Do you recognise these student rioters?

Von Smallhausen said:
Would you help re-enact that Tefal ?

I will throw a firework from a rooftop at you then, for comparison, hoy a fire extinguisher at you as well.

You can post the results back here either by blinking from your hospital bed or via a ouija board. ;)
Click to expand...

huh?:confused:


I'm saying lobbing a fire extinguisher off a roof into a group of people is more like throwing a firework at a group of people than throwing a firework into a bonfire where it may fly back out and hit somone.
 
Tefal said:
I'm saying lobbing a fire extinguisher off a roof into a group of people is more like throwing a firework at a group of people than throwing a firework into a bonfire where it may fly back out and hit somone.
Click to expand...

So you keep on saying and not actually making any point at all.

The act of lobbing may be the same but the consequences are different.
 
britboy4321 said:
And the guy that drives 33 through a 30 limit outside the school at kicking out time - hurting no-one.

He knew he was breaking the law. It's only fluke no-one was killed by his 'crazy illegal actions'. So I guess yet another 'attempted murder'?

:/
Click to expand...
Absolute rubbish...

It's more akin to the guy that drives at 33 through a 30 limit outside a school and them aims his car purposely at a crowd of children who are unaware that he is heading for them.

Good grief... Get a grip.
 
Last edited:
He threw a fire extinguisher off a roof at a crowd of people, it is by chance that it didn't hit anyone, the expectation is that it would. If it had hit someone it would be by chance if they didn't die, the expectation of someone having a fire extinguisher dropped on their head would be that they would die.
It is not a case of "probably hits the floor unlikely worst case someone dies", it's "probably kills someone, unlikely it hits the floor and scares them"
Arguing lack of intent to kill someone is surely harder to argue. If you fire a gun into a crowded room of people, aside from the firearms offences, why wouldn't the charge be attempted murder?

Can someone who is arguing it's not attempted murder explain the difference from the case of the guy driving onto the pavement, who has been charged (although possibly not yet prosecuted) with attempted murder.
 
OldCoals said:
Just because he didn't throw the extinguisher at a person is irrelevant, the law accounts for recklessness.
Click to expand...
But he did anyway, ok, maybe not at a specific person, but he threw it at a group of people, where there were more people than ground.
 
A fire extinguisher landing on one would be prone to kill them from that height , throwing an unlit firework doesn't really come into it does it?
 
Abraham said:
Can someone who is arguing it's not attempted murder explain the difference from the case of the guy driving onto the pavement, who has been charged (although possibly not yet prosecuted) with attempted murder.
Click to expand...

A jury will believe that the person driving the car on to the pavement at a crowd was meaning to kill people.

A jury will believe a person lobbing a fire extinguisher off a rooftop kinda randomly downwards any old place was caught up in the heat of the moment, trying to 'riot', just kinda smashing random stuff up, and not truly thinking of the potential consequences of his actions (or 'didn't know or think' there were so many people below/it was so dangerous.) So was NOT thinking 'I think I will now kill a human being'.

Of course this is after a defence lawyer has finished with them.

I'm not defending the bloke's actions - I'm just saying an attempted murder conviction just ain't gonna happen.
 
Last edited:
I must admit I don't know how much aerial footage there is of the roof top just before he threw the fire extinguisher but I would suggest one hint from film or witnesses suggesting he looked over the side first and then threw the fire extinguisher would be good enough for me as a prosecutor to suggest to the jury "he took aim".

You're using emotive statements like "just caught up in the heat of the moment" which in court carry no more weight than me suggesting "he knew exactly where the police were and aimed the throw to purposely kill at least one police officer".
 
Athanor said:
I must admit I don't know how much aerial footage there is of the roof top just before he threw the fire extinguisher but I would suggest one hint from film or witnesses suggesting he looked over the side first and then threw the fire extinguisher would be good enough for me as a prosecutor to suggest to the jury "he took aim".

You're using emotive statements like "just caught up in the heat of the moment" which in court carry no more weight than me suggesting "he knew exactly where the police were and aimed the throw to purposely kill at least one police officer".
Click to expand...

Because the defence will use emotive language ... even now I do not think that he was thinking 'I will now kill another human being'. I believe the attempted murder charge is a purely EMOTIVE response to the stupidity of what he did.


Do you really hand on heart think he thought 'I will now kill a human being, undoubtably throwing away the rest of my life as well, I will become a murderer of a random person and will almost certainly be caught and lose 25 years .. that sounds like a good plan '?? Honestly ..? And that's before a defence lawyer has been at you for hours ...

It's important we convict the guy on the right charge not based on emotion and revenge. The right justice is important .. and yes I hate the guy as well obviously.
 
Last edited:
You're asking me to ascribe ratio thought process to someone who thought it was a good idea to break intot he governments offices, smash the place up and then drop a fire extinguisher on the police below?

Who can say what his though process was - perhaps he knew he was going to get caught, arrested, charged and have a prison sentance or criminal record anyway. Possibly unable to finish his degree, almost certainly going to find it hard to find a job with a criminal record and decided "in the heat of the moemnt" that his life was ruined so he was going to brcome a student hero and take a pig with him, preferably one with a wife and family?

It's very easy for both sides to play the emotive language game.
 
Athanor said:
You're asking me to ascribe ratio thought process to someone who thought it was a good idea to break intot he governments offices, smash the place up and then drop a fire extinguisher on the police below?

Who can say what his though process was - perhaps he knew he was going to get caught, arrested, charged and have a prison sentance or criminal record anyway. Possibly unable to finish his degree, almost certainly going to find it hard to find a job with a criminal record and decided "in the heat of the moemnt" that his life was ruined so he was going to brcome a student hero and take a pig with him, preferably one with a wife and family?

It's very easy for both sides to play the emotive language game.
Click to expand...

Exactly, meaning the attempted murder charge is NOT beyond reasonable doubt. There certainly IS a reasonable doubt.

The emphasis is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge, not for the guy to PROVE his innocence.
 
Last edited:
Ah but now you have the test of would the "the man on the Clapham Omnibus" believe that did someone taking aim (i.e. looking) and then throwing a weighty metal fire extinguisher from the roof of a office building specifically at a person have good reason to believe they would kill the person hit.

I'd suggest yes, the balance of probablity is it's unlikely the defence could suggest he thought it would do anything other than kill whoever it landed on.
 
britboy4321 said:
Exactly, meaning the attempted murder charge is NOT beyond reasonable doubt. There certainly IS reasonable doubt.

The emphasis is on the prosecution to PROVE the charge, not for the guy to PROVE his innocence.
Click to expand...

Attempted murder apparently requires either the intent to kill, or the intent to cause bodily harm where there is a high chance that death will result. (wiki). Clearly lobbing a fire extinguisher off a roof at people has a pretty good chance of killing someone. I don't know if willful recklessness is enough to satisfy the intent part though.
 
Superewza said:
I thought it was widely accepted now that the guy who threw the fire extinguisher was a plant?
Click to expand...

As in ..

FountainPlant_OphiopogonJaponicusWFPS_C1094.jpg


??

I'd have thought the extinguisher would have just crushed his dainty leaves and stalks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom