Farmer Nally

[Humpback]

I'm with you Rd, I think the gentlemans (I have to be nice to keep Rainy off my back ) demise was unfortunate due to his choice of profession and standards of citizenship and his children are going to grow up perhaps the better for it. When the dust settles and these children and mother have finished from grieving hopefully will look at the facts and realise that crime does not pay. Perhaps the Widow will meet a nice man (from any community - settled or unsettled) who has more moral fortitude than her previous selection and can provide these orphans with a more suitable (in terms of law abiding and respect for others) role model. Thus I can see good coming out from this situation.

Now the comments are just getting plain ridiculous.

I'm sure all gentlemen posting here would consider themselves as a "nice man", but what are the chances that if any of you would be in the position to meet this widow and even consider marrying, settling down, that you actually would?

Given you're lack of sympathy for the man himself, and the children, aren't you by extrapolation going to think less of this widow as well.

As in, what kind of woman would marry and have children with a man like this?

She's damned as much as the rest of the sorry people in this discussion on the basis of what a lot of comments are reflecting here, so the chances of her meeting a "nice man" are slim to none.

(And please don't come back with the "I'm married already" response. You're all talking about hypothetical situations here anyway, so leave that one out of it too.).

 

[ClubMan]

Clubman - you point me to the constitution to tell me what rights I have.

No problem - .

Is every Constitution in the world 100% right?

Eh? Not sure what other constitutions have to do with this issue but in relation to our own it is (to quote OASIS):

the fundamental legal document that sets out how Ireland should be governed and the rights of Irish citizens.

As such, until such time as it is amended it is 100% "right" if you want to put it that way.

Perhaps missing from this Deified (in your eyes) document

What do you mean by "Deified"? I never mentioned anything like this in relation to the constitution.

is a line that says "you waive all rights to the law if you waive the law".

Yes - such a line is indeed missing and if you think that it should be included then you should start a campaign to have it amended appropriately and see how much support you get. On the other hand given that our legal system assumes innocence until proven otherwise you have a bit of a chicken and egg situation in that you can only prove that somebody has "waived the law" as you put it by trying and convicting them at which stage you have already granted them access to the law. How would you determine a priori and without a trial by one's peers (let's ignore the sticky issue of the no jury for now shall we?) that somebody had "waived the law" for example?

Why should decent folk have to elevate our criminal brethren to our level?

I disagree that equality before the law is elevation to anybody's level but one has to do this because the consistution guarantees it as a fundamental right. As above, if you want it changed get going.

If we do we effective allow them to dip in and out as they see fit cherry picking a place in society that never contributes and always takes.

I don't understand this point at all.

Who ends up paying for our criminals rights to the constitution - you and me.

Not necessarily - convicted criminals can pay by losing their freedom when convicted of crimes. Just look at Mr. Nally's case for example.

So not only do we under the Constitution pay for the entire infrastucture of upholding the constitution, we allow criminals access to law (though they choose to live outside it), we then fund their "defense" and ultimately provide them with shelter & food.
Whilst I agree this is the practise of a civilised society, ultimately we should try and resolve the issues not the crimes. In the meantime we should balance the scales of justice to protect the victims rather than ensure the criminals rights are well preserved under the constitution.

How was justice imbalanced in this case? Mr. Nally was convicted of killing a man unjustifiably and received a custodial sentence. Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?

 

[daltonr]

I'm not sure what point you're making ronan. I don't think quarterfloun should necessarily be willing to marry the woman in order for his point to be valid.

-Rd

 

[daltonr]

Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?

No. That would be ridiculous. Imagine if the people who murdered hundreds of people in the North were just allowed to remain at large! No-one would ever stand for that.
I mean, Irish Society as we know it would decay into Anarchy!

-Rd

 

[extopia]

I've been wondering recently why people didn't adopt this same thinking when it came to Liam Lawlor.

Well I would adopt that kind of thinking readily. And there are plenty of people I'd add to the list.

