Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I was really speaking generally with reference to juries/judges as you'd made a general point about other cases. I dont believe the judge was particularly ruthless although he might not have given full credit for an early guilty plea, but no doubt it will be subject to appeal anyway. you think so? think he'll just do a third of the half he's supposed to do then get out on a tag for a bit then sell his story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noob Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ..and his sentence would have been even higher on conviction. Worth the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Oh. I thought that's what forums are for. My opinion has no bearing on the case though does it? If i had access to all the facts i could make an informed decision. In his defence it was a highly charged situation, but it is hard to defend anyone throwing a fire extinguisher into a crowd and on the bass of the evidence i have seen, attempted murder seems fitting but I also ackowledge there is room to argue otherwise. I often think that dangerous driving sentences are too lenient particularly when deaths are caused by people with no licence/insurance etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Exactly. I agree. Its still not the same as lobbing a heavy object from a building at a crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Becasue of the wild disparity in sentences for equally rash and dangerous acts. If you disagree with this you would need to explain why steering half a ton of metal around vulnerable road users whilst potentially lethally distracted is not the same as heaving two kilos of metal toward a crowd of people. You've answered your own question - POTENTIALLY. Heaving two kilos shows intent. He deserves exactly what he got. Otherwise the next time some idiot throws a paving slab from a bridge into traffic they'll use this case as precedence. He was a stupid moron of the first degree - just like drink drivers and druggies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Its still not the same as lobbing a heavy object from a building at a crowd. When you compare the sorts of sentence imposed for nonpolitical violent offences and in particular in relation to deaths on the road (frequently caused by highly reprehensible behaviour) it is hard to escape the conclusion that there is a political element in this sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 you think so? think he'll just do a third of the half he's supposed to do then get out on a tag for a bit then sell his story. I might be confused about your position Kaimani, but you now seem to be suggesting that the sentence isnt so grievous after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 When you compare the sorts of sentence imposed for nonpolitical violent offences and in particular in relation to deaths on the road (frequently caused by highly reprehensible behaviour) it is hard to escape the conclusion that there is a political element in this sentence. And quite rightly so - we have the right to peaceful demonstration. Hurling an object of that weight from that height with intent isn't peaceful. I wonder what the true force of the object would have been on impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Absolutely absurd|: I'm interested in the idea that because he "could" have killed, he should be done for attempted murder. He didn't. Every day motorists drive too fast, drive while speaking on their mobile phone and generally drive their car like an offensive weapon. Unless they hurt someone, they are highly unlikely to be prosecuted for anything more than careless driving. It is almost inconceivable that they would be sent to jail. Therefore, why on earth should this lad go to jail. He did a stupid thing, but he didn't kill anyone and I think he's well aware that he did a stupid thing. It can't possibly be in the public interest to lock him up - he's not a danger to society and he's a be a lot better off in a decent job contributing his taxes to the country. Lets save prison for those who really do murder, rape and maim. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23912777-sixth-form-student-faces-jail-for-throwing-fire-extinguisher-during-tuition-fees-riot.do wow, 32 months. that is harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I might be confused about your position Kaimani, but you now seem to be suggesting that the sentence isnt so grievous after all? no, no. it's too harsh. but i do think that he was made an example of, for media etc,but is going to be released early because of good behavior and the fact that there's just not the room to keep 'non criminals' like him locked up. and he is gonna sell his story i think. was just looking into my crystal ball there. still think he should never have been locked down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.