Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Just been jailed for 32 months... Wowzers.
Still, throwing a pressurised container off a high building- if that explodes on impact it's going to send a lot of shrapnel out.
the reason this didn't appear is because the "good" post by the Reckoning was posted within a minute of you posting the thread. it takes 2mins for a thread to enter the database.
trying to find a way to fix this but can only afford 1 or 2 developer days a month and he's busy this month, frustratingly.
Could have maimed and killed some peeps.
of a flight of stairs. He didn't get anything and I took him to pizza hut a few days later. He also picked up a swan by the neck when we went to feed the ducks and tried to pee on me through a gap in the door at work. He had autism though, REALLY HATED THAT KID
for a couple of weeks because he had a penchant for pushing the little kids over (he was 13/14?, they were about 6). After his 2 week ban/having to look out the window at the fun, he was granted a return to funtimes. Before he went out the teacher and TA gathered round him to make it explicitly clear that if he pushed anyone over, he was going back inside and his doe deer eyes suggested a lesson had been learnt. Let him out and within about 15 seconds he sped over to one of the little kids and pushed them flat on their face before raising his hands in the air Rocky style and jumping onto one of the trampolines whooping with joy. He got banned again.
I can totally see why the school brought the Territorial Army in.
loveable little bastard
do you have any more/what became of him? :D
Up going to another school. My brother-in-law ended up working with him and said he had got really fat and lazy and just lay around in the playground sunning himself with his belly hanging out ( living the dream).
from a bukowski novel :D
a good day for justice all round yeah?
Because to convict of that you have to prove his intent was to kill rather than just being irresponsible.
Otherwise everyone would be accusing everyone else of attempted murder constantly
I was merely talking about what the student protestor did, I presumed you were alluding to his actiosn being attempted murder, but then it is quite hard to keep up with what you're refering to in your constantly antagonistic tone these days
"Depends if you think violent disorder is as serious as assault and grievous bodily harm, really."
I don't think the policeman has been convicted of assault and GBH.
about the student not committing attempted murder.
I made no comment about the policeman because the justice system is not like comparing two lengths of string. Each case has to be assesed on its individual merits
I took against the original comment saying that the policeman should get 12 years by the same reckoning when he hasn't actually been found guilty of an offence.
was highlighting that this guy COULD have been convicted of that in the same way that the policeman COULD (or could not) be convicted of a serious offence of some kind.
I'm trying to work while staying involved :)
Your reply implied that you thought it should be closer to 32 months (if he's convicted).
My reply was based on the idea that the policeman might go to court and be charged with assault/GBH, like you or I would if we'd bashed someone's skull in. It was a flawed post, I'll admit, based as it is on a total pie-in-the-sky notion that it shouldn't be possible to put someone in a coma without there being some kind of consequences.
I'm provoking you deliberately here, and I don't know if there are circumstances – for example, Alfie Meadows' behaviour – that could mitigate the officer's actions. But unless we get a trial or some other kind of public inquiry, we won't know that.
I was just playing devil's advocate.
There should be an independent investigation of the policeman's behaviour and he should be prosecuted of a crime if it appears that he committed one.
As things stand, though, his actions are not on the face of it more deserving of a long prison sentence than Mr Fire Extinguisher's. It just happens that Mr Fire Extinguisher has come to trial and Mr Policeman hasn't yet.
But if he is, I would think that assault occasioning GBH would be the most serious *individual* charge that can be brought against him. There could be other charges.
Given that the ambulance driver claims he was told by police not to take Alfie Meadows to the nearest hospital – because they didn't want his massive head injury being treated in the same place some of their officers had gone to – I'd say it's more than just one man who has a case to answer.
in a hail of batons who could ever be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the individual officer accused was actually culpable? Especially when they're all dressed identically, and with other officers to vouch for their good character
of course I was being glib up there^ we all know that no individual officer will ever be prosecuted for Alfie Meadows' injuries
it could have been quite easily construed as attempted murder which could potentially land him with a sentence of 6/7 years if not life imprisonment.
Not to say I'd agree with such a charge but, it was an incredibly reckless thing to do.
I don't think anyone would claim that he had any such intent.
The closest that you could come to that would be attempted manslaughter, but that doesnt exist as attempt would imply intended which makes it murder, therefore there can be no attempted manslaughter........it is just recklessly endangering the public and criminal damage as far as I can see
the force a metal fire extinguisher would have when thrown from that height (around 118 metres) would,most likely, be enough to kill someone. Additionally from the video you can see the fire extinguisher wasn't aimed at the general public but at the police ranks.
