Student protester jailed

[LordSplodge]

Good although I would have given him a 5 stretch*.

Every action has consequences. You do not get a fire extinguisher, take it to the roof and throw it off into a crowd without at least once thinking of what the outcome of this may be.

Perhaps instead of being at the protest commuting such acts he should have been focusing on his studies?


* In general sentences can be a little on the soft side especially with death by dangerous driving but that's a debate for another thread.

 

[Tefal]

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.

Can you post these cases?

I assume there's lots and lots not just 2-3 a year that the media pick up on and say is the norm?

 

[LordSplodge]

…. and hopefully the message has got through to more wannabe violent protesters.

I doubt it and that's a shame...

 

[King85]

Good, hopefully he'll have a terrible time and realise how ridiculously dangerous what he did was.

 

[Pate]

I thought these things where judged on what a"reasonable person" would expect to happen.

Ie the fact no one was hurt isn't relevant because he as being judged on how he acted just before and when he threw it not what happened after.

So being an incompetent criminal should be a defence?

A person whop does a drive by but doesn't have the aim to pull it off should just get an "oh you" and a slap on the wrist?

You are making the HUGE assumption that the guy had a criminal intent on his mind, rather than the more likely event that he was a moron who got caught up in a situation which he wasn't familiar with (quite hectic if I remember) and did something without thinking. Being God knows how many stories high could make you forget about the people below?

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

Write for the daily mail much? Using emotive language and convoluted event planning dosen't mean that was how it happened.

Could quite easily have been "some guys were ****ing around with the fire extinguisher's, they were empty/no longer working and were scattered around. The guy came across one at a particularly rowdy moment and without thinking threw it over the edge".

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.

Not denying the guy was a liability, but the end result was the **** DIDN'T hit anyone with the extinguisher, was PARADED through the media with his name being mud, and now has a lengthy jail sentence to boot, it's severity obviously due to the political climate.

Your example of running around firing a gun in the air isn't really worth arguing with....

 

[Durzel]

I guess there's a bigger question about whether it's fair that someone should be handed down a punishment that's more about teaching everyone else a lesson than it is about their actual crime.

Don't get me wrong the guy was stupid and I've got no sympathy for protestors committing crimes, but ~3 years in prison for throwing a fire extinguisher off the roof?

I know people will say "what if it hit someone", but it didn't. It is fairly obvious that there was no intent or pre-meditation there to "kill someone by fire extinguisher", he chucked an object off a roof in protest at the rise in fees. People get convicted based on the crimes they actually committed, or planned to commit, not nebulous "what if" scenarios.

I'm not sure I think it's appropriate to "send a message to everyone else" by onerously punishing one individual beyond that which you'd expect if - for example - he had chucked a fire extinguisher off a roof at a completely unrelated location without a protest going on.

 

[wildman]

He will come out of there walking like John Wayne. Some burly tatooed gorilla called Bubba will smash his back door in twice a night to the point where he will wish that he'd rammed that fire extinguisher up his jacksy rather than over the top of a building.

To say sentence is too harsh because no one got hurt / died is a poor excuse. to say he did it with no intent is even worse. What do you think he thought the outcome of throwing a lump of metal off the top of a tall building into a courtyard full of people would be ?

 

[Goberpiles316]

I think he felt it was ok as it was empty!

 

[Tefal]

You are making the HUGE assumption that the guy had a criminal intent on his mind, rather than the more likely event that he was a moron who got caught up in a situation which he wasn't familiar with (quite hectic if I remember) and did something without thinking. Being God knows how many stories high could make you forget about the people below?

7 stories looking over the side at the 200+ crowd of people you where a part of just a short while before?

IUf going upstairs makes him forget details like that then he really should be innocent on grounds of diminished responsibility, and never allowed to drive.

Imagine he goes into a multi story car park gets to the top and "forgets" how to brake and goes over the side.

 

[wordy]

I think what he's trying to say is 3 years for not killing anyone, knowing it wasn't pre-meditated and that he didn't intentionally try killing someone, 3 years of your life gone can be classed as harsh when there is murder, theft, rape etc going on with far less sentences.

doh beaten by the burnsy

Rapists, murderers and theives should get harsher setences then, this guy got what he deserved.

