Law professor accused of fatal shooting wants to be able to return to 170-acre farm for ‘welfare’ of livestock

by Miserable-Tangelo565

9 comments

  3. How is it legal to exclude a person from going to someplace they own?

  4. A senior barrister is seeking to be allowed back on the 170-acre farm where he is accused of murdering a father-of-four in a shooting incident last year

    My reading of that is they don’t want to allow him back to the scene of the crime before the trial or am I totally wrong??

  5. He should get it. Yes he shot someone, but he shot someone who has trespassed on privately owned land. It would not have occured if the “Dog walker” stayed off the land.

    Farmers in this country are being taken for a ride, they have little or no recourse for preventing unauthorised people accessing their land. We have all seen the stories of sheep being killed by dogs, hare / rabbit coursing as “culture”, caravans being set up in fields, countless stories of machinery and livestock being stolen.

    He would have my full support same as any other farmer in a similar situation.

  6. Seems fair enough to me. He shot someone who was on his land with dogs in self-defence and the article says he’s been farming there since 2015.

    I think a lot of people are getting the wrong impression from this case because he also happens to be sc.

  7. I hope this poor man is exonerated, he is the victim here. The media glosses over why a crime gang was trespassing on his land and intimidating him

  8. Bang of, I’m so brilliant I’ll get away with this, of the whole thing.

  9. Wonder if his students at trinity will get a problem question on him for their exams lol.

    I remember reading it when it first came out. He definitely did and said all the right things when it comes to going to court anyway. Very strange situation from reading but I do have a niggle that he didn’t mean to kill the man or harm him. It wouldn’t make sense given the fact he’s not silly, he’s a SC with years of experience I doubt he shot a man in the back out of pestering or annoyance. Just seems like something went wrong and in lieu of anything else to go on I think he’ll be found not guilty of murder anyway, reckless as all hell but not enough to prove murder.

Leave a Reply