we wanted to make an example of someone to stem the tide as normal justice just ain't working. And It wouldn't do to be seen as non PC in our bigotry so We picked a comfortable scapegoat.One we felt was our own and we had a right to pick on.

How can a society which is supposedly ethical make an unreasonable example of someone to send a strong message? they have to fudge it through like in the nally case. The fact is the collective consciousness was aware of and fearing rising crime. Normal measures were just not working. There was an instinctive feeling that we had to make a severe example to make criminals think again.

But you can't do that in a just society. It's wrong. Then along comes Nally, loses his marbles in fear and does what many people secretly wish could be done. Totally overreact and make an example of someone. All society needed to do was fudge the punishment to show their tacit agreement. We still get to call ourselves an ethical society but the strong message goes out which we secretly hope will stem the tide of criminality a bit.

Frog ward was a martyr to this deep seated need. 80 previous offenses, beat the shit out of his wife and kids, likely WAS casing the joint. Fuck it, no great loss to humanity. No cure for cancer lost there. Perhaps not. But sad to see that despite all our attempts at civilisation, we are still resorting to what we always have. The disproportionate response as a deterrent. Instead of asking why and trying to fix the root causes rather than reduce the symptoms. Is this Our less honest and consistent version of some of the worst aspects of sharia law?

Rather than becoming as bad as that which we fear, what can we do? For starters we could grasp the nettle and legalise drugs, If people want to voluntarily fuck themselves up then let them. The money saved on crime, and tax earned on selling the stuff legally could go into proper rehabilitation programs and hell, who would you rather little johnny bought his ecstacy tablet from, the local pharmacy with quality control, or the local criminal?. Puts a lot of dangerous criminals out of business right there. And all those petty burglaries and robberies to feed drug habits, that make the quality of life that much less would no longer be necessary.

Then maybe we could try to fix the psychiatric system. What's left of it that is.
And perhaps even take measures to cut out some of the bureaucracy and corruption that is haemmorhaging away our best opportunity to make real improvments in our society.

And it's high time we figured out what to actually do with the travellers. Do we integrate them or eject them? you can't be both inside and outside a society like some sort of schrodingers cat. What incentives are there for you to adhere to law if you have little invested in the society?

Of course making decisions like these takes leadership and courage. Are there any people of courage left in irish politics? Or Is that the real problem

The Nally case was not about one particular incident. It drew in a lot of irrational responses to current social dilemmas and it can only be explained in that way because on face value and forensics, it was manslaughter with a dollop of diminshed responsibility due to (temporary?) insanity full stop.

That's why I emphasised the psychiatric system. This case should have never happened as both people involved should have been elsewhere receiving serious state sponsored and compulsory treatment in an institution somewhere.
(I'm no psychiatrist but sitting in a shed with his loaded gun waiting for burglars...That's not normal behaviour is it? and ol'froggy was on record as a psychiatric patient)

And BTW Merry xmas to any sad people who are actually reading this. We have something in common I guess! :)

by Martin Enright Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:27

3.20 am? Non-stop ranting for 3 days alone on this thread? Since the verdict on others? The same points repeated over and over again?

If thats not fanatical, I don't know what is.

If you dont defend Ward accept the verdict or else agree to disagree with those who do.

I dont need to prove Ward was in the house. I am not a member of the Jury. That job is done.

I have to agree with what was being said earlier no amount of wishing otherwise will prove Nally guilty. He is innocent. A jury of his peers said so.

This Patsy fellow is angry with the verdict and it has manafested itself as a feverish crusade to peruse threads on this site and shout bigotry and haphazard theories as to what happened when he wasn't even there.

I wasnt there either, but all those who where, the experts of the Garda technical unit and other testimonies where forwarded, thrashed out in court by the legal representatives of Nally and the DPP (I suppose they are all bigots too) examination of witness' introduction of evidence, the legal mechanisms of the court, all administered by a Judge with years fo experience (I Suppose he is a bigot too) All this was then deliberated painstakingly by a jury who found him not guilty.

Are they all bigots?

by Dave Sat Dec 23, 2006 23:29

This piece is unbelieveable - Ward had 80 previous convictions - count them 80 and the majority were for larceny and violent conduct - he wasn't there to sell tin or to call round for a friendly chat - he was there to threaten and steal (or use his slash hook on a garda car? - he was due in court next day)- Frog ward spent his life intimidating other people and he came to a bitter end - i have absolutely sympathy for his family of course but not for Ward himself.

Pavee point should put its resources into ensuring members of its community abide by decent laws and by our societies laws - pay its taxes - not fight every time there is a funeral so that whole neighbourhoods close, stop dealing drugs and integrate into society.

I'll ask Pavee point this question - why is it that so many travellers engage in despicable behaviour like fighting to the extent that whole streets must close (holborn street sligo) or that publicans are in fear of their lives to take a traveller wedding or funeral like that case two weeks outside NAAS?

Nally was protecting his farm - and with this action may just stop the spate of burglaries taking place in rural areas (and indeed urban areas) or at least people may think twice before attempting to committ a crime - travellers have to start to grow up and start effecting change in their own community before preaching at hard working honest people like padraig nally.

by Ciaron Sat Dec 23, 2006 13:44

"Fact. Some people in certain social groups are more likely to commit crimes."

Some social groups are more likely to commit high crimes of wholesale killing, thieving and dealing. Some social groups are more likely to commit the retail variety. "Steal a little they trhow you in jail, steal a ot and the make you king" Bobby Dylan

What you fail to address in a genearl sense is that those of certain social classes when they are victims of retail crime are treated differently. Their killings are nor prioritised for investigation etc etc

by Patsy Sat Dec 23, 2006 13:23

Shep i know I am not going to change someones views that are as bigoted and and blinkered as yours are. i am not trying to.

However, as I have already said you have shown yourself up for what you are, someone who by their own admission tars all travellers withthe same brush because of the criminal activities of some and despite the fact that I can be fairly certain you do not know all travellers.

However, you acept that there are criminals and scumbags in the settled communtiy too, yet you refuse to tar all the settled communtiy with the one brush. Why is that? Why dont you tar all of us in the settled communtiy in the same way as you do travellers considering the appalling crimes that our people are guilty of? Any chance of a rational answer Shep as oposed to one of your bigoted rants?

by Shep Sat Dec 23, 2006 03:46

Fact. Some people in certain social groups are more likely to commit crimes. Example: certain housing estates in Belfast and a few I know of in Dublin. They are refuted for their lawlessness as it seems to be bred into them. I certainly would be more likely to regard people from those places with suspicion. Does that make me ignorant and unrealistic? Maybe to you ethically superior types, but thats human nature. In the same way travellers make a living out of scrounging from people who work for a living, extorting money from landowners in return for leaving their land and generally being vultures and opportunists. What do they contribute to the state? Sure there are scum bags living in the settled community as well. Thanks for stating the obvious. I shed no more tears over some settled scum bag getting wasted than I do over some traveller scum bag ending up in a body bag. As someone said, one less to worry about. As regards travellers yes I do tar them all with the same brush as any of the ones I have met have been arrogant, dishonest, pig-ignorant and think they have some God given right to do what they want regardless of the consequences. Oh dear I guess as you sit in your ivory tower and look down on us mere mortals you now think me brash and ignorant? Well who cares. My opinion comes from 50 odd years of experience of these people and it will take a lot more than you regurgitating the same material over and over and over again to change it.

by Astunned Sat Dec 23, 2006 00:17

He beat Ward until he was crawling on the ground retreating away from his home.

He then took the law into his own hands and went after him with a shotgun just to make sure he had no chance to live whatsoever.

How much more does it take to educate your limited brainpower?

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 23:37

Pitirim said: "People living nearby had been beaten to death by burglars."

Where and when did this happen pitirim? I see you were asked this earlier but I havent seen any details from you yet. Any chance of filling us in on that?

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 23:32

Pitirim and Check your facts. A simple question. How did he enter the house? Can you please tell us that?

Can you also tell us why there was no evidence of any break in or attempted break in?

Why there was no damage to locks or windows?

Why, there were no fingerprints or other forensics such as hair and clothes fibres etc belonging to Ward found in the house?

Finally lads or lassies, why are ye so afraid of people questioning your viewpoint? As i have said, if you are so annoyed by my posts dont read them or alternatively contradict the points i have expressed as you are more than entitled to do.

That is what this forum is for is it not? Debate, discussion, contradiction of peoples opinions and facts etc etc

Or do you think it should only be for people that agree with you.

by Check your facts Fri Dec 22, 2006 20:54

....There is no evidence that he did. FACT. Have you something that shows different...

Yes, I have. There is evidence that Ward was in the house. Nally's testimony (at the 1st trial) was that he SAW him exiting the door of the house. Eyewitness testimony IS evidence, Patsy. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, you may produce counter evidence. But it is undoubtedly evidence.

by Pitirim Fri Dec 22, 2006 20:35

"Oh and is there anyone out there who can please tell us how Ward is supposed to have gotten into Nallys house?"

Thats 22 times. Several people have put forward arguments to counter yours. I wont indulge you be repeating them. You just wont accept there is a diference of opinions and agree to disagree.

For once in your life act like an adult and agree to disagree.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 20:22

Mark: "Give over, you are fast becoming part of the lunatic fringe. Clinging on for dear life the way you are. You will never change minds by relentlessly drumming out the same thing."

Oh right Mark. Because I disagree with you and have pointed out to people on this site some uncomfortable facts that they dont want to hear, I am part of the lunatic fringe, is that right Mark?

Mark: "You seem intent on the last word to the point of fanaticism which will on result in you being ignored."

Ignore me if you want. You are more than entitled to. However, this is an internet chat and discussion forum and I will continue to air my views and contradict others when I feel they are lying or when they are incorrect in what they say.

Look, if people want landowners to have the right to shoot people that are on their property uninvited, fair enough they should go and campaign for that. I would disagree with that but go ahead and do so. Similarly if people believe that Ward deserved to be killed that is fair enough, while i disagree with them, but at least they are being honest in what they are saying.

However, people are being dishonest and when they say that Nally was acting in self defence. He wasnt. People may think he was jusitifed because Ward was on his property but that is a totally different thing to acting in self defence.

Nallys life was not in danger when a severely injured (from shooting and beating) Ward was crawling away for his life before Nally reloaded his weapon and followed Ward before shooting him in the back and killing him. That is not self defence. Again, you may think it is justified but it is not self defence.

People say that Ward would have come back and killed him if he hadnt killed Ward, but again, while people may think killing him for this reason is justified (if there was any truth to it in the first place), it is not self defence. We do not have the right to shoot and kill people that may be a threat at some unspecified stage in the future.

So Mark and whoever else is annoyed by my remarks, dont read them if they offend you so much. Its your entitlement. I'm only saying it as it is.

Oh and is there anyone out there who can please tell us how Ward is supposed to have gotten into Nallys house?

by Have to disagree Fri Dec 22, 2006 19:32

No, I'm afraid he's doing a fairly good job of winning me over, I don't agree with everything Patsy says but he certainly makes a lot more sense than most people posting on this thread. Fanatic? Hardly

by Mark Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:24

Give over, you are fast becoming part of the lunatic fringe. Clinging on for dear life the way you are. You will never change minds by relentlessly drumming out the same thing.

You seem intent on the last word to the point of fanaticism which will on result in you being ignored.

by Pitirim A. Sorokin Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:23

Repeating it for the 21st time does not make it true. Its merely your opinion. In the end the prosecution DID NOT assert that Ward hadnt entered Nallys house.

Now be an adult and agree to disagree.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:17

There is no evidence that he did. FACT. Have you something that shows different. How did he get into the house? There was no damage or signs of break in or anything else, no forensics etc.

And I wouldnt have to say it 20 times, if people didnt keep insisting that he was in the house when the evidence clearly shows he wasnt. As I have said before, if you think that Ward deserved to be shot fair enough, but i would disagree with you. I dont believe burglars or other scumbags should be executed, thats why I voted to remove the death penalty. I am opposed to it.

However, dont pretend that hewas in the house when he wasnt or that the killing was in self defence because it wasnt.

by Pitirim A. Sorokin Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:11

"But at the end of the day, he had committed no crime, had not entered or attempted to enter the house, when he was shot by Nally."

Patsy you have now said this for the 20th time. You believe that Ward did not enter the house. Others disagree with you. You are not going to bludgeon us into surrender by repeating the same mantra ad nauseum.

Be an adult: agree to disagree.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 18:02

As somone who has been robbed on diferent occasions by members of the settled community should I tar all members of the settled community with the same brush Shep?

