Support Padraig Nally

by number 12 - legalise freedom campaign Sun Dec 17, 2006 20:30

Nally states he was defending his PROPERTY rights.

Fair enough.

Does he state he was defending HIS right to LIVE? If not , he committed murder.

If your local gangester Council or Solicitor robs you of your property under a CPO or other land grab methods like altering Deeds etc. and they do it all the time.

Is he then given the right to shoot THESE bastards in the back?

I do not advocate lying down to take a walk over - but returning to reload the gun and willfully shooting someone in the back is nothing short of murder. That , happens to be the fact.

Nally is lucky it was a Jury Trial.

by questions and answers Sun Dec 17, 2006 16:11

You call this an "unjustifiable cold blooded killing".

A killing it certainly was - there's no question about that.
But I wouldn't call it "cold-blooded". By all accounts, the victim Mr. Ward was prowling around on someone else's property. The owner of that property, an elderly man living alone in a rather isolated rural area seems to have taken this unwanted intrusion rather badly but I doubt if one could call his reaction "cold blooded". It sounds to me like his blood was rather heated at the time of the deed, probably close to or over boiling point. I don't think that the expression "cold-blooded" was coined to describe such situations where strong emotions are in play. I would say that a "cold-blooded killing" is one where the killer plans and executes his deed with a sense of emotional detatchment.
In this case, it's not very likely that the "perpetrator" planned to kill anyone in advance. It seems to have been a spur of the moment reaction triggered by an unwanted intrusion on his property.

Whether his actions were "unjustifiable" or not is largely a matter of opinion.
Some say yes, some say no.

The fact is that if Mr. Ward had had a bit more respect for other people's rights, he might still be alive.
Sometimes lessons are learned the hard way. Tragic, I know, but that's life.

I take it that you invite every intruder on your property in for a nice hot cup of tea and a few biscuits.
That's fine by me. It's another way of dealing with an awkward situation.
I hope that most of your intruders are decent enough to take you up on the offer.

by straight talker Sat Dec 16, 2006 22:52

To refer back to the story heading this discussion:

"...........only murder and racism for Travellers"

The facts are that a considerable number of Travellers have been murdered in recent years and I would bet that the murder-rate in the Traveller Community is several times higher than that for the settled community.

However the perpetrators of these crimes were in every case Travellers themselves - not members of the settled community.

It would seem that Travellers need protection from each other - not from the settled community.

The significant thing about the Nally case is how atypical it was.

by noworries Sat Dec 16, 2006 13:41

I know that there is an issue that Mr ward was a traveller and that there is an element of racism in Ireland towards that community. It should however make no differrence from which community the person trespassing on Patrick Nally's farm was. Yes a scared Nally did defend his land and probably overreacted in the heat of the moment.

by Idonthinkso Sat Dec 16, 2006 03:53

1. Nally was using a weapon to defend his property from a well known and violent criminal.
2. This same criminal would have returned and used severe force had he lived.
3. This criminal was there to commit a crime, wake up and accept the reality.
4. 4 warrents, dont blame the Gardai, why did the judges give him bail?

This isnt anti-Pavee, its pro-decent people and anti-criminal.

He should have been guilty under law but justice and law are not the same. At least now the law might change to reflect justice for home-owners. I mean, what kind of law allows a burglar to seek compensation through the civil courts if they get injured while robbing you? You should have no rights if your in the process of commiting crime.

by settler Sat Dec 16, 2006 00:47

There is no question that if the isue of guilt or innocence of Patrick Nally had been for a judge rather than a jury to determine Patrick Nally would be back in Mountjoy continuing his sentence for manslaughter. This is the 'price' you pay for judgement by your peers. Juries do not apply the strict rules of law when those rules conflict with their innate sense of right and wrong.

We had another example of this very recently. Remember the people who admitted 'thrashing' a US airplane at Shannon? They were also technically guilty with no defence known to law. Exactly as with Patrick Nally, the jury said to hell with the law, justice is the issue.

I have no doubt that the jury reasoned that Nally shot Ward because he genuinely thought that so long as Ward was still alive there was a possibility he would get up and kill or injury Nally. Nally presumably reasoned that he'd rather risk prison than the chance of leaving himself open to the possibility of retaliation. The logic of a scared man. Not good law perhaps, but the jury sussed it pretty well.

There is no question that there is discrimination and distaste among the settled community generally, rural and urban for those in our community whom we call travellers. There are also several groups of criminal-gangs within the traveller community who prey on the old vulnerable and isolated in rural Ireland. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the blame for the poisonous relationship is not entirely on one side. Instead of the 'poor John' platitudes, the Traveller community and its 'representatives' need to address the fact that it has a serious criminal problem in its midst, and that these gangs of criminal families are creating a deep feeling of mistrust and fear of Travellers in the eyes of the settled rural community.

On a more general note, we as a society need to consider whether the present policy of 'multiculturalism' which sees the Travellers as a separate community apart from the rest of us has failed, and whether we should be pursuing integration instead. As I see it the 'tinkerologists' who dominate the Traveller support groups have supported nothing more than a culture which blights the lives and life-chances of traveler women and children and delivers them into the power of male authority-figures within their community who are imbued in criminality and ancient feuds.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 21:48

Well done lads. You have all shown up just exactly what this shooting was all about. A hatred of travellers. Nally didnt know the sort of criminal Ward was until after he was dead, but hey, he was a traveller after all, so thats good enough for most of ye Nally supporters anyway isnt it?

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 20:15

Fanny Adams, ny house has been broken into on threes eperate occasions. On each occasion it was members of the settled community that done it. Does that mean that all members of the settled community are theives and knackers? Should I shoot dead the next settled person that enters my driveway, just in case?

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 20:12

Mary you are so wrong to say that every traveller has stolen at least once in their life. You are pathetic. There are good and bad travellers just as there are good and bad members of th esettled community. Its this bigoted view of travellers that you have that ends up with people like Nally doing what they done, killing in cold blood.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:25

You have not dealt with my pints, You just ignore the evidence and continue ot ignore the evidence. How did Ward gain entry to the house? How come his fingerprints were nowhere and he had no gloves? Where and when did these killings take place near Nallys that you continually refer to?

All you do is pretend the evidence isnt there.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:20

You are just repeating yourself. I have dealt fully with all the points you raise. You just do not like my answers. You are just repeating your unsupported opinions.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:17

Of course you wont reply Ernie when the evidence doesnt suit you. I never claimed to be a forensic expert but I do know enough to know that Ward would have left forensics or fingerprints behind if he entered the house. There was no evidence of any. There was no evidence of anyone breaking and entering, no damage to locks etc. How did he get in? Down the chimney? I'm sure there would have been traces of soot on him, do you not think?

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 18:09

"Of course you will ignore the forensics. It doesnt suit your case Ernie. "

No. Its because you are repeating your unsupported opinions. Having a niece who is a friend of a forensic scientist does not make you an expert.

I'm ignoring more stuff about forensics.

"I am sure they would probably agree. He was not a very intelligent man as anyone that knew him would tell you. Thats a fact. I take it you didnt know Ward then?"

I didnt know Ward but I would be suprised if his family described him as being of low intelligence. Usuallly family and friends show more respect.

". I didnt abuse you btw"
You wrote "you can go and take a running jump." Thats not rational argument

Theres a load more of unsupported opinions and repetition by you. Not worth replying to.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:59

Ernie says "I'll ignore the previous stuff about forensics. Its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about and somehow I dont believe that you hang about with forensic Scientists."

Of course you will ignore the forensics. It doesnt suit your case Ernie. The forensics showed NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of a break in or that Ward was ever in the house. And unlike yourself I do know what I am talking about and sorry to disappoint you as yes I do know Forensic Scientists as my neice is one as is her best friend.

Ernie says "But how many did he get away with? Not all of those convictions were for burglary. He also specialised in assault."