Personally, I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death. I have sympathy for Mr. Nally because I believe he was driven to distraction by fear and paranoia. But he committed the ultimate crime, the taking of a human life, and I don't for a second believe he will ever sleep soundly again. To be fair to him he made no bones about what happened and seems prepared to face the consequences.

 

[DrMoriarty]

By his own account he'll sleep more soundly in prison...

 

[ClubMan]

No. That would be ridiculous. Imagine if the people who murdered hundreds of people in the North were just allowed to remain at large! No-one would ever stand for that.
I mean, Irish Society as we know it would decay into Anarchy!

Families such as the McCartneys, McCabes and Rafferteys among many others might agree with you alright.

 

[daltonr]

I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death I don't believe that trespass or theft are crimes punishable by death

I guess the mistake made by the other elderly people killed in their homes is that they waited until the intruder comitted his ultimate crime before they tried to defend themselves. Had they shot their intruders too soon they'd have been sentancing them to death for nothing more than trespassing.

Of course they'd still be alive themselves which might be some small consolation.

-Rd

 

[extopia]

delgirl, I was wrong about you. Sorry (again).

 

[Murt10]

South Africa

Speaking of South Africa earlier in the thread, you have to admire some of the ways people have of defending themselves against attack in their cars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232777.stm


Murt

 

[daltonr]

Families such as the McCartneys, McCabes and Rafferteys among many others might agree with you alright.

I'm sure they would.

Isn't this part of our problem. We fudge anything we want to when it's poitically expedient. We fudge the punishing of terrorists, we fudge what it means to be Neutral, we fudge the punishment of Tax Cheats with Amnesty after Amnesty, we fudge responsibility for millions wasted by ministers.

And people are surprised when the public want to see a Farmer get off after shooting a criminal who was trespassing on his property.

Maybe we should start joining the dots here. If you want to stop people taking the law into their own hands you don't do it be coming down hard on Mr Nally, you do it by having some respect for the law in the first place.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

If you want to stop people taking the law into their own hands you don't do it be coming down hard on Mr Nally, you do it by having some respect for the law in the first place.

I think it's obvious that the vast majority of individuals do have respect for the law notwithstanding the fudges that may be made in other contexts. Otherwise the majority of people would have criminal convictions for law breaking. In what way do you think that anybody (commentators? the courts? etc.) came down hard on Mr. Nally?

 

[daltonr]

I think it's obvious that the vast majority of individuals do have respect for the law notwithstanding the fudges that may be made in other contexts. Otherwise the majority of people would have criminal convictions for law breaking.

I have very little respect for the Gardai, virtually no respect for the government, and I'm appalled by the various fudges. But I don't have any criminal convictions. Don't mistake a lack of criminal convictions for widespread respect for the law.

I break the law a fair bit, as do an awful lot of people, they/we just tend not to get convicted. I don't break the law out of any attempt to get revenge for anything, there are just certain laws I see no point in obeying.

Sadly I didn't manage to do anything bad enough to avail of any of the really big amnesties.

In what way do you think that anybody (commentators? the courts? etc.) came down hard on Mr. Nally?

He can't quibble too much about being in Jail, but I think he'd be justified in asking why he is treated more harshly than terrorists who deliberately set out to kill.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

I have very little respect for the Gardai, virtually no respect for the government, and I'm appalled by the various fudges. But I don't have any criminal convictions. Don't mistake a lack of criminal convictions for widespread respect for the law.

I don't consider respect for the Government or the Gardaí as necessary precursors to respect for the law itself.

I break the law a fair bit, as do an awful lot of people, they/we just tend not to get convicted. I don't break the law out of any attempt to get revenge for anything, there are just certain laws I see no point in obeying.

What laws do you and others break habitually?

He can't quibble too much about being in Jail, but I think he'd be justified in asking why he is treated more harshly than terrorists who deliberately set out to kill.

Is he being treated more harshly than these people? Many of them served even longer sentences even if they were eventually granted early release (often under license).

