Student protester jailed
- Thread starter No1newts
- Start date
and you deserve more jail time than someone who actually killed someone, instead of "might" have caused harm?
no one keeps fire extinguishers on a roof.
So your definition of heat of the moment is to pick up a fire extinguisher, lug it up however many flights of stairs, stroll across a roof then launch it off?? Sounds like a considered action which took plenty of time to execute to me. He tried to be Billy big balls and it's only plain luck the prat didn't kill someone. He won't be laughing when he realises this malicious act has ruined his whole life.
God forbid if you were left in charge of a case
Fair point. I'll go round Deptford market waving a gun and shooting into the air this lunchtime. I'll purposely miss and I'm sure I'll be let off.
You see it's OK - I COULD have killed some people but I DIDN'T!
You seem to have completely missed the point that this guy's a liability unless something's done to him. Throwing fire extinguishers off buildings is incredibly stupid and dangerous. They need to do something for his own good and everyone else's.
It is, the crime he committed was breaking into a building, damaging it, then throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof into a crowd of people. That's what he's been sentenced for (specifically the last part).
'What they could have done' is factored into criminal justice, it's the reason why some things are considered crimes even if no-one is hurt, because the activity dramatically increases the chances of someone being hurt (such as driving under the influence).
Compared with drink driving (for example), the risk of hurting someone by throwing a fire extinguisher from a building into a crowd is many times greater, so it isn't a surprise that the sentence is significantly greater as well.
couldnt agree more (hence the despite how stupidly brackets comment)
…. and hopefully the message has got through to more wannabe violent protesters.
Agree, says nothing at all about protesting, says everything about his actions. It's not as if you can just throwing an extinguishers in tge heat of the monent, even would if had to bring with him or stolen it earlier. Most roofs don't come with extinguishers.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 3,286
- Location
- Westergate
Watching that video makes it look even worse as people were everywhere, seems he has more of a chance to hit someone then miss someone. Very lucky boy not to be facing a life sentance for murder, then again he would have gone for manslaughter insted.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The average prison sentence for manslaughter in 2004 was 5.4 years. So it's not that far off.
Depending on the nature of the act that killed someone, yes.
If one act has a 5% chance of killing someone, and does, should that be punished more harshly than an act that has a 95% chance of killing someone, but by luck doesn't?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 311
- Location
- Sunny London
It was a bad comparison true, but you get my point.
I do think he should get a jail sentence but 3 years is amazingly harsh for a crime with no real victim
nah, probably not, my issue is with the fact he got an excessive sentence because the court, media and government want to make a statement.
If their was consistency in the sentencing, and 3 years was in keeping withother crimes, then i'd be ok with it - but it isnt.
Yeah, but that includes mitigation such as self defence, provocation and diminished responsibility. The defendant in this case had none of those, so if it had been manslaughter he'd have likely recieved a much stiffer sentence. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is life remember.
your point is superficial and doesnt fit with sentences which have previously been handed down for other crimes. In other cases people have done things as dangerous as this, with more dire consequences and got off lighter.