Are you seriously telling me that anyone with over 80 convictions, many many of them being for robbery could be described in any way as a skilled burglar? He was caught virtually any time he done anything. He was no more skilled in dodging forensics than you or me were. Probably even less so.

Ernie says: "Now thats not very nice. What would the Ward family think of that?"

I am sure they would probably agree. He was not a very intelligent man as anyone that knew him would tell you. Thats a fact. I take it you didnt know Ward then?

Ernie says "Abusing me does not proive your point."

Actually again Ernie you are incorect. Even Nally himself admits that it was him that confronted Ward, not the other way around. I didnt abuse you btw

Ernie says "Ward was on Nallys land, therefore he confronted Nally."

No thats not true. When my postman comes up to my door or th elocal jehovah witnesses etc, they are not confronting me. Nally himslef said that he confronted Ward not the other way around. You obviously havent followee this case too closely have you or else you are just telling fibs?

Ernie says "Totally unsupported. Honest salesmen are not in the habit of going around to the back door."

Not in an urban area but on a farm of course you would. The chances of getting someone at a farm house by knocking on the front door would normally be slim enough as there would be a good chance the farmer would be out on his land or sheds, looking after cattle or doing athousand other chores.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:45

I'll ignore the previous stuff about forensics. Its obvious that you dont know what you are talking about and somehow I dont believe that you hang about with forensic Scientists.

"Yeah right, and thats why he had 80 convictions. he was so skilled in avoiding detection wasnt he?"

But how many did he get away with? Not all of those convictions were for burglary. He also specialised in assault.

"You obviously didnt know ward or you would know that he was of very low intelligence "

Now thats not very nice. What would the Ward family think of that?

"and if you are trying to tell me that he was skilled in dodging forensic evidence, you can go and take a running jump."

Abusing me does not proive your point.

I'm ignoring more repetion on forenscs by you.

"Actually again Ernie you are incorect. Even Nally himself admits that it was him that confronted Ward, not the other way around."

Ward was on Nallys land, therefore he confronted Nally.

." If Ward had not been a traveller but had been a door to door salesman from the settled community Nally would in all likelihood not have shot him".

Totally unsupported. Honest salesmen are not in the habit of going around to the back door.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:29

I said that If he had gone inside, even briefly, there WOULD be fibres, from shoes, clothes, hair etc fingerprints on the door and elsewhere.

Ernie said "who are you? A Crime Scene Investigator? You dont know what you are talking about."

No, like yourself I am not a Crime Scene Investigator but i do know peole that are Forensic Scientists and I do know a fair bit about this and I do know what I am talking about.

I said that that There was no damage to any locks etc So Ward WAS NOT in the house.

Ernie says "You are assuming that"

No, I am going on the evidence. the forensic evidence showed that there was no damage done to doors or windows or any sign of a break in.

Ernie says "No. Once again it is based on your choice to disbelieve Nally. "

No it is based on the evidence that Ward was NOT in the house. If Nally says he seen him come from the house, then he either lied or else was delusional Either way it probably explains Nallys decision to not go on the stand where he could be cross examined about that.

Ernie says "It is not countered by forensics. I repeat: abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Ward was a skilled, lifelong burglar. He would make sure that he left no traces."

Yeah right, and thats why he had 80 convictions. he was so skilled in avoiding detection wasnt he? You obviously didnt know ward or you would know that he was of very low intelligence and if you are trying to tell me that he was skilled in dodging forensic evidence, you can go and take a running jump.

And you can repeat it all you want but Ward was not in the house. Forensics would have shown that he was there and the Gardai would hav eloved to have been able to show that. But there was no damage to ANY of th elocks. How did he get in? There were no fingerprints on the doors, windows or elsewhere yet he had no gloves.

Ernie says "Nally has suffered enough. Let him in peace. He didnt go looking for trouble. A psychotic violent, seriel burglar confronted Nally."

Actually again Ernie you are incorect. Even Nally himself admits that it was him that confronted Ward, not the other way around.

Ernie says: "What happened on Nallys farm was not about Travellers it was about criminals who prey on the elderly. Some of these criminals are Settled, some are Travellers."

The second part I agree with. The first part is wrong. Nally has publicly said that he sat waiting for Travellers to come to his farm and was quite obvioulsy obsessed with Travellers and couldnt diferentiaite between one and another. If Ward had not been a traveller but had been a door to door salesman from the settled community Nally would in all likelihood not have shot him.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:18

Patsy

You just keep repeating the same mantra about forensics. You are not a qualified CSI. You are just giving your own opinion. The Gardai themselves did not make the claims that you are making. Unless you have something new to say, I suggest you leave things rest.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 17:15

Patsy
by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:25
"I think you have seen too much CSI, I’m afraid if you ask any forensic expert that the human body doesn’t shed bucket loads of fibres, skin cells, hair follicles, saliva and so simply by walking.

Finger prints are even harder to come by and in any case he didn’t walk in on his hands.

The problem here is the emotive issues and the stigmas that are bandied about as arguement. Without extenuating circumstances, what Nally did was wrong. Introduce those extenuating circumstances and it’s a whole different scenario.

Namely he WAS confronted, by a man who was bigger, fitter and younger. His ethnic background, criminal history or social standing all now becomes irrelevant.

Ward should have stayed off his land."

No - one suggested there would be bucketloads of fibres. But there would be some. There would be fingerprints on the doors. He had no gloves. There was no damage to the locks. Ward wasnt in the house.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 16:51

"Ernie I have never defended any violent criminal. I have not defended ward but unlike yourself I have not defended Nally either."

You keep pointing out that (in your opinion) theres no proof that Ward was in the house or was there to burgle. I defend Nally because he was faced by someone much bigger and 20 years younger than him.

"If he had gone inside, even briefly, there WOULD be fibres, from shoes, clothes, hair etc fingerprints on the door and elsewhere. "

who are you? A Crime Scene Investigator? You dont know what you are talking about.

"There was no damage to any locks etc So Ward WAS NOT in the house."

You are assuming that.

"Therefore Nally either LIED or else was DELUSIONAL. Has to be on or the other as Ward was not in the house."

No. Once again it is based on your choice to disbelieve Nally.

II"ts also interesting that the unsubstantiated word of Nally that Ward was coming from the house which is countered by the forensics"

It is not countered by forensics. I repeat: abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Ward was a skilled, lifelong burglar. He would make sure that he left no traces.

"Nally himself was afraid to take the stand and allow that be challenegd. Why do you think that is?"

Because people have the right to silence. This is a historic right. Do you think this right should be abolished? There have been many manslaughter and murder trials where the defendent did not take the stand. Are you suggesting an inference should be drawn from someone exercising a constitutional right?

Nally has suffered enough. Let him in peace. He didnt go looking for trouble. A psychotic violent, seriel burglar confronted Nally.

You are not doing Travellers any favours. What happened on Nallys farm was not about Travellers it was about criminals who prey on the elderly. Some of these criminals are Settled, some are Travellers.

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 16:25

I think you have seen too much CSI, I’m afraid if you ask any forensic expert that the human body doesn’t shed bucket loads of fibres, skin cells, hair follicles, saliva and so simply by walking.

Finger prints are even harder to come by and in any case he didn’t walk in on his hands.

The problem here is the emotive issues and the stigmas that are bandied about as arguement. Without extenuating circumstances, what Nally did was wrong. Introduce those extenuating circumstances and it’s a whole different scenario.

Namely he WAS confronted, by a man who was bigger, fitter and younger. His ethnic background, criminal history or social standing all now becomes irrelevant.

Ward should have stayed off his land.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 16:11

Ernie says "You have plenty of time on your hands to defend a violent serial buglar. Spend some time reading about their victims."

Ernie I have never defended any violent criminal. I have not defended ward but unlike yourself I have not defended Nally either.

Ernie says "Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. You have been watching too much CSI, If ward had taken a quick look inside there wouldnt necessarily be fibres etc."