As I said wouldn't necessarily in favour of actually charging him with attempted murder, but I would say this goes slightly further than merely being criminal damage.
THAT'S JUST WHAT HE WANTS US TO DO.
he'll get eaten alive in the clink
is he really a threat to the public? And it's pretty much ruined his life.
I'd have said the heaviest community punishment would have sufficed.
Which could easily have resulted in someone's serious injury/death. And he got caught.
should be a custodial sentence as standard though imo.
1 year driving ban and a £300-£400 fine
but yeah, I'd say mandatory 3-6months would be better
but if we're comparing like for like - "an incredibly stupid thing...which could easily have resulted in someone's serious injury/death" - the sentence looks harsh
then he would get a much harsher sentence. Just like muggins would have got a more lenient sentence had the fire extinguisher landed 100 yards away from everyone.
wasn't also pissed and in charge of a vehicle then, or he may have got 38 months and not been able to drive to Games Workshop for a while.
a short custodial sentence would not be excessive, though I don't believe he is an ongoing threat to public safety. But nearly three years? (I know you have also said the length is harsh)
killed them and yet only got 2 years...because he hadn't intended to kill.
It is a harsh sentence, as I think that no-one would suggest that he was intending to hurt anyone with this action, just that it was foolhardy, and if he had hit someone it would have been manslaughter (of the very reckless kind) (yet still not as bad as having deliberately selected a human to hit....as in the example in this post)
(which got less of a sentence......even thought it was more like murder in the 2nd degree)
this doesn't alter the facts of this case though.
create very anomoulous sentencing, as this makes the law less predictable, and predictability should be a very important facet of sentencing.
Judges have sentencing guidelines coupled with their discretion.
but in that case the judge should really explain why.....it could just be that the judge felt that the other sentence/s were too leniant or too harsh........but still, overall, it is the duty of the courts and judges to make sentencing 'not such a suprise.....which is why It would have been good had the Judge, actually said that "It is a harsh sentense for the crime, but it is harsh so as to 'set an example' " or something like that
than consistency of sentencing, though, when you're talking about deterrence. I doubt criminals sit there thinking, "Now, is it worth my while to commit this offence? I just wish there was a body of case law with consistent sentencing to help me out!"
It is the duty of all courts and court personel and the judiciary to safeguard against the law of this land coming into disrepute.
The repute aspect is not objective...it is subjective according to the populace.
If the populace mostly wince at a sentence they think to be too lean or too mean, then there is the danger that the public will cease to regard the law and judicial system as logical or sensible.....and therefore when an unusually harsh or leniant sentence is handed out then it would be nice to have the Judge to explain why he/she thought it necessary to buck the trend of other sentencing
it is not always clear exactly whether someone is guilty or not as trhe amount of evidence is always different and therefore i would precisely state the opposite of you in that consistancy of prosecution is not more important...the consistancy of the prosecution should surely be dependant upon the evidence and counter evidence....it should not be consistantly similar (although I might have mistook what you meant by this term, perhaps you meant consistancy of bringing a case against suspects where a crime has been done)
and got himself a nice heroin addiction
as well as learning some grey trades whilst inside.
You may as well say that if the fire extinguisher HAD killed someone, then there would have been no point in putting him in prison because his terrible guilt would have been punishment enough.
was throw a fire extinguisher in a way which could easily have killed or seriously injured one or more people, whilst being reckless as to whether it did so. What's the point in punishing people only on the basis of the consequences of the criminal action? He basically only didn't kill or injure someone because he was lucky.
anti-right wing polemic on the Social board?
"anti-right wing polemic?"
when Labour was in government, though.
I am sometimes compelled to wade in with a slightly difference way of arguing the right's case than CG's, though.
I'm still fucking cool.
I don't see how it's a message to non-violent protesters. They're not being convicted, or even accused, of anything...
and illegal. Therefore by doing it, he WAS making himself a dangerous criminal.
A brain that thinks that its fine to throw a pressurised canister off a high building into a crowd.
Not only did he think its ok to do something so monumentally dangerous, he then did it. He is a guy, who did something FUCKING ILLEGAL, and deserves to be punished as such. Quote all of the people who raped then ate kids and only got 2 weeks in an open prison, I don't care. This case, treated on its own merits has ended with him getting what he deserved. He broke the law, he can't then winge about the consequences.