 

[Pug]

Can you post these cases?

I assume there's lots and lots not just 2-3 a year that the media pick up on and say is the norm?

no, but thats becuase i dont have the time to trudge through to make a point on the web in between my work. If you REALLY are interested, and trying to debunk a discussion, then i'd suggest you take a look yourself with an open mind at whats reported (preferably in local press as national press would give a skewed perspective in my favour no doubt). It is my belief that you would find sentences (and it doesnt matter if its 1 or 100 - it should be consistent) with as much risk to the public, and a worse outcome which has resuted in a lesser sentence.

 

[Cosimo]

I think he felt it was ok as it was empty!

That really made it light.

 

[Durzel]

To say sentence is too harsh because no one got hurt / died is a poor excuse. to say he did it with no intent is even worse. What do you think he thought the outcome of throwing a lump of metal off the top of a tall building into a courtyard full of people would be ?

I can't see any way of trying to make sense of your logic. Are you suggesting that people should be sentenced based on what the judge thinks might've happened, rather than what actually happened (i.e. the crime itself)?

 

[Glaucus]

To say it's due to political cliamate, you need to know sentencing for his crime and similar cases. Not look at driving convictions. Also media has nothing to do with law, just because he wad named in press should not shorten sentences.

 

[shauncr91]

I know people will say "what if it hit someone", but it didn't. It is fairly obvious that there was no intent or pre-meditation there to "kill someone by fire extinguisher", he chucked an object off a roof in protest at the rise in fees. People get convicted based on the crimes they actually committed, or planned to commit, not nebulous "what if" scenarios.

Lets reduce the sentence for drunk driving while we're at it then? I mean come on, they haven't hit anyone yet so that makes it more acceptable.

 

[scorza]

They are, but they do tend to look harshly on people who recklessly and knowingly endanger the lives of others, even if they are 'caught up in the moment'.

Really? So we can look forward to seeing routine custodial sentences for things like speeding then.

If this chap thought his behaviour was in any way appropriate or acceptable, then he needs significant rehabilitation, especially given that he was also trespassing and committing criminal damage. If he was 'caught up in the moment', he needs significant rehabilitation to stop him being an easily led ****.

Well since he handed himself into police, and pleaded guilty I'm guessing that in retrospect he doesn't think that his behaviour was in any way appropriate or acceptable.

Do you honestly think that he'll come out of prison rehabilitated?

I'm all for reducing the prison population for victimless crimes, but this was only victimless through luck, not through the nature of the act of thuggery.

I wonder if you'd be so vindictive if he wasn't protesting against your precious government's plans for higher education at the time?

 

[Durzel]

Lets reduce the sentence for drunk driving while we're at it then? I mean come on, they haven't hit anyone yet so that makes it more acceptable.

The sentence for drink driving is being banned from driving, so not the best straw man you could've come up with.

 

[Tefal]

I think what he's trying to say is 3 years for not killing anyone, knowing it wasn't pre-meditated and that he didn't intentionally try killing someone, 3 years of your life gone can be classed as harsh when there is murder, theft, rape etc going on with far less sentences.

doh beaten by the burnsy

Where are you getting the "no intent" thing from?

We've not been told anything about what was said about intent, or what witnesses etc said.

Has anyone got the video? as the pictures look like it may have been aimed at he police.

You can't say there was no intent to hurt people just the same as i can't say he intended to kill or wound someone without proof.

 

[dave_beast]

Good result.

Now they just have to sort out the rest of the justice system.

 

[Scania]

Yes but he didn't. He didn't even injure anyone. He got carried away and was stupid, I don't think there was any intent to injure anyone. A 12 month jail sentence would have been fine to get the point across. When you see some of the sentences handed down to people that have killed via dangerous driving etc, you'll see that this is harsh.

He'll serve 12 with good behaviour......

Personally, I think the sentence (not what he'll do) is about right.

Bloody idiot - him, not you!