If he had gone inside, even briefly, there WOULD be fibres, from shoes, clothes, hair etc fingerprints on the door and elsewhere. There was no damage to any locks etc So Ward WAS NOT in the house. Therefore Nally either LIED or else was DELUSIONAL. Has to be on or the other as Ward was not in the house.

I said: "So if Nally said he seen Ward coming out of his house, he was either lying or delusional."

Ernie said "Thats your opinion. It is unsupported. But it does show whose side you are on. And its not the side of elderly people living alone."

See above. It is supported by the lack of forensic evidence. Ward was not in the house. If he was forensics would easily have proven that. It does show what side I am on. The side of Justice, not the side of Ward or Nally.

Its also interesting that the unsubstantiated word of Nally that Ward was coming from the house which is countered by the forensics is taken by so many people, yet Nally himself was afraid to take the stand and allow that be challenegd. Why do you think that is?

by ballslikecoconuts Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:46

If nally had let ward walk off after instead of firing that last fatal shot do people think Ward would have left him alone from there on in? Years of torment and Nally had the chance to finish it once and for all. He was the dead man if he left ward off to return when he pleased.

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:32

"You are wrong. "

No I'm not. We disagree.

"The Gardai found no evidence that Ward was in the house. Both Ward and the house woud be covered in fibres lnking Ward to the house if he had been in it. Fingerprints would also have been found as he wasnt wearing gloves. "

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. You have been watching too much CSI, If ward had taken a quick look inside there wouldnt necessarily be fibres etc.

"So if Nally said he seen Ward coming out of his house, he was either lying or delusional."

Thats your opinion. It is unsupported. But it does show whose side you are on. And its not the side of elderly people living alone.

"he didnt enter Nallys house and secondly and I never said I beleived Ward was there for innocent reasons. He maybeen, he may not have been. I dont know what his purpose there was. I dont know if he was there to rob the house or not. There is no evidence either way to suggest."

Its your opinion that he didnt enter the house. Going on Wards previous convictions I would suggest that there is a strong possibility that he was there to burgle the house.

"There is no evidecne that Ward ever charged him. Was Nally bruised or injured by this? All we have is Nallys word and as I said earlier, he either lied or was delsuional about seeign Ward come outof his house so how can he be believed about this."

No. You claim he lied about Ward being in the house, thats your opinion and itys only an opinion. The crime scene established that Ward moved towards Nally after he was first shot.

"Ernie says "A jury has decided he should not be jailed."

I know. Its a disgrace that a cold blooded killer like him walks free."

No. A jury of his peers have found Nally innocent. What do you want?

"Ernie says "Yet you still choose to demonise Nally."

I dont demonise him. But I think justice should have been done and he should have been sent to jail for this unjustifiable cold blooded killing. "

You are calling him a cold blooded killer, you are calling him a liar. Yo will not acknowledge that he was defending himself against a much bigger, much younger man.

"There is no evidence that Ward ever robbed Nally or was involved in any killing like you imply. Where did this killing take place and when?"

I didnt say that Ward was involved in the killing but I wouldnt be suprised if had previously robbed Nally. Burglaries in the area ceased after Wards death. as for the killings, I suggest you do some research. You have plenty of time on your hands to defend a violent serial buglar. Spend some time reading about their victims.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 15:17

Ernie says "But what makes you think that Nally lied? What evidence do you have? Seeing as you have no evidence your second sentence is irrelevant."

You are wrong. The Gardai found no evidence that Ward was in the house. Both Ward and the house woud be covered in fibres lnking Ward to the house if he had been in it. Fingerprints would also have been found as he wasnt wearing gloves. So if Nally said he seen Ward coming out of his house, he was either lying or delusional.

Ernie says:

"There is no evidence that Nally lied. "

See above

Ernie says "You choose to believe that Ward had an innocent purpose for being on the farm and entering Nallys house."

See above - he didnt enter Nallys house and secondly and I never said I beleived Ward was there for innocent reasons. He maybeen, he may not have been. I dont know what his purpose there was. I dont know if he was there to rob the house or not. There is no evidence either way to suggest.

Ernie says " But if you were sixty years old and were charged by a 42 year old who you had already wounded then you or I might go over the top as well."

There is no evidecne that Ward ever charged him. Was Nally bruised or injured by this? All we have is Nallys word and as I said earlier, he either lied or was delsuional about seeign Ward come outof his house so how can he be believed about this.

Ernie says "A jury has decided he should not be jailed."

I know. Its a disgrace that a cold blooded killer like him walks free.

Ernie says "Yet you still choose to demonise Nally."

I dont demonise him. But I think justice should have been done and he should have been sent to jail for this unjustifiable cold blooded killing.

Ernie says " I base this on Wards past convictions, previous burglaries on Nallys farm and on the fact that two old people had been beaten to death by burglars at a farm nearby a few years before."

There is no evidence that Ward ever robbed Nally or was involved in any killing like you imply. Where did this killing take place and when?

by Ernie O'Malley Fri Dec 15, 2006 14:56

"Nally may have said that - but there was no evidence to back that up, forensic or otherwise. If Nally lied about that, how can anything of what he said be believed?"

But what makes you think that Nally lied? What evidence do you have? Seeing as you have no evidence your second sentence is irrelevant.

"However, even if that was true (which there is no evidence to suggest it is) "

There is no evidence that Nally lied. You choose to believe that Ward had an innocent purpose for being on the farm and entering Nallys house. I choose to believe Nally because he comes across as an honest man who only wished to be left alone.

"it does not justify Nally going away and re loading his weapon following a seriously injured man (already shot and severely beaten by Nally) trying to crawl away, and shooting that man in the back from close range kiling him."

I believe that Nally probably went too far. But he was a man living in fear. His actions were not those of a rational man. But if you were sixty years old and were charged by a 42 year old who you had already wounded then you or I might go over the top as well.

"That is unjustifiable. It is cold blooded and he should have been jailed for that. "

A jury has decided he should not be jailed.

"That is not defending his property as some people suggest."

No, Nally thought he was defending his life.

"Again let me repeat that Nally knew nothing of this man or his convictions. he knew nothing whether this was a violent man or not."

But we know it. We know that Ward was a seriel burglar who had 80 convictions. He was bare knuckle fighter, he attacked his enemies with swords. We know that he threatened gardai with slasg hooks. We know that he regularly beat his wife.

Yet you still choose to demonise Nally.

No, Nally did not know that Ward was a violent psychotic criminal. But he could see that Ward was 20 years younger than him and much bigger than him. He could observe that Ward charged towards him after being wounded.

Ward should not be seen as a traveller. He should be seen as a criminal who was in all likelihood out to rob and beat and pussibly kill an elderly person who was living alone. I base this on Wards past convictions, previous burglaries on Nallys farm and on the fact that two old people had been beaten to death by burglars at a farm nearby a few years before.

Its not just travellers who carry out these attacks. Settled people from cities, especially from Dublin also do it. It doesnt matter if they are Settled or Travellers, Black or White, Immigrant or Native. Whoever does this is a lumpen criminal and an enemy of all ordinary people.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 14:23

Observer "Apologies for my earlier post. I did take you up wrongly. I am certainly not gloating or celebrating Ward's death but I am pleased that Nally was acquitted. And I certainly do not see any equivalence between Nally defending his own home (and he did say he saw Ward come out of the back door) and a criminal who was clearly there for no good."

Nally may have said that - but there was no evidence to back that up, forensic or otherwise. If Nally lied about that, how can anything of what he said be believed?

However, even if that was true (which there is no evidence to suggest it is) it does not justify Nally going away and re loading his weapon following a seriously injured man (already shot and severely beaten by Nally) trying to crawl away, and shooting that man in the back from close range kiling him. That is unjustifiable. It is cold blooded and he should have been jailed for that. That is not defending his property as some people suggest.