I think you will find that the settled communnity have a reputation for murder, drug dealing, theft, drunkenness, assault, rape, sexual abuse etc

Get it into your thick skull Shep, there is good and bad in all walks of life. Dont scapegoat all travellers for the crimes of some, just as I'm sure you dont scapegoat the settled community for the crimes of some.

by Shep Fri Dec 22, 2006 17:55

As someone whos family has been robbed from and threatrened by travellers over the years I find it hard to feel any sympathy for this man. The travelling community seems to think it has the right to go where it wants and help itself to whatever it wants and then cries poor victim when someone lifts a hand to stop them. The travelling community has a reputation for fighting, stealing, destroying, extorting and generaly not giving a damn about anyone or their property. In my own experience it is a reputation well deserved. After this maybe some of them will think twice about it now that they see that not everyone is prepared to sit back and let then do whatever they want. But I doubt it. Why shouldnt travellers lives mean less to common folk than other people. After all the only people who matter to travellers are other travellers. As ye sew so shall ye reap.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 14:35

Mark: "Look Patsy, there are two ways to look at this. Nally acted in self defence or he didn’t. I believe he did. You do not. Let’s agree to disagree and that’s the end of it."

I'm sorry but those that say he acted in self defence have yet to show where exactly he done so. As already pointed out on numerous ocasions, regardless of the justification that Nally may have felt he had for initially shooting Ward and beating him, I have seen nor heard any evidence that justifies Nallys following of Ward, then severely wounded and with numerous fractures, up onto the public road before shooting him in the back as he tried to crawl away. That is NOT self defence no matter how you try to stretch it. It may have been good enough for Ward and he may have deserved it as some suggest, but it is NOT self defence.

Mark: "To suggest John Ward was anything other than a criminal scumbag is naive."

I never said any different. if you read my posts you would know my opinion of Ward as I knew the man.

Mark: "To suggest his life was worth less than anyone else’s is simplistic and dangerous. "

But one that many people that support Nally have expressed. Many beleive that Ward 'deserved' it and 'had it coming to him'..

Mark: "He WAS there to steal, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a fool."

He may have been but it is also quite possible that he wasnt. Just because he is a thief and a scumbag does not mean that he is committing a crime every minute of every day. It is possible that he was up to no good but at the point where he was attacked by Nally he had committed no crime nor was there any evidence that he was about to do so. Yes, we can surmise all we want, maybe he was there to sexually assault Nally, maybe he was there to rob his house, maybe to burn his house down, the list could go on , maybe this , maybe that.

Maybe he was there to buy scrap which is what Ward done on a regular basis.

But at the end of the day, he had committed no crime, had not entered or attempted to enter the house, when he was shot by Nally.

Even if he had robed the house, which he didnt, that would still not have justified nally folowing up the lane to the public road before executing him. Again, let me repeat, people may feel Ward deserved it, but the killing was NOT in self Defence.

Mark: "He would have beaten Nally to a pulp upon the slightest provocation his record on such matters is evidence enough, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a fool."

I will have to bow to your superior powers in being able to read the future on this one. You must make some money fromt he fortune telling business, do you?

Mark: "Ward DID confront him, Nally shot him. It was the only course of action available to him at the time. "

No. It was Nally, by his own admission that confronted ward when he reaslised there was somoene on his property.

by Mark Fri Dec 22, 2006 09:21

Look Patsy, there are two ways to look at this. Nally acted in self defence or he didn’t. I believe he did. You do not. Let’s agree to disagree and that’s the end of it.

To suggest John Ward was anything other than a criminal scumbag is naive. To suggest his life was worth less than anyone else’s is simplistic and dangerous. Both arguements flawed.

But I cannot accept, nor do the vast majority of people, that Ward was acting in a manner that was not suspicious. His nature was one of cavalier disregard of law and order and a bully. People like that do not timidly approach old men and respectably make enquires, do odd jobs around the farm or whatever else has been offered as reasoning for his un-invited presence.

He WAS there to steal, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a fool.
He would have beaten Nally to a pulp upon the slightest provocation, his record on such matters is evidence enough, anyone who doesn’t believe that is a fool. Nally may have acted without this knowledge, but in hindsight he knows he did the right thing. Ward DID confront him, Nally shot him. It was the only course of action available to him at the time. What happened next was an old and terrified man panicking and acting completely out of character because he was put in a life or death position AS NALLY SAW IT, by Ward. Nally did encroach on Wards environment.

