Get It Off Your Chest


A rifle…bit of target practice, never really got into the hunting unless I was shooting vermin. Shooting a defenseless animal was never really my thing.


Ah, the Kerry lads aren’t that bad.


Just the PC brigade … and out of touch judges … the majority would be on the side of the homeowner


What if it was armed?


Sheep are known to arm themselves alright when da Roscommon crowd are in town :slight_smile:


Beat him like a badger was the term Nally used!!!


Really? In my experience the whole country has gone mad for people killed and/or terrorised by intruders, on many occasions. And understandably so.

The whole country certainly did not lose it’s mind over the Nally case, as far as I now recall. It generated huge debate though because unlike in the cases of intruders killing where almost always we all know it was murder or manslaughter or at the very least pretty much completely the fault of the intruder even if a “robbery gone wrong”, this case was a 50-50-ish situation as to who was to blame.

Why would or should all or most cases of ‘domestic’ or ‘everday’ crime killings in the US get reported by the Irish media? We don’t really care (not in a callous way but we’ve enough to be going on with ourselves), we don’t need to know, we’re not all slaves to everything that goes in America no more than we got over that sort of thing with everything that goes on in the UK.

As for Nally, as was discussed above, mental illness couldn’t really be a defence unless he was under diagnosis or treatment.


■■■■ that - you live by the sword you can fucking die by it.

If your a scumbag and don’t fear judges nor jail - well maybe its the fear you need to think twice about robbing people.


How was it 50-50ish? I don’t know the ins and outs of it but I thought Ward was on his land in the middle of the night?


Ward and his son.


Everyone should have a right to defend their property. I guess the grey area arises when it’s hard to define at what point does defending become too far?


I don’t think it’s a grey area at all. If I catch somebody trying to break into my car or house or rob my bike, I will use excessive force. I have in the past and will again. You know what? They haven’t tried a 2nd time on me.


I don’t see an issue with that but if they are defenceless on the ground, do you have a right to kill them? Thats where I see the grey area. For the record I don’t think Nally did anything wrong but can see how tricky it is to draft a law around it


It was a murder trial so it comes down to intent. premeditation, motive, excess use of force and all those other factors in any murder trial.


depends if you think they are going to come back and be violent , considering the chap was a violent man attacking guards with slash hooks - i’d say yeah he would have been abck


I fully understand how he felt. But from a strictly legal point of view you can’t argue based on what he may or may not have done.

I’m talking more in general terms than the specific Nally case but it’s very difficult to judge where defending oneself and their property crosses a line which didn’t necessarily need to be crossed at that point in time


Exactly. Their future intent (based on past behaviour) should have been taken into account.

Come on now Al, apportioning blame 50/50 is a bit of a stretch (even for you :crazy_face: ) here.

It’s not like we are talking about a couple of hitch hikers who ignored signs and deliberately walked onto his land & were the victim of a trigger happy property owner. These thugs were there to rob & do harm. They would have come back to rob again (at best) or exact retribution (at worst) if they were not stopped.

I’m all for people being able to defend their own property. That being said, no fancy piece of farm machinery, or car, or piece of jewelry is worth the cost of a human life, no matter how much of a scumbag someone is. However, if you are also in fear of physical harm to yourself, or your family, that should definitely be taken into account, even if you over react out of fear, adrenaline rush, anger etc etc. If the “victim” is the one that caused that fear, anger, adrenaline rush, then they should have to face the consequences of doing so. If that is the business end of a shotgun, tough shit.


I was actually up for Jury Duty the day the 2nd trial started and was selected for the Nally trial but was objected to. (Prosecution and the Defence can object without reason)


You didn’t go incognito?