Again let me repeat that Nally knew nothing of this man or his convictions. he knew nothing whether this was a violent man or not.

by observer Fri Dec 15, 2006 14:16

Apologies for my earlier post. I did take you up wrongly. I am certainly not gloating or celebrating Ward's death but I am pleased that Nally was acquitted. And I certainly do not see any equivalence between Nally defending his own home (and he did say he saw Ward come out of the back door) and a criminal who was clearly there for no good.

by Stuart Fri Dec 15, 2006 13:31

Quote: Ninety seconds later it was all over. In ninety seconds he shot a man, broke his arm and his nose, beat him to within an inch of his life opening his scalp to the skull in eight seperate places, wandered to the shed, found the shells, reloaded, returned, found Ward had escaped, chased him down the road and shot him from point-blank range while Ward was on his hands and knees, then threw his body over the ditch?

That's one fast-moving 62-year-old.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:18

I never suggested ward is atypical of travellers. He is not. I knew the man personally and know exactly what sort of man he was. Nally, on the other hand, did not know him or what sort of person he was, yet still decided to kill him in cold blood.

Nally has killed. He is clearly a threat to people he doesnt know. I would not fancy being a door to door salesman that tries to sell nally something or a census numerater or local council official doing the electoral register or someone carrying out a survey in the local area. Once they enter Nally's land they are fair game and he can always claim he was terrified for his life again after he kills them.

Then again, I suppose Nally will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He may never know when his retribution is about to be served on him for this killing. Maybe thats a fitting enough punishment for this killer?

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:08

Nally was not a career criminal so your point is moot.

Nally did what he did to protect himself insofar as he saw it. he did not nor will he intimidate anybody, your suggesting so is puerile.

My experience with Travelors is that they by and large stick to them selves. But they have career criminals amongst them who actively use intimidation as a weapon.
Its this lot who take over pubs and terrorise publicans and the elderly and extort where they can. Fuelled by the misconception that they are a displaced people, force onto the road and the decsendants of the evicted Irish during the famine.

To suggest Ward is atypical of the traveling community is as simplistic as saying Nally is as representative as old west gun-slinger. Simply not the case.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:54

Longford Utd Says that "Live by the sword etc etc."

So I assume you would have no problem if someone decided to shoot and kill Nally. Live by the sword etc etc and all that.

Anyway, considering that he is a self confessed killer, anyone would now be justified in being terrirfied of him in case he might be at the "end of his thether" and surely shooting him before he gets the chance to kill again would be justified, would it not?.

by Longford Utd Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:19

Lets be clear about this, there is no such thing as anti-traveler racism. There is anti-traveler discrimination.

Racism does not apply here because travelers are white Irish people with the same genetic groupings that are indigenous to this island.

Ward was not some intimidated timid wee cratur, he was a well built career criminal, well known in the area as pre-disposed to violence.

Nally shot him and made sure he was dead to ensure no reprisals from this man. If Ward had not being on his land playing on the isolation of it, scouting the potential haul from a later more nefarious visit, he would be alive and well. Live by the sword etc etc.

by deselby Fri Dec 15, 2006 09:33

Nally had defended his property when he fired the first shot. He then went ahead and tried 'finish' Ward off by beating him around the head. When that didn't work, we walked back to his kitchen, reloaded, walked backed out, stood over Ward - who was crawling away from Nally's house - and executed him. Reasonable force by arse. The guy's nuts.

by Patsy Fri Dec 15, 2006 00:07

codswallop: "Ah yes sounds like a serial killer every bit as dangerous as those psychopaths running around with impunity in Dublin these days."

No it doesnt. But hes now living freely in Mayo, free to shoot the next traveller that he takes a notion to whack. Sure he can claim again that he felt threatened cant he? So what if theres no evidence, they are only travellers, right?

by Mary Thu Dec 14, 2006 23:49

Is this world a safer and better place without John Ward ? This man was a dangerous and violent criminal and would have robbed or killed Mr Nally had he not got there first. Ward was intending to rob this man, he didnt deserve to die for it but live by the sword etc.. And as for the grieving widow, if the papers are correct has his grieving widow not remarried already ?

by deselby Thu Dec 14, 2006 23:11

yep.like those Dublin killers, Lally reloaded. didn't shoot a plumber, though.

by cods wallop Thu Dec 14, 2006 22:35

"the killer was released. and back on the streets to kill again"

Ah yes sounds like a serial killer every bit as dangerous as those psychopaths running around with impunity in Dublin these days.

by Patsy Thu Dec 14, 2006 22:01

No Dr Bill, the killer was released. and back on the streets to kill again the next time he loses the head.

Wouldnt like to be going door to door doing the electoral register down his area.

Justice was not done. Presume its now open season.

by Dr Bill Thu Dec 14, 2006 21:21

Justice..at last.

by Bean Ros Thu Oct 12, 2006 21:37

I'm glad that self-defence will be permitted to be taken into account by the jury in the re-trial, it is amazing that a Judge would dismiss the element of self-defence. It was Nally's struggle to defend himself and his possessions from attack that drove him to do what he did. Nally wasn't a man that was used to killing people, and no doubt he didn't mean to, but if someone chooses to enter another person's home or outbuildings, premises etc., without the owner's permission to rob and threaten, they must realise that they too can be attacked, and face substantial threat and may come off the worse for it, despite back-up support being brought with him.

I have zero tolerance for people who rob someone who lives on their own in an isolated part of rural Ireland, you have to be someone with extremely low moral standards to do something like that. If I were Pádraig Nally and had a gun in my possession and saw two burly men wandering about the back of my house uninvited and knew them to have a history of violence and robbery, I too would get my gun out. In saying that, Nally was wrong by shooting that man to death, he obviously went too far, it would have been better if he fired warning shots, but it is all very well saying that, but in the heat of the moment everything looks very different and the person's reasoning is not at its best when your faced with such an unexpected and threatening situation.

Maybe some good will come out of it, and elderly people's safety in rural Ireland will be looked into more or maybe they should all be issued with devices to protect themselves from those who choose to threaten and rob them, after all they can't be depending on the nearest An Garda Síochána station, which is unmanned for most of the day, with an automated answering machine, and about thirty or more miles away.

by Reporter Thu Oct 12, 2006 16:01

"One shot is self defence, reload and a second shot is murder!"

Even the original jury said it was manslaughter. That verdict has now been quashed because the jury was not allowed to consider the plea of self defence. You might think it was murder but the 12 jurers in the original trial and the 3 judges in the appeal court would disagree with you.

by observer Thu Oct 12, 2006 15:59

If Frog hadn't decided to rob what he thought was a defenceless old man he would not have been shot at all, not even once.

Just as a matter of interest if a crocodile was making for you would you just fire one shot and then allow him to eat you if that was not enough to stop him in his tracks?

by Aidan Kennedy - Donaghmede / Dublin North East Thu Oct 12, 2006 15:56

One shot is self defence, reload and a second shot is murder!

by observer Thu Oct 12, 2006 14:49

Great news. Hopefully the defence of self-defence will be vindicated.

by Reporter Thu Oct 12, 2006 14:38

Court quashes Nally manslaughter conviction

11:27 The Court of Criminal appeal has quashed the manslaughter conviction against Co Mayo farmer Pádraig Nally over the shooting dead of a man at his farm in 2004, and has ordered that he be retried. Mr Nally (62), was appealing his conviction for the manslaughter of John "Frog" Ward (42), a member of the Travelling community and a father of 11. The court said the jury were denied the opportunity to return a verdict of not guilty in the trial.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1012/ind...64252

by Travlerr Sun Jan 22, 2006 22:12

Ward was not arrested because he is a traveller ,and they simply have more rights than the rest of Irish tax paying law abiding citizens.If the Gaurds "harrass "them they immediately claim oppression,racism,etc.

by curious Sat Jan 21, 2006 16:18

Why hadn't the Guards bothered to arrest Ward for his outstanding convictions?