The hysterics at the moment citing open season for travelers after the verdict is deplorable. There are no vigilante gangs stalking halting sites hoping a traveler gives them a chance to shoot them. Travelers are not being shot on sight.
The silent vigils and protests are another over reaction.
There are at best PR stunts.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 01:03

How did he know that? He did not know Ward or anything about him.

And even if it was true, which there is no evidence to suggest Ward was doing anything but try to escape with his life, Nally has still no entitlement to kill someone on the basis that at some point somewhere in the future. somone MIGHT take action against him.

And as you rightly pointed out, Nally is now no safer by killing Ward even if that is true so in that respect of Nally killing Ward to prevent retribution in the future, it was a bit pointless on his behalf as he is no safer now than if he had not killed him. In fact I'd say he is a lot less safer now because of killing Ward.

by . Fri Dec 22, 2006 00:30

Cos he knew that even if Ward had left, he would return some time later with a much stronger crowd of thugs who would have given a retaliatory beating to Nally following his beating of John Ward. Even now, his life is in danger. There are bound to be angry travellers out there who see this ruling as unfair, and some may try to take matters into their own hands and carry out a vigilante attack on Nally.

by Patsy Fri Dec 22, 2006 00:14

Mark. Nally wasnt defending himself or his property when he followed a severely injured man, crawling away from his house towards a public road, and shot him in the back.

by Ciaron Thu Dec 21, 2006 22:32

I don't know the full facts of this case. My original point was qualifyig the comparison between this case and the acquittal of the Catholic Workers. I do empathise with the isolated rural elderly. I do understand mental health issues that contribute to homicide.

When I was on remand in Darwin there were 35 of us. 10 were in for killing. 10 killed while they were drunk. 9 killed people they liked.

When I was in jail in Texas, there were 10 state executions under the liberal feminist Governor of the time (the late) Anne Richards. Those executed over those 9 months were Latino, White, Native American and Black. 10 out of 10 of the victims of the homicides that led to those executions were white. In Texas the race, or ethnicinity, of your victim has a lot to do with whether you get executed...and maybe even in convicted in the first place. This may be a dynamic here. It definitely is when a cop kills an aborigine in Queensland.

by Mark Thu Dec 21, 2006 21:23

Patsy, will you give it a rest.

Nally was aquitted. End of story. Nally was also defending himself and his property because he knew that Ward would be back for revenge had been able to.

Now christmas is nearly upon us, so lets all enjoy it.

by Patsy Thu Dec 21, 2006 19:50

No one is denying that Nally or anyone else has the right to defend themselves. However, that is clealry NOT what happened in this case. Whether you believe that Nally was justified in killing Ward or that Ward "deserved it" or had it "coming to him" is one thing, however, the killing of Ward was NOT in self defence or indeed in defence of his property. Ward was severely injured with gunshot wounds and multiple fractures from the beating he recieved and was crawling AWAY from the house and Nally onto the public road when Nally followed him up the road, asfter going off to reload and proceeded to shoot Ward in the back, killing him.

by Pitirim Thu Dec 21, 2006 19:43

Sadly you have evaded answeriung the question. Its not about supporting the death penalty - I dont. Its trying to understand how a group of very weak and marginalised people live - the isolated rural elderly. If you were in Nallys shoes you might consider defending yourself.

by Ciaron - Dublin catholic Worker Thu Dec 21, 2006 19:16

The analysis is provided by Harry Browne and is in relation to the specifics of the pretrial media coverage of both trials in reponse to the previuous post.

I don't know enought about the case to comment on the reported violence that followed the disabling violence the perceived threat, whether people really want the death penalty (state or lynch mob) for crimes of theft or perceived threat. My experience in prison in Ireland and inthe legal system is that this community that held this demonstration in the wake of this trial have issues in relation to being treated fairly by the inxtitutions of law. Their concerns resonate with my four year experience of Irish society.

