32 months for student who chucked the fire extinguisher.

[harvey19]

I don't see why. Driving recklessly isn't done unintentionally, the driver was fully aware of what they were doing and chose, voluntarily, to engage in risky behaviour that significantly increases the danger to others, just like lobbing stuff off buildings.

 

Say the student said:

 

"Yep, I lobbed the fire extinguisher off a building towards a crowd"

 

would you accept that in mitigation the same as a driver who chooses to get in their car whilst drunk and drive down a crowded high street?

 

After all, the drunk would say:

 

"Yep, I drove past people in a half ton vehicle but I didn't mean to kill anyone?"

The fire extinguisher was aimed in the direction of the crowd.

[llamatron]

I don't see why. Driving recklessly isn't done unintentionally, the driver was fully aware of what they were doing and chose, voluntarily, to engage in risky behaviour that significantly increases the danger to others, just like lobbing stuff off buildings.

 

Say the student said:

 

"Yep, I lobbed the fire extinguisher off a building towards a crowd"

 

would you accept that in mitigation the same as a driver who chooses to get in their car whilst drunk and drive down a crowded high street?

 

After all, the drunk would say:

 

"Yep, I drove past people in a half ton vehicle but I didn't mean to kill anyone?"

 

 

Anyone aiming a car at a crowd should be done for attempted murder. That is the comparative scenario.

 

I think drink drivers should be charged with attempted murder but there is still a difference as the intention is "to get home". What intention was there for throwing the extinguisher at a crowd?

[llamatron]

I'm afraid it wouldn't. question one was "why did you take the fire extinguisher to the roof?" seeing as it after the fact and they all know there was no fire there it's loaded to show the error of the kid's way.

the driver would need to be asked "why did you drive when so tired/drunk/on the phone etc."

 

in your case the kid would only be asked "why did you take the fire extinguisher?" to which he'd say "to take it to the roof." only then would we get to the other questions.

 

why did you want it on the roof

to throw it at the crowd

 

there you go an entirely different answer.

 

The law agrees with me, intention is very important. Its why we have manslaughter if intention was irrelevant there would only be murder.

[Kthebean]

i don't know that phrase. what does it mean?

 

It means, that could have been me, the only reason it wasnt me is because God has spared me that awful fate.

 

Usually used as a reason for being charitable around people worse off than you.

 

I dont know about the rest of you, but it couldn't have been me. I've never chucked anything off a roof into a crowd of people. Yes I've been daft and had accidents but I've never intentionally tried to kill somoene.

[Kaimani]

Falling asleep at the wheel is a careless/negligent/reckless act but it does not carry the required intention in the same way as throwing a fire extinguisher does.

 

yeah. the intend is different. maybe i explained myself wrong. the kid probably intended just to freak someone out with all the foam etc and the tired guy in the car just wanted to get home to his Mrs.

the point was why does the guy then get a fine or something and the kid gets three years when neither intended harm and both were reckless enough to do things they knew MIGHT hurt others.

hope this is better.

[spooky3]

i don't know that phrase. what does it mean?

 

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/there-but-for-the-grace-of-god.html

 

I too, like someone seen to have suffered misfortune, might have suffered a similar fate, but for God's mercy.

[Kaimani]

That may well be the case Kaimani, but usually the defence is driven by a number of different arguments, which create that doubt.

 

Had the fire extinguisher been resting on the ledge of the balcony and the defendant brushed past it and it fell fair enough, or if he genuinely believed there was no one on the ground below-but deliberately and recklessly tossing it over the balcony during a riot situation is an instant turn off as far as juries and judges are concerned.

 

you'd be surprised by what juries believe, or at least doubt. besides, the CPS worked out what to charge him with and the judge had to hand down the sentence, which the jury had nothing to do with. the judge shouldn't have been so ruthless.

[harvey19]

i don't know that phrase. what does it mean?

It roughly means that 2 people can do the same thing seperately at different times and locations . One person may suffer consequences of what they did but the other doesn't whereas at a different time and place the result could be different.

Similar to the phrase They had luck on their side.

Not necessarily linked to crime but can relate to any every day occurance.

[decaff]

Anyone aiming a car at a crowd should be done for attempted murder. That is the comparative scenario.

 

I think drink drivers should be charged with attempted murder but there is still a difference as the intention is "to get home". What intention was there for throwing the extinguisher at a crowd?

 

Drink drivers should be punished more severely. Intoxication is however a recognised defence to crimes of specific intent (such as murder, burglary etc) so something like attempted murder is not possible when drunk, unless being drunk is part of a prior plan.

[Kaimani]

why did you want it on the roof

to throw it at the crowd

 

there you go an entirely different answer.

 

The law agrees with me, intention is very important. Its why we have manslaughter if intention was irrelevant there would only be murder.

 

we agree on everything here pretty much. my point is i think the kid himself didn't know what he wanted to do with the extinguisher once on the roof. the likely answer would be 'i don't know' or 'to throw it into the crowd, not at anyone'.

again, i don't think his intention was to hurt anyone. that's why i think if he had, say, killed someone it would have been manslaughter. never did say intention is irrelevant. in fact, said this on another thread, the result of a crimes, by law as it stands, seems less important than the intent behind it.