He should have been in jail at the time this occurred.

by zero to hero - Free the farmers Fri Jan 20, 2006 23:45

First of all Miley from glenroe will play padraig and blackey conners also from glenroe will play as the "the frog". Apparently Paris hilton is requesting to play the love interest as shes hoping to clean out the slated sheds and dose the sheep in her short skirt and thongs. The twist of the movie is when padraig walks in on paris and "the ward" rollng around in the hay shed. In this film he has a double barrel shot gun so he wont need to reload and waist time.

by lynchmob Wed Jan 18, 2006 20:42

I've heard that they're getting Kevin Costner to play Nally in the movie version, with Willem Dafoe as Ward. Julia Roberts shows up as the love interest. I think they want Indymedia for the crowd scene when Nally walks free after winning his case with a computer-animated Gregory Peck as his lawyer. The final scene is Nally holding his shotgun over his head and shouting 'FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS' while the band plays 'Amhrán na bhFiann.' Costner then levitates over Glasnevin and brings back the dead blueshirt generations who build an eighty foot wall around the shores of Ireland to keep out the Latvians.

by the nally stand (croke park) - free the farmers Wed Jan 18, 2006 19:33

get ur facts right.....
you dont know wat the fuck you're talkin' bout.
nallys a hero an absolute living legend, the man was being tormented by the travellers for ages. i love nally, i love him, nothin but respect, i have the little figurines of him and the figurines of the livestock and farmyard,its class, and nally will get the christmas number one in 2006 when he re-releases "eye of the tiger" for the new rocky film what a voice, what a voice, it makes my legs weak

by mayoman Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:26

Ward was attempting to rob Nally. Nally was defending himself. If Ward had not been a robbing low life he would still be alive. If the Gardai were doing their job, Ward would be alive and where he belonged - prison.

by Westie Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:12

"Secondly he was given a long sentence for taking steps to defend himself."

Standing over somebody you have just beaten to pulp and emptying your barrel is not self defence. It was murder not manslaughter.

by mayoman Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:05

Ward is the one who ought to have been in jail as he had two bench warrants against him. The Gardai were remiss in not having taken him into custody. Nally has been mis-served by the justice system twice. First, his intended attacker Ward ought to have been locked up. Secondly he was given a long sentence for taking steps to defend himself.

by lynchmob Wed Jan 11, 2006 01:52

I just wish people would stick to the facts. Lord knows this case is emotive enough without the facts going on a bender. Nally's manslaughter of Ward wasn't a 3 second affair, unless, of course, you can shoot a man, beat him up to 20 times around the head, walk back to your house, reload your gun, walk back out and walk up to him while he's crawling/limping away and shoot him again, this time from behind, in 3 seconds. I have genuine sympathy for anyone who is caught in a split-second dilemma. the Nally case isn't one of them, and that is why he is in jail.

by Ray Tue Jan 10, 2006 15:09 fastlaneray at eircom dot net 087-2580724

I was alway's told that two wrong's never made a right...my thought's are with Mr Nally i was in the same situation a few week's ago and only for i hadn't a gun i would prob be in jail too...i was robbed by 4 thug's with sledghammer's,crowbar's and a shotgun...this happend at 3.30 in the morning ,im lucky i alive- but i ask the question....what should i have done? Should i have faced them up like i did or should i have just let them run riot..you have 3 seconds to make your mind up...im glad i faced them up,and if it happen's again i'll do the same...if more people stood up to these guy's ,they might think twice before they break in to somebody else...i think people should be able to defend their property.....if sombody step's on to it without invitation or to provoke confrontation...then they leave themself's open to the result !

by Reader Mon Dec 05, 2005 14:50

What Judge Paul Carney had to say today:

"What it comes down to in this circumstance is that I am asked for leave to appeal as far as conviction is concerned to satisfy on the basis that the jury were not consciously and deliberately provided with the infrastructure to bring in a perverse verdict.
"I don't believe that I could look Mrs Ward and her 11 children in the face and say that."

by R. Isible Mon Nov 28, 2005 05:17

QUOTE: Shoot-to-kill
Fine Gael Chief Whip Paul Kehoe told a public meeting in Bunclody recently that if he was Pádraig Nally he would have done exactly the very same thing.
The Wexford TD was speaking about the incident in which Mayo farmer Pádraig Nally shot dead John Ward.

by Martin Whelan Sun Nov 27, 2005 22:08 faha Patrickswell Limerick. 087 2193791

Senator Higgins was blaming the Gardai for not executing the Warrants against Mr Ward, on Questions and Answers programme, saying if they did Mr Ward would be alive to day, we all know Mr Higgins is on the Anti Garda band wagon.
Who detected all the previous detections against Mr Ward.
It is the Judges I would blame for not giving him a lengthy jail sentance, and for giving him bail and while he was on bail to continue his activity.
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE.

by lynchmob Thu Nov 24, 2005 19:38

Nobody is arguing against the fundamental human right to protect oneself. Nally was convicted because he surpassed that right and killed Ward. In fairness, I think I am reading what you are saying, and I think we agree on a lot more than not. What Nally knew about Ward's past was the same as what everyone else knew about it - that is, nothing until after he was dead. The slash hooks and bench warrants weren't the reason why Nally reloaded, because he didn't know about them. I'm firmly convinced that there is nothing in this trial to warrant a change in the law. Nally didn't break the law when he protected himself and his property, he broke it when he reloaded. In fact, even the killing of Ward itself wouldn't have gotten him convcted if Ward had died with the first shot. What this trial says to me anyway, is that you can protect your property, you can even fire your gun, but you can't follow them up the path and finish them off. That's going too far. And if you do that, you will go to jail. And I'm much worse than a socialist, I'm a mixed-economy, namby-pamby, slippers under the bed, social democrat,

by Watcher Thu Nov 24, 2005 19:19

Its got nothing to do with Ward being a Traveller. Why not read what i actually wrote in my previous comments. Settled people also prey on the elderly in rural areas. Nally had a right to defend himself from a burglar who was attacking him. He should not have killed him.

I take it you are a Socialist. Would you not accept that ordinary people have the right to defend themselves from attack by lumpen elements, regardless of whether these lumpen elements are from the settled or Travelling community.?

by lynchmob Thu Nov 24, 2005 19:11

This is starting to go circular. Ward wasn't killed by the first shooting, he wasn't killed by the beating around the head, he was killed by the shot to the back, and it was on that second, fatal, shooting that he was convicted because the jury just weren't convinced that at that stage Ward posed a threat to Nally. now we have the psycotic Ward argument, that Nally probably finished him off because Ward had a history of violence and was sure to come back and kill him. That information about Ward that only came out at the trial and could not have possibly influenced Nally's actions because he did not know Ward, nor anything about him. He did know, or would have had a good guess anyway, that Ward was a traveller, but sure as everyone knows, this isn't about Ward being a traveller now, is it?

by Watcher Thu Nov 24, 2005 18:55

Nally did say he felt threatened. That it was either Ward or him. He had reason to fear for his life. Three elderly people had been beaten to death in the area by burglers. I dont think Ward deserved to die but Ward was there to burgle the house. He might well have killed Nally. Martin Collins of Pavee Point accepts that the Wards were up to no good. If you had been confronted by someone of Wards height, build and demeanour who was charging towards you, even you might have fired to protect yourself.

by lynchmob Thu Nov 24, 2005 18:34

But Nally didn't know any of that when he killed him. All of that only came out in the trial and was used as an after the fact way of saying that Nally, somehow, was doing society a favour. All Nally knew was that Ward was on his property. At no point did Nally say that he felt his life was threatened by Ward, and yet he still killed him.

by Watcher Thu Nov 24, 2005 18:30

You are not making sense. You have not dealt with the points I raised above. Ward had a long history of violence and was a seial burglar. He was psychotic: he was hearing voices telling him to kill people. This is from medical evidence that was revealed at the trial.