I have an abolutionist position on prisons. I have lived (inside and out) with many people who have killed. Most of them like the defendant in this case are highly unlikely to do it again. I am not recommending imprisonment for the man charged in this trial or the return of the firearm.

by Michael Martin Thu Dec 21, 2006 18:38

I don't understand what the hype is all about. Mr. Nally shot a known criminal who broke into his house. He shouldn't have been brought to the court for this in the first place. Mr. Nally should get a massive compensation for having been imprisoned in the first place! As far as I am concerned, people should be given a free hand to defend their property against crimals as they see fit, and this includes the use of fire arms.
And if a settled criminal should break into a traveller's caravan/home, than I would without hesitation grant those travellers the same right to defend their belongings. This is the wrong case tfor playing the "persecuted minority" card. The right to self and home defence must be granted to every citizen, regardless of ethnic, social, religious or political background. Let's get though on criminals, folks!

by Pitirim A. Sorokin Thu Dec 21, 2006 16:55

"We live in a society where some lives are regarded as expendable. Prisoners, homeless, travellers, indigenous people. "

The lives of elderly people are seen to be expendable as well. Ciaron, I admire you and the work you carry out but I expected a bit more analysis from you. The rural elderly dont go around Travellers sites looking for fights. They stay at home, wondering if their doors are going to be kicked in by criminals from a settled or Traveller background.

The criminal gangs who go on rambles in rural or urban areas are the strong. The ordinary people who only want to be left alone are the weak. Yes there is a power imbalance.

by Ciaron - Dublin Catholic Worker Thu Dec 21, 2006 16:36

As Harry Browne's column in The Village today, there were some differences in the two trials. The pretrial media spin on the Catholic Workers who disabled the U.S. war plane at Shannon www.peaceontrial.com was generally negative toward the defendants.In this case the media spin towards the defendant was largely positive and sympathetic.

We (Catholic Workers) had two government ministers quoted (never retracted) that we assaulted and hospitalised a Garda. This lie was rebutted by the Garda press officer on the day and by the officer concerned three times (at all three trials) under oath. It has never been retracted by the Ministers concerned. also the lie published on the front page of the Irish Times that the Catholic Workers cost the taxpayer $2.5 million also rebutted at trial, never retracted by the Irish Times.

See Harry Browne's 8,000 word article on the Ploughshares case in the most recent Dublin Review for a lengthier analysis of the role in spreading disinformation about the Catholic Workers. This disinformation continued after the acquittal.

We live in a society where some lives are regarded as expendable. Prisoners, homeless, travellers, indigenous people. See link below for latest cop killing of aboriginal person in custody in my home state of Queensland.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80329

by Fiorsceal Thu Dec 21, 2006 01:00

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
"I am getting more than a little bit tired of listening to all of the things that Nally could have done. They dont take into account the fact that Nally was a man living in fear. He had been burgled several times within the past year. People living nearby had been beaten to death by burglars."

Who? Where? What is nearby? Near enough to think it was the same bunch of burgulars?
Let me tell you something, I live in a large housing council housing estate. I have neighbours who have been gunned down, and houses around me burnt out. Rural Ireland is not getting it any worse than urban Ireland. There was a man shot in broad daylight in Limerick this afternoon, in the city centre... not on an isolated farm.
It's crap living here, you can't always expect your neighbours to look out for you, and you can't relax in your own home. But. fear doesn't justify everything. If the guy was paranoid that doesn't excuse his behaviour. It is a jungle out there for many people, but you can't afford to lose the run of yourself. I feel sorry for Padraig Nally, I really do. He was in a bad spot, felt he had no support, and no options and over-reacted. But he was not within his rights to follow and execute John Ward. By all accounts Nally is a nice man to meet and chat with, and I'm sure it would do no good to have him rot in jail for years, but I think he was dishonest to say he was merely protecting his property.
He was not just protecting his property from what Mr. Ward was doing, he was reacting to all the fears he had built up from previous burglaries. Mr. Ward paid with his life, not just for trespassing, but for all the other trespassers that had troubled Mr. Nally in the past. It was reported that Nally had taken to sitting in the shed with a shotgun, waiting for burgulars.
Clearly he'd started to go insane from the fear, constant stress, and isolation. I've met enough people who've been repeatedly burgled to know how draining it is, and how it wrecks the nerves.
I've only been robbed a few times, but it feels rotten. I don't agree with people saying Nally killed Ward in a cold blooded execution. I'm sure Nally was freaked out at the time.

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
There seems to be a disengagement between the supporters of Ward and an ability to understand the realities of rural life.

