Noob Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder what the true force of the object would have been on impact? Drop a housebrick on a lemon, then imagine that lemon is a human head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Nobody got hurt. He didn't hit anyone. Kill someone in your car and you get a £200 fine. The sentence is utterly absurd. I agree , the sentence is absurd............. He should have got a minimum of 5 years . He threw that fire extinguisher from that roof knowing full well it could have hit someone , which would have killed them . The fact , by sheer luck it didnt hit anyone is not the issue. He knew what he was doing , and should count himself very lucky indeed he got away with a very light sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Hopefully the same as if it was my car. That'd be nothing then:hihi:. and heres the clue, he would have then been serving time for murder ergo he attempted to murder! I'm more inclined to think the charge would have been manslaughter (murder requires thought - something this individual is clearly incapable of). He'd have still probably got the same sentence. The length probably has "making an example of" factored into it! Which opens the door for an appeal. I nearly didn't kill someone a few months ago. In fact someone nearly didn't kill me a year ago..maybe we should be in the same cell.. If you remember though, it wasn't students, it was all the anarchists. So you expect all students to have the same political affiliations, do you? in this case it just looks like victimization. too much for too little. Indeed. 3 years isn't so bad, 2 for being stupid 1 for endangement to others. We can't just imprison people just because they're stupid. We'd have no governments:D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LardyBoy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Both, in my opinion. Penalties for killer drivers are ansurdly lenient, the penalty for this idiot seems manifestly excessive, again in my opinion. How do you manage to turn everything into an attack on motorists . ? This idiots actions ,and subsequent prison sentence has NOTHING to do with motorists. This fool deserves everything he gets . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder what the true force of the object would have been on impact? F=ma A 5 kilo extinguisher travelling at 9.8m/sec=a very large egg on some poor bugger's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 F=ma A 5 kilo extinguisher travelling at 9.8m/sec=a very large egg on some poor bugger's head. A large egg if the "bugger" is lucky a huge crater is more likely though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 That'd be nothing then:hihi:. I'm more inclined to think the charge would have been manslaughter (murder requires thought - something this individual is clearly incapable of). He'd have still probably got the same sentence. Which opens the door for an appeal. So you expect all students to have the same political affiliations, do you? Indeed. We can't just imprison people just because they're stupid. We'd have no governments:D. Having just looked it up maybe voluntary manslaughter, I didn't know that was an option. So he could have been done for attempted voluntary manslaughter but for this you need a mitigating factor such as provocation. Im not sure tuition fees would qualify as provocation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Having just looked it up maybe voluntary manslaughter, I didn't know that was an option. So he could have been done for attempted voluntary manslaughter but for this you need a mitigating factor such as provocation. Im not sure tuition fees would qualify as provocation? If he can show that in the situation there was something which provoked him he could successfully argue it. There isn't a set definition of provocation in so much as anything can be said to provoke someone, it boils to whether the "reasonable person" would have been provoked in the situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 How do you manage to turn everything into an attack on motorists . ? This idiots actions ,and subsequent prison sentence has NOTHING to do with motorists. . If I was attacking motorists I would have said all motorists should go to prison. I didn't, I said drunk drivers who kill should go to prison. That's attacking drunk motorists, not motorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I've just done some quicl calc's and that 2kgs was doing nearly 100mph when it hit the floor, thats making assumptions about the buildings height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.