by lynchmob Thu Nov 24, 2005 00:32

Nally hit Ward up to 20 times in the head AFTER he had already shot him once. Nally said that Ward 'was like a badger, you could hit him, but you could not kill him.' It was after he had shot him, shoved him into a bed of nettles, hit him 20 times in the head with a two foot stick, and after Ward had crawled away from Nally's house that Nally went back in to his house, reloaded his gun, and shot Ward AGAIN, this time killing him and dunping his body over a wall. Now, Nally did not know Ward's form, his criminal history, the slash hook, the medication he was on, none of these things, and yet to read your comments you would have us believe that somehow Ward had been stalking Nally for years, and this shooting was the final, tragic, outcome of a history of violence and intimidation between a lonely defenceless farmerand a vicous, evil, angry man. It wasn't. Nally, who had spent months brooding on the chances of being robbed again, came across someone who was certainly acting suspiciously - and I don't know if I'm breaking any libel laws here but yeah, Ward was more than likely casing Nally's house out - and he f**king killed him. Now, Nally didn't know Ward so Nally sentenced him to death at that moment based on Ward being at the back of his house trying to get in. No slash hooks. No guards getting beaten up. No other red herrings. Nally saw an unarmed man trying to get into his house. He shot him and beat him around the head with a two foot stick, and when that wasn't enough, he reloaded and finally killed him. Nally then dumped the body over a wall, before going to a neighbour's house and subsequently confessing all to the guards. And the saddest part of all of this, the hardest to deal with, is the fact that Nally is not a bad man, and Ward, for all his crimes, wasn't a murderer. Yet, Ward is dead, Nally is in jail, and Fine Gael see a seat or two in it all.

by Rerra Wed Nov 23, 2005 23:42

I had to post another comment here to get it off my chest!

There is this assumption, reading some of the posts above, and indeed the verdict delivered in the Nally case also strongly send out this message, which is that it is acceptable to use reasonable force to protect yourself at the time of a crime if you consider that you are in danger.

In the case of Mr. Nally, it was acceptable in law for him to use his shotgun to injure Mr. Ward on the first occasion. When Mr. Ward attempted to flee, the danger had passed and no more force was considered reasonable. The problem for Mr. Nally, in relation to him being found guilty of manslaughter, appears to be based on the fact that after Mr. Ward was fleeing, Mr. Nally then reloaded his gun and shot him again, killing him.

The judicary would appear to have the view that after Mr. Ward was shot on the first occasion and was trying to flee from Mr. Nally's farm, that had Mr. Nally approached the Gardai and made a formal complaint, that the Gardai would take the matter from there and that Mr. Nally would from that point in time forward, be "reasonably" safe from any harm that Mr. Ward might wish to visit upon him.

I think this assumption is highly questionable for many reasons, the most valid and obvious reason being that there were 4 bench warrants out for the arrest of Mr. ward at the time of this incident. This failure to act on the authority of no less than 4 bench warrants demonstrates an utter failure on the part of the Gardai to take responsibility for the safety of Mr. Nally, or indeed any person who could have been a victim of the crimes undertaken by Mr. Ward.

If Mr. Nally could not rely upon the Gardai to keep him reasonably safe from criminals like Mr. Ward, well then who can he rely upon??? Is there another state agency that he could have phoned and said, "look, the gardai are too busy, or maybe they don't give a shit about me and my problem, could you guys intervene here and put the matter right???" EH NO!!!!

When we lose faith in the justice system, all sorts of things go wrong, as can be seen here. If we cannot accept that the Gardai and the judicary can deal speedily and effectively with scum and thugs who shit all over the rest of us, well then peole start looking inwards and looking for protection in the only place that they can find it.

It is clear that when the Gardai failed in every way possible to protect Mr. Nally, he chose to rely upon himself and given the circumstances, I can't say I would have done any differently myself, and this would have nothing to do with the "status" of the person, meaning whether they were a traveller or a settled person, as is discussed at length in this forum.

What is being overlooked here is the failure on the part of the authoritries to deal with Mr. Ward, and there are many Mr. Wards walking the streets tonight with a criminal record the length of the M50, settled and travelling Mr. Wards I should add, who should be serving seriously long prison sentences, so that the rest of us can live in peace.

Rerra.

by Watcher Wed Nov 23, 2005 20:08

Its difficult to believe that the Wards were there to buy scrap. Even Martin Collins of Pavee Point said that the Wards were up to no good on Q&A on Monday. Martin was arguing that Ward shouldnt have been killed (I agree) and that some were using the incident to whip up anti Traveller sentimement (I agree).

Ward was no normal tresspasser, he was a violent psychotic who engaged in sword fights with his enemies, he had recently attacked a Garda with a slash hook, he was hearing voices telling him to kill people, he had threatened to kill his wife on numerous occasions. He was a seial burglar with a criminal record stretching back 30 years.

I believe that Ward broke into the house, you dont. I believe that when Nally was confronted by Ward he had to shoot him to save his own life. Even after that WArd attacked him. Nally then beat Ward with a stick. Where Nally overstepped the mark was when he shot Ward as he was retreating.

I dont think this is about Travellers. Gangs from the settled community from Darndale and Tallaght also target elderly people in rural areas. Its wrong for settled people to do this and its wrong for Travellers to do it.

Travellers are not saints.
Settled people are not saints.
The Irish are not saints.
Nigerians are not saints.

Every community has its evil ones. Ward was evil and deranged. He did not deserve to die but he brought it on himself.

by Leon (personal capacity) Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:57

Noel Said:
Therefore. the issue should be about the first shot and not the fatal shot. Is it reasonable to kill an intruder in your home? I would say yes.

Ward wasn't in Nally's home; so it doesn't arise.

by mnmn Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:29

Pity McDo-ill does not apply that logic to his governments dealings with the Bushites.

by Me Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:26

Jaysus I agree with Uber McDowell.

The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, has said no one should have the right, having shot and beaten someone, to 'hunt them and finish them off'.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 14:29

This case has been an absolute tragedy for both sides, but I cannot see how relaxing the law to allow anyone kill anyone on their property by citing 'fear and panic' will in any way avert more tragedies in the future.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 14:24

Hi Noel, here's a website that you might find handy.

http://www.finegael.ie/Join.cfm/level/page/aID/152/CatName/Join_Fine_Gael.html

by mayoman Wed Nov 23, 2005 14:23

I have no doubt but that what you are saying about certain people using the traveller angle is spot on. Didn't see Q and A but can well imagine that the likes of Higgins will milk this, especially given that he will possibly be running again in the gneral elections.

As I said, I am coming at this from the angle of beleiving that a person does have the right to defend themselves, and would concur with Noel's last comment. I accept that the circumstances of Ward's death go beyond what most people beleive constitute self defence but then there are the factors Noel refers to; Nally's frame of mind, the chance of retaliation etc.

by Noel Wed Nov 23, 2005 14:11

Well Joe, had Mr Nally allowed John Ward to escape injured what would have happened then?
It's conjecture obviously, but what are the chances of Ward returning with a slash hook or a sword to kill Padraig Nally?.

The fact that John Ward was injured by Mr Nally leaves very little room for any other conclusion than John Ward would retaliate. With his record of violence that would mean Mr Nally's life was in danger.