Fiorsceal:
I don't support Ward much at all. I don't support his right to batter people, or steal things. I support his right to life as long as he isn't trying to take that right from anyone else. That's the same right you have and I have. If you fell on hard times or were stupidly drunk, and stole something for money, a drug habit or for the drunken craic, can you be gunned down? If you were high on drugs and trying to smash in the bedroom door of a granny with a sledgehammer, - different story. If she sticks you with the kitchen knife, then that's what you get. If you only got as far as the front door, got tired, dropped the hammer and started walking away, can she follow you and knife you in the back?
I support Nally's right to live in peace. I'd love to experience it myself someday.
I just don't support Nally's right to be judge, jury and EXECUTIONER of someone who is LEAVING his property. How far would you take that line of logic. If someone tries to rob you, or you think that's what they were up to when you saw them legging out the back door, but you don't have a gun at the time, can you go get your gun, jump in your car and follow them a mile down the road and then shoot them? Or how about if you didn't see them until the next day? Can you shoot someone dead a day after you were burgled and say you were protecting your property?

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
If you are elderly and living alone in rural Ireland then you live in a cruel and dangerous place. Fear of assault or even death from a visiting by burglars on a ramble (be they Travellers or Settled) is a constant worry.

Fiorsceal:
Yes, it is a worry, and not just for old farmers. You get the same thing if you're a pensioner in a city as well. I 100% understand how Nally could over-react, as I told you earlier, I've had burgulars in my house too. I live alone, and I'm never sure until I come around the corner that my house will still be intact. It pi$$es me off, it affects my quality of life and mental health. I can't even pop out to the corner shop without making sure that all the doors and windows are locked. But, and there is a big "but", I know that I can't kill these people just for trying to steal my stuff. And that's besides the fact that I'd be petrol bombed the next day. I try to live a decent life, and part of that is being a decent person, and not turn into a armed psychopath like some of my neighbours.
If I found an intruder running up my stairs at night, I wouldn't ask questions. I'd just whallop him as hard as I could, to knock him down and make sure he can't hurt me.
If I saw the same guy escaping over my back wall with my TV, I wouldn't be very angry about it, but I wouldn't go after him with a weapon.

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
Think about that for change. Elderly farmers do not trespass on Travellers sites, thats the reality.

Fiorsceal:
True, if Nally had trespassed onto a halting site, and ended up shot dead, people would say "well, what the hell was he doing there in the first place?". But, that doesn't make it legal. If we assume Ward lived on a site (and I don't know that he did ) Imagine Nally had gone round there to complain, or try to grab his stuff back, could Ward say, that fella is acting aggressively near my caravan and blow him away?

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
Even Martin Collins of Pavee Point admits that Ward was up to no good. If Ward had stayed away from Nally then he would be still alive.

Fiorsceal:
If Nally hadn't shot Ward, they'd both be alive. Nally was right to protect his property, but not to beat Ward like a badger and then re-load and finish him off.

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
It is not in the interest of socialists to build Ward into some kind of martyr.

Fiorsceal:
I'm not a socialist. I'm a realist. Ward is no martyr. The problem is, that there are supposed to be rules in society, even when dealing with people who you think are trouble. You should have some evidence before you react, and how much force you use should be limited to what you need to use.
That's what stops you from getting blown away by a paranoid farmer if you happen to trespass on his land, if you were lost, and knocking for directions. People have to have a decent reason to use force, and maybe if Nally had caught Ward in his house, he might have had to use force, and then I'd have no problem with it.

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
He was no such thing. Instead he was a violent, wife battering criminal. Both the Travelling and Settled Communities should drive such anti-social criminals out.

Guess where they get rehoused though... next door to people like me in council estates. We can't shoot them all. With my address, I don't think I'd get a gun license anyway. End of the day, while I sympathise with Nally, there should have been a judgement that he did not use minimum necessary force to defend himself and his property.
I thought that "not guilty, by way of temporary insanity" would have been a more honest verdict in this case.

by Pitirim A. Sorokin Wed Dec 20, 2006 15:08

I am getting more than a little bit tired of listening to all of the things that Nally could have done. They dont take into account the fact that Nally was a man living in fear. He had been burgled several times within the past year. People living nearby had been beaten to death by burglars.

There seems to be a disengagement between the supporters of Ward and an ability to understand the realities of rural life. If you are elderly and living alone in rural Ireland then you live in a cruel and dangerous place. Fear of assault or even death from a visiting by burglars on a ramble (be they Travellers or Settled) is a constant worry.

Think about that for change. Elderly farmers do not trespass on Travellers sites, thats the reality. Even Martin Collins of Pavee Point admits that Ward was up to no good. If Ward had stayed away from Nally then he would be still alive.

It is not in the interest of socialists to build Ward into some kind of martyr. He was no such thing. Instead he was a violent, wife battering criminal. Both the Travelling and Settled Communities should drive such anti-social criminals out.

by Fiorsceal Wed Dec 20, 2006 13:28

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
"it is reasonable to assume that he was on Nallys land to commit criminal acts."

That might be a decent suspicion, but in this country we try not to shoot people for suspicions. It's part of the rule of law. The defence to using lethal force, is that it would be a last resort to save your life or the life of someone else. You don't get to beat someone like a badger, and execute them as they crawl on the ground, because of assumptions.
If you think somone is up to no good, there are plenty of common sense things to do that fall well short of execution.
What happened to firing warning shots, calling the cops, all that type of stuff?

Pitirim A. Sorokin wrote:
"Taking into account the fact that Ward had many convictions for assault, fought his enemies with swords, regularly battered his wife and had threatened Gardai with slash hooks, it is reasonable to surmise that he would have attacked and done serious injury to Nally if he had the chance."

If he had the chance? It's pretty hard to do that when you are running away though isn't it?
IF Ward HAD attacked Nally and tried to do serious injury, Nally would have been justified in defending himself. Seeing as he didn't attack Nally, and was facing away from him, what Nally did is the opposite of self defence. It was an extra-judicial execution.
Remember, it doesn't matter how many convictions or what reputation Ward had, if Nally didn't know about that reputation at the time, then he can't say it influenced his judgement and his reaction. If Ward came onto Nally's property to steal something, then there are courts, cops and prisons set up to deal with that. If he came on
But WHERE is the evidence that Ward came onto the property with the intent of
I've been a victim of burglarly myself, but I don't reach for the kitchen knife to save the TV, I would reach for it if the burgular had a hammer and didn't feck off when told to feck off, and even then I wouldn't automatically use it if I didn't have to.
Mr. Nally seems to have skipped all those steps, and executed a man who did not post an imminent threat to his life. all the IF's in the world won't change that simple fact.

Reader wrote:
"The thing is - Nally was found innocent by 12 people on the jury (or maybe 10), not the judge or the cops or the media - people picked from society. Same type of sample that found the CW5 innocent too."

The CW5 disarmed an aircraft designed for use, by the military whose main business is war, the wholesale taking of human life. The CW5 did not execute anyone, use violence or threaten to use violence on anyone. A plane has no human rights, it is a piece of property and the standards for judging whether damage done to property is legal is very different for injury to people.
The plane is a piece of equipment designed for a purpose, it doesn't respond to warnings, can't be persuaded to not carry out it's mission, and it doesn't have 11 children, but it can be used to carry weapons to kill a lot more than 11 children
Do you see those differences? I hope they're not too subtle.

by Pitirim A. Sorokin Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:42

This sentence makes no sense:
"Mr. Collins continued " The Nally/Ward Case and the negative media coverage reminded one of events in Mississippi Alabama in the thirties and forties"

Thousands of coloureds were brutally lynched in those years. It is irrational to compare the Ward case to the mass murder that went on in the South of the USA in those days.

Collins is not doing Travellers any favours by indulging in this hyperbole. Collins himself admitted on Q&A that he reckoned Ward was up to no good.

Ward should not be seen as an exemplar for Travellers, rather he should be seen as someone who had a long record of burglary and violence. Given the statement by Collins on Q&A and given Wards propensity for violence and his convictions for burglary, it is reasonable to assume that he was on Nallys land to commit criminal acts.

Taking into account the fact that Ward had many convictions for assault, fought his enemies with swords, regularly battered his wife and had threatened Gardai with slash hooks, it is reasonable to surmise that he would have attacked and done serious injury to Nally if he had the chance.

Lets live in a world where Travellers and Settled people stand up against the lumpen criminals in their communities. Nally did not not come on to a Traveller site looking for trouble with Ward. Ward came to Nally

by reader Wed Dec 20, 2006 01:16

The thing is - Nally was found innocent by 12 people on the jury (or maybe 10), not the judge or the cops or the media - people picked from society. Same type of sample that found the CW5 innocent too.

by Paula Tue Dec 19, 2006 22:46

(c)