 

[daltonr]

What laws do you and others break habitually?

* As I've said before I don't declare goods that I bring into the country
when I go on Holiday or abroad.

* On the M50 I usually don't bother slowing down where the speed limit drops
to 100KM/h

* If I'm given a €20 for helping someone sort out a problem on
their PC, or whatever, I don't declare it as income.

Is he being treated more harshly than these people? Many of them served even longer sentences even if they were eventually granted early release (often under license).

Some of the On The Runs have never spent a day in prison and never will.
And what does Under Licence mean? A promise not to break the law again. Isn't that good of them. What a concession we got out of them there eh!.

-Rd

 

[delgirl]

delgirl, I was wrong about you. Sorry (again).

Hi extopia, thanks for that!

How was justice imbalanced in this case? Mr. Nally was convicted of killing a man unjustifiably and received a custodial sentence. Do you think that killers should be allowed remain at large because of the wider circumstances of their killing?

A suspended sentence would have, IMO been more appropriate as Mr Nally had no criminal record and is unlikely to reoffend.

He is to seek leave to appeal on December 5th and I for one wish him every success.

Tuesday night 9.30pm Prime Time on RTE1 - Mr Nally's story.

 

[RainyDay]

I very much doubt it'll make a difference. I suspect had their father lived and continued to make an income by robbing people and wielding his slash hook at gardai, the kids would have been more likely to follow in his footsteps than become upstanding citizens.

We don't know what will happen. I'm as entitled to say they're better off without him as you are to say the opposite.

In any case it wasn't Mr Nally's job to turn them into good citizens. It was his job to protect himself and his property. Perhaps the state should have thrown out the charges against Mr Ward for attacking a Garda, for fear that it might build up resentment against the system in Mr Ward's 11 children.
-Rd

Your gross exaggeration on the 'resentment' issue is offensive. No-one suggested that legitimate actions of the state or the Gardai should be concerned about this.

The general approach that you appear to be condoning is verging into dangerous territory. The guy wasn't a good father, so it's OK to shoot him in the back? So let's get the records of all the fathers in the state into the public arena then - How many are screwing around with other women (or men)? How many are fiddling their taxes? How many are speeding? How many are dealing in illegal drugs? Are we allowed terminate the life of anyone we judge to be not a good father? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....

 

[ClubMan]

Some of the On The Runs have never spent a day in prison and never will.

Whatever about those released under the GFA I didn't think that the situation of the OTRs had been regularised yet although I'm open to correction on this.

And what does Under Licence mean? A promise not to break the law again.

Does it also involve periodic signing on for the remainder of the custodial sentence? I'm not sure. One way or another, whatever you think of it as a "concession" it does involve some erosion of an individual's liberty that other non offenders are not subject to.

A suspended sentence would have, IMO been more appropriate as Mr Nally had no criminal record and is unlikely to reoffend.

Obviously the trial judge in his wisdom, experience and knowledge of precedent thought differently than you.

 

[daltonr]

Your gross exaggeration on the 'resentment' issue is offensive. No-one suggested that legitimate actions of the state or the Gardai should be concerned about this.

The only thing I find offensive here is your complete invention and attributing of things to me that I never said.

The guy wasn't a good father, so it's OK to shoot him in the back?

Are we allowed terminate the life of anyone we judge to be not a good father? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone....

That is an absolutely obscene misrepresentation of what I said. In fact it's so far from what I said that it's generous to call it misrepresentation, It's pure invention. I rarely get genuinely angry reading AAM but this post from you is a step too far.

The rights and wrongs of shooting him have NOTHING to do with what kind of father he was. The only context In which I even spoke about his parenting is when I discussed whether or not I feel sympathy for him or his family. A topic you seemed to think I needed to consider more.

I'm not asking you to agree with who I feel sorry for in this case. But please argue the rights and wrongs of my opinions, don't create opinions for me.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

Ideally the scales should be balanced so that it's difficult to convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit.

Can you explain if/how this comment relates to the Nally conviction please?