Therefore. the issue should be about the first shot and not the fatal shot. Is it reasonable to kill an intruder in your home? I would say yes.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 14:07

I'm sorry to keep on harping back to this, but as the judge said, once Ward was already wounded and crawling away from the house, the issue of Nally being under threat - at that moment - had ceased. Nally had already defended both himself and his property before he went back into house, picked up more shells, reloaded, walked back out, stood over a crawling Ward and shot him in the back. The point you keep on making that Nally had a right to defend both himself and his property is a valid one, and is one that Nally himself invalidated once he reloaded that gun. Now, Nally took Ward's life from him. That's a hell of a thing to do to any man, and now Nally is paying the price for that, and I'm certainly not going to downplay the effect that six years in prison will have for a man of 61. The wider issue of policing in rural communites is one that needs to be tackled, but this case is a very blunt tool to be using. More seriously - and please believe me when I say that I do not include you in this - it is a sad fact but there are votes out there for saying that people have a right to kill travellers who break into their homes, regardless of the level of theat, and judging by senator Jim Higgins' performance on Questions and Answers they are votes that Fine Gael think are worth chasing. This discussion board itself contains comments that Ward got what was coming to him, and Fine Gael want to tap into that emotional and irrational response in order to get a couple of first preferences. No-one in this country, not even the state, has the right to kill anyone unless it be under self-defence. That did not apply with the Nally case. He reloaded.

by Joe Black Wed Nov 23, 2005 13:52

If reloading to shoot a wounded man on the ground is not an example of "where that defence might go a bit too far" then what would be?

by Mayoman Wed Nov 23, 2005 13:37

I am not saying that there are not lots of people who are prejudiced against travellers. Or that this has not coloured both their reactions to the Nally case, and the way in which the case has been put across. Maybe I am underestimating it in my own perception, which is absolutely in no way influenced by the fact that Ward was a traveller. I do, however, strongly feel that when someone uses force against another person who is out to do them harm - and I have no doubt but that Ward was - that they are entitled to defend themselves, and to the benefit of the doubt where that defence might go a bit too far. And I don't beleive that if the same thing had happened in Dublin that the reaction would have been any different. Granted the traveller element would not have been there, but I think people would have the same feeling regarding someone who did the same as Nally to a house-breaker in the city.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 13:06

As the judge made clear, Nally had passed defending himself when Ward was on the ground, wounded, and crawling away from Nally's house. The speculation is that Nally shot Ward again because he thought Ward would come back and kill him. Speculation I know, but the argument is that Nally got his retaliation in first. And the shout goes up: understandable. Now that's gun law, and if, as a society, we want to go down that road, we better bring a heap of ifs and buts with us because we are going to need them, because that argument will be used by other people in different circumstances where the issue is even less of a self-defense case than this one. And the newspapers, talk-shows, phone-ins, discussion boards, bus queues, taxi drivers, and hair salons have yet to mention this case WITHOUT bringing up the fact that Ward was a traveller. Well over half of Questions and Answers was taken up with the responsibilites that travellers have to get on with the settled community, at one point it discussed whether travellers constitute a different community or not - as if it was a one-way path, totally their responsibility, not involving our own settled communities with our own preconceived ideas of people who we have almost no contact with other than through confrontatinal situations, such as house break-ins and illegal sites. Now, a traveller is killed while crawling away from the house he was breaking into having been shot already, and on Questions and Answers the discussion moved onto the responsibilites that travellers have to the settled community. National ariwaves, national tv programme, with a government minister and a government minister hopeful on the panel, and some of those people using this killing to discuss the wider issue of travellers in Ireland, and yet you maintain that this is not about travellers? That is incredulous. and the argument that if it was a Dub criminal that Nally had shot twice, the second time fatally, after reloading, it would still be ok is a ruse because the argument is that he shot Ward because he feared for his life. Now, what if the person he shot was innocent, the fact that he feared for his life, as a legal argument, would still stand, and in that case, under what people are advocating, he would get off. It is not ok to shoot someone in the back while they are crawling away from your house. The argument that you are living under panic and fear makes it ok is a dangerous one, as is the barrage about Ward being a traveller and somehow using this trial as a benchmark to how the settled community should treat them.

by Leon (personal capacity) Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:39

There had been one burglary from Nally's house, a chainsaw was stolen from inside the house.

Any other losses were from sheds, they shouldn't be compared with theft from his house.

As for the trespassing argument, get fucking real, are you saying I can shoot anyone who shows up at my door?

Why is it hard to believe that the Wards were looking to buy scrap?

Ward should have been in jail or more likely in a mental hospital , but what pisses me off is that the people who think that Nally should be let off completely are the same people who bang on about law and order. You can't have it both ways.

Also when Padraig Nally's family figured out he was going mad why didn't they do something about it.

Will Nally be transferred to Dundrum?

by mayoman Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:21

I don't beleive that the fact Ward was a traveller is the issue and I don't beleive that people's attitudes would be different had the same thing happened in Dublin involving a criminal from the settled community. I think the main reason why Nally has gotten such support is that people feel genuinely helpless in the face of, often, violent criminals and understand why Nally reacted as he did. Of course what he did was excessive but understandable in my view. And the bottom line is that he was in his home defending himself. He was not out roaming the countryside looking for victims.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:55

I am not being sarcastic at all. In fact, I'm being quite serious. The way I see it is that if Nally had gotten off with this shooting, it would have sent out a very clear message that it's ok to kill travellers. The fact that Ward was a serial criminal is not the issue - although there are strong attempts, and successful ones at at, to make it the issue - but rather as a society do we think that if you are in your house and a traveller breaks in, is it ok to go that extra step and kill them? Remember, Nally was convicted because he reloaded, not because he was protecting his property - the first shots and the beatings had already protected whatever material possessions he had. The judge made it very clear that the reason why he was not allowing a self-defense argument into the case is down to the fact that Nally reloaded. The wider issue - is that ok to reload and shoot someone in the back - is what the trial was about, although to read the press and this comment board it is the issue that has been lost. Once the debate moves away from the reloading issue, it DOES become one of whether you loves yer travellers or not. Nally shot Ward in the back, on the ground, like f**king dog. In the agitated state of mind he was in - staying up all night with a loaded shotgun by his side - God help you if your car broke down near his house. As I said, once the issue moves away from reloading it is IMPOSSIBLE not to turn it into whether travellers have what's coming to them or not, because people hear what happened and they immediately think 'Well, Ward shouldn't have parked down by the school, or messed up our GAA pitches, or stole the garage I work in' or whatever other thoughts enter people's heads when they hear the word: Traveller.

by mayoman Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:25

I take it you are attempting to be sarcastic. I neither love nor hate "travellers", no more than I love or hate Mayo people or Dubs or Protestants. I know individual travellers who I consider friends. I know others who are dangerous bastards. Much the same mixture as you find in any group. The merits or sins of one do not reflect on the rest of them.

by lynchmob Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:51

i loves ma travellers... loves dem... Great rhythm too...

by mayoman Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:33

Excellent post. As for Lie Detector, as I said previously I simply have no comprehension of the mentality of a person like you who instinctively jumps to the defence of scum like Ward. And by the way, lest you accuse me of anti-traveller prejudice, I have spoken to a number of travellers who knew Ward (one is a former victim of his in fact) and they are not sorry to see the back of him. A nasty piece of work, and one who had he had the chance would have subjected Padraig Nally to god only knows what. Thankfully Nally got there first. Good riddance.

by Watcher Tue Nov 22, 2005 22:42

There had been four burgalaries at the farm. Do you really believe that the Wards were there to buy scrap? If so why would they trespass on the land and why would Ward snr go around the back of the house?

I dont think Ward should have been killed but in the circumstances I have more sympathy for Nally. Ward was psychotic, his doctors have admitted this. If Nally had not shot him he would likely have been killed. I think this is a fair assumption given Wards record for violence. Nally should not have shot Ward in the back when he was retreating. But given his frame of mind, a frame of mind created by FOUR previous burglaries it was understanable.

If Ward had kept away from the Nally farm he would still be alive.

by Rerra... Tue Nov 22, 2005 20:44

Can I suggest that a point is being overlooked in relation to this matter. A major part of the problem appears to be that the types of crimes that Mr. Ward had previously engaged are not considered to be "real" crimes by the Gardai and the rest of us.

The man had 4 bench warrants issued for his arrest but he was such a low priority on the Garda radar in Co. Mayo, that he obviously felt free enough to drive all around Mayo in search of scrap metal. What the fuck is someone with 4 bench warrants out for their arrest, doing being able to drive around the countryside looking for "scrap metal"???