1. He considred what he was going to do. Maybe not very much, maybe got a bit carried away, but still, some thought process took place
2. he did something that potentially could have killed or maimed people
3. thanks to a random chance, he did not hurt anyone.
so because no killing or maiming happened happened, no crime was committed?
by that logic, that if that guy in Arizona had been really rubbish with guns, and had failed to hit anyone while shooting into a crowd, he should be let off.
because I certainly haven't been disagreeing with any of those points...
we seem to be agreeing here.
Hence my "JFC" above.
that the sentence is there to send out a message to violent protesters (no bad thing). Just can't help feeling a bit sorry for the guy.
and it will definitely stop HIM from doing that again. Imprisoning an 18 year old for nearly three years (potentially) is in no way going to make them a better part of society. He'll be careful protesting sure, but could easily be fucked up in a pretty big way that could manifest in anything, even more crime. I agree that he should be punished, it was a BAD thing to do, but prison is an awful idea
it would have in the movies!
so wouldn't have actually been presurised. Still a heavy bugger though.
- abuse of the right to protest
- the glum face / shit haircut photo
- his mum handing him over the fuzz
- words of the judge: "It is deeply regrettable, indeed a shocking thing, to have sentence a young man to a substantial term of custody."
abuse of the right to protest? it landed about 2 metres away from the police!
it's just sad all round.
He'll have to pay loads more for his tuition then...gutted!
instead of an extinguisher.
LOL She kissed you goodnight with THOSE lips
after noticing he looks a bit like Mick Hucknall
Whilst on the face of it, it appears a one-off act of idiocy, is this something you could ever see yourself doing? Up there^ it's compared to stupidity which occurs throughout town centres every weekend, but i'd like to think that throwing a fire extinguisher from the top of a building towards a crowd of people is something that'd never cross my mind - full stop. It's not like he was wrecked or high (or was he?) - this is stupidity beyond the remit of the majority of folk.
I've been to both Leeds & Reading festival...
the only post to try to convey what probably motivated the guy.
(Incidentally the US troops that run amok at My Lai (347 civillian deaths US estimate (no NVA or VC) also probably got caught up in the heat of the moment, except they were probably thinking they were 'death gods', yet, collectively they served less than 4.5 months (Calley was the only one convicted (of murder)) )
that's a given.
But he had every opportunity not to go to london and lob a fire extinguisher of a roof. Yet he did.
"There is no doubt that the disturbance was a very major one. It is perhaps ironic that the weapon that you threw down from the top of this very high building and which was calculated to inflame passions was a fire extinguisher."
Call be a bleeding-heart liberal, but is the sentencing of an 18year-old kid to 3-odd years in prison really the right occassion for this sort of COMEDY GOLD? Is this not a bit twatty?
To be honest I think certain people in this thread are much more sympathetic than they might otherwise be 'cos they happen to like the cause he was protesting about.
Be honest - if it was an English Democrat or a rampaging football fan or a pisshead on a Friday night, would you still question the sentence?
I'd want him put away for 50 years of course.
that if it had been either of those two, the sentence would very obviously have been less
.....that was worse than i thought it was.....the guy is a danger to the public unless something makes him seriously reconsider how he behaves
...for example a overheating printer or a smouldering waste-paper bin.
I imagine with no fees
I dont pay my taxes so ugly fuckwits like him can have a free degree in the chokey...
I'm sure if he had given the consequences any thought at all, he wouldn't have done it. But this sort of recklessness *has* to be punished. "Getting carried away" should be punished. Even if this means people have to constantly be on their guard for others' safety.
He is incredibly lucky that it didn't hit and kill someone.
He is unlucky that he is being made the example of but that's the roulette of BREAKING THE LAW.
Some pretty ok legal scholars think we should have a system where the act itself and not the consequences should be punished because outcome is so often detached from 'guilt' or 'malice.'
This whole thing is straight outa criminal law exam.
(don't think this could've have been construed as attempted murder cause that has the same mens rea requirement as murder, which is strict. think murder has to be either death intended, gbh intended or else accused must be "virtually certain" that death or gbh would occur and its the jury who decide that. doesn't matter that no particular person would die, just that at least one definitely would. OR maybe attempted murder doesn't even include the intended gbh thing???...can't remember)
I'm with this judge
An interesting and important distinction.
I'm guessing the major problem with judging actions is in determining their motive. Whereas judging an outcome is a lot more empirical.
In the absence of Mr Fire Extinguisher's actions having a harmful outcome, his sentence is presumably based on an asessment of his actions rather than the outcome. And it would appear that he has been judged to be culpable of recklessness.
MAN WHO LEFT STUDENT PARALYSED BY THROWING CONE OFF BRIDGE AVOIDS JAIL.
and if it had hit someone he'd have almost certainly been up for manslaughter. He's lucky it didn't. That said, you can't really sentence someone based on something that *might* have happened. As you said above, what his previous record is like is probably the more important thing.
As VGW points out re: mens rea, being a reckless mofo apparently *is* a major factor: "The greater the probability of that risk maturing into the foreseen injury, the greater the degree of recklessness and, subsequently, sentence rendered." Whether you agree with that principle or not, it does seem to be the basis for law.
Still, it's very difficult to get past the fact that no harm actually occured.
Although I guess the same could be said about drink driving - which most reasonable people would agree rightly deserves to be punished even without an actual accident occuring. Or would they.
But then you look at the comparable story I linked to where a guy throws cone onto the road below and paralyses someone else. He ends up with 180 hours community service and no prison sentence! Solely because the girl expresses forgiveness? Dunno. Would Mr Fire Extinguisher have been spared a prison sentence in favour of community service if the Police had been as compassionate as Ms Paralysed By Cone? Dunno.
"Driving or attempting to drive with alcohol level above limit" carries a different sentence range to "Being in charge of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol" which carries a different sentence range to "Causing death through careless driving when unfit through drink".
Of course. And it all seems logical.
But aside from comparisons of the seriousness of the actions of Mr Fire Extinguiser and Mr Drunk Driver (whatever the outcome may be), I'm more confused/interested by the dissparity of sentence when we compare Mr Fire Extinguiser (no outcome & 32 months in jail) and Mr Cone (outcome: paralysed girl & 180 hours community service).
and without sitting in both cases it's impossible to tell. I wouldn't get too fixated on one particular comparison as you're talking about different legal systems, different judges, in different moods, most likely different 'mitigating' circumstances being presented...
whereas your senses should tell you that lobbing the fire extinguisher from that height would totally wreck a human
18hrs CS vs 32 mths Jail does seem quite a difference.
But I guess both guys acted like monumental belms, and neither they nor we are in a position to make the call without hearing everything that was said in court. It's an interesting one though.
is pretty convincing I think. From the point of view of the defendant, whether or not his actions harm anyone is purely a matter of luck. Assuming that criminal conviction and punishment should primarily reflect an offender's culpability, you should treat someone in Mr Fire Extinguisher's situation the same whether or not they cause harm. This is also beneficial because it makes liabilities more sensitive to choice.
This isn't to deny that harm is an important element of crimes: I certainly agree with including it in offence definitions. But if criminal law is primarily about what offenders *do* then I find it pretty incredible that anyone would doubt that endangerment is an entirely proper basis for sentencing.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#England
"Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not."
A little further on it says that: "The general rule under common law is that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution." Doesn't say that specifically applies to England & Wales, but it's my understanding that English law is based in common law (as opposed to civil law or anything other hybrid), so it can't be a million miles away from the principle being worked on in this case.
Still confused by the disparity between Mr Fire Extinguisher and Mr Cone. Mr Cone was sentenced under Scots law, granted, but that apparently has a similar definition of Recklessness, so I don't think that's the reason.
So I come nack to asking whether Mr Fire Extinguisher have been spared a prison sentence in favour of community service if the Police had been as compassionate as Ms Paralysed By Cone?
is subtly but importantly wrong. "Not caring" isn't part of the English definition of recklessness. It's enough that (a) the defendant knows of the risks attached to his conduct and (b) it is, in the circumstances known to him, unjustifiable to take the risk. In theory, that's compatible with caring about the relevant harm, even to the point of hoping that it doesn't occur.
I agree that Fire Extinguisher and Cone are in similar positions by the terms of that definition, though. Perhaps the Scots sentencing guidelines are more lenient? Unfortunate though the disparity is, it's perhaps unsurprising given the inevitably somewhat arbitrary nature of sentence lengths.
i'd rather throw her on a fire to put it out than the contents of a fire extinguisher.
RA RA OO LA LA LA
(although it was 13 1/2 years since I was there)