Society now speaks of "petty crime", "anti-social behaviour", etc. In so many ways, we are conditioned now to think that only something we read on the front of the paper or we hear on the news is really a crime, the rest of it is just an inconvenience, a bit like getting stuck in a traffic jam.

Larnecy, car stealing, etc, is crime. It is serious crime when you are the victim. It might not be too the rest of us, or to the criminal or to the parents of the 15 year old out robbing cars, but to the victim it is someone taking what you've worked hard for, giving you the two fingers and usually wrecking it in the case of a stolen car, or selling it if you have been burgled.

It's about time we started getting our heads around the fact that some people (travelling people & settled people) don't give a shit who they impose their behaviour on, and if we want to live in a society where people respect each others properly and if we want to re-establish the right of all people living in Ireland to live unmolested by others who are intent on stealing and imposing their criminal behaviour on law abiding citizens, we need to DEMAND new legislation that provides for fucking people into prison and leaving them there until they have compensated the victim for their crime, and tagging them when they are released until such a time as they can demonstate conclusively that they can live peacefully in society alongside the rest of society. Further instances of "petty" crime should be punished by compulsory LONG sentences in prison. It should be a case of "rinse, lather repeat" until criminals get the message that crime is no longer unacceptable in our society.

If someone steals a car, we need to DEMAND that they get a prison entence and stay in prison and work in prison until they can pay back the victim for the damage done to their property or person.

When they are released, we need to make sure they are tagged and are up to the challenge of proving that they are now living crime free lives. If they can't, we should fuck them back into prison for another LONG spell and put an end to this discussion and shite about "disadvantage" or " there's a lack of facilities in the community", while crime continues to increase all the time.

It means facing down the civil rights do-gooders and the other yahoo's who don't seem to experience crime and telling them that we will look at civil rights arguments again when we have restored a normal society where people can sleep at night without having to worry about their house being cleaned out from under them while they sleep.

When we achieve this, we won't have to worry about a farmer in Mayo or in any part of the country believing that the only way he can protect himself from someone is to shoot him dead.

by Leon (personal capacity) Tue Nov 22, 2005 18:39

Tom Ward claimed they had gone to Nally's farm to buy scrap. (Nally had old cars lying around the front yard).

Maybe John Ward should have been in an insane asylum, that doesn't justify killing him.

Nally had had a chainsaw stolen a year earlier. That was the only burglary he suffered.

by Lie Detector Tue Nov 22, 2005 18:05

Never one to let facts get in the way of your prejudices. Could you at least get the name of the criminal (sentenced to six years for manslaughter) you are defending right.

by Noel Tue Nov 22, 2005 18:01

"this is conjecture if we all acted like this we would kill people regularly anyone who drinks and has the potential to fdrive anyone with a quick temper"

If John Ward could attack a member of An Garda Siochana with a slash hook - what fate awaited Mr Lally had he lived?

by anarcho-bhuachaill Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:43

this is conjecture if we all acted like this we would kill people regularly anyone who drinks and has the potential to fdrive anyone with a quick temper

by Noel Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:24

If Mr Lally had allowed John Ward to leave he would have returned with the intent of doing Mr Lally damage. Therefore the self defence case seems quite valid. Had Mr Lally not killed him John Ward would have returned.

by Watcher Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:22

There was no evidence that a break in hadnt occurred. Why do you think the Wards went to the Farm? I am surprised that you are siding with a violent convicted criminal like Ward.

by Lie Detector Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:16

No sign of a break in. Forensic evidence is a red herring?
The convicted criminal is Padraig Nally even if it should have been murder. I'm surprised at the kneejerk reaction of siding with this criminal.

by Watcher Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:13

Ward was a seriel burglar, he had a criminal record stretching back 30 years. At the time of his death 4 Bench Warrants were outstanding for his arrest including one for attacking a Garda with a slash hook. Ward was also involved in sword fights with his enemies. Ward had threatened to kill his wife on several occasions.

Given the above I believe that Ward had broken into the house. Ward should have been in Dundrum.

by Leon (personal capacity) Tue Nov 22, 2005 17:08

There is no evidence that Ward was ever in the house.

Therefore we should assume that he wasn't in the house.

He was shot on the doorstep of Nally's house.

Should Nally be in prison at all.

Should he not have been sent to Dundrum?

by mayoman Tue Nov 22, 2005 16:52

Ward didn't break into Nally's house but he was obviously there for no good reason. Cannot understand this kneejerk siding with criminals.

by Lie detector Tue Nov 22, 2005 16:08

"Mr Ward borke into his home in the middle of the night "hardly for tea and a chat""

Wrong. It was the afternoon. There is no proof that Ward broke into Nally's house. He was on his property when Nally shot him the first time, when Nally beat him to a pulp and was limping away when the fatal shot was fired. At the time of the fatal shot - Ward was not on Nally's land.

by P Jones Tue Nov 22, 2005 15:46

I think Padraig Nally is the victim of the system, How can a judge put an innocent man behind bars for protecting himself. Mr Ward borke into his home in the middle of the night "hardly for tea and a chat" how can anyone judge when if in the same situation would do exactly the same thing! It's survival instinct. The travelling community are putting it down to racism "as usual" when in fact would they not do the same thing if a settled person were stalking around their halting site in the dead of night stealing from their home.

by Gerard O'Donnell Tue Nov 22, 2005 14:53

I think it is important to note that in the entirety of this incident Padraig Nally never once left his own land. He was not a crazed murderer, he was a scared old man, and if ward had not been trying to rob him in the first place this incident would never have taken place. Its like placing a mouse trap in your home. If the mouse wasn't in there he wouldn't get caught.

by rob Tue Nov 22, 2005 13:00

He did not commit murder - it was manslaughter. Libel laws still apply

Second It may be bigoted but its not racism as travellers are not a seperate race. They Irish and exaclty the same as the rest of us

by mayoman Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:44

What justice would you suggest for Ward's family? I can imagine that they will find it difficult without him but he wasn't exactly an innocent victim was he? Hardly a deserving case for compensation.

by Curious Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:00

Nobody denies this automatic reaction might be considered reasonable but then would you have beaten the person to a pulp then gone over and picked up the bottle and smacked him over the head with it while he was on the ground (to use your analogy).

by Molly McGuire - Private person Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:14 deanhotel at tinet dot ie Quay Rd. Ballina,Co Mayo 0862576773

In 1960 I was at a dance in a Marquee in Belmullet having a mineral with my boyfriend and some of the dooyork lads came into the dance (I was later told they were full of Poteen) They came over to where I was standing and proceeded to throw punches at my boyfriend and in the panic of the moment as he was out numbered I just let fly the bottle of coke I had in my hand and hit one of them in the face with it., and caused him to have stitches.If it was a gun I had in my hand I would probably have fired it in the panic of the moment so I understand where Padraig Nallys fear was coming from.

by Sat Nov 19, 2005 20:32

As Nally himself admitted in the interview broadcast on the radio the day of the sentancing, John Ward had already been shot and beaten and was attempting to escape whilee Nally went into his shed to reload his gun before chasing after Ward and shooting him in the back. The self-defence agrument hardly holds water in the light of these undisputed facts.
The fact that Ward was by all accounts not a particularly nice person is completely irrelevant. You can think what you want about the death penalty ( I personally happen to oppose it) but even its most ardent supporters tend to favour some kind of judicial procedure preceding its administration.

by leftie Sat Nov 19, 2005 02:22

Padraig Nally committed murder. If that was a traveller who had ruthlessly done the same thing he would have been found guilty of murder.
It is old Irish racsim, I overheard women on the bus going home from work yesterday evening and they were talking about the case and what one of them said was that knacker deserved everything he got they are all the same and the government should do something with them and that poor man locked up for them and he done nothing wrong . I was disgusted by her its racism. If you want to support a campaign support justice for the victims family not padraig nally

by skewed? Fri Nov 18, 2005 21:52

He was jailed for killing someone. not for defending his land.
You can't just kill people.