32 months for student who chucked the fire extinguisher.

[llamatron]

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

 

I don't think a reasonable person would throw a heavy object from a height onto a crowd. If I was a juror I wouldn't accept that!

 

Whilst still irrelevant this is interesting:

Motor manslaughter

 

Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of "dangerousness", i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. Note the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results.

 

It sounds like the charge was reduced to get a higher conviction rate!

[boyfriday]

A large egg if the "bugger" is lucky a huge crater is more likely though

 

If willman's calcs are anything like correct I think you're quite right, it's instant death for the recipient of that projectile.

 

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.

[llamatron]

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.

 

I think the height looked enough to make it irrelevant although Im not sure how long the fall is required to be before it hits constant velocity?

[willman]

don't know, i used an online physics calc and used 100m as the height, by the time it hit the floor it was doing 44.47m/s.

[decaff]

I don't think a reasonable person would throw a heavy object from a height onto a crowd. If I was a juror I wouldn't accept that![/Quote]

 

I wasn't necessarily saying that he was acting reasonably, i was merely pointing out that anything can be classed as provocation.

 

 

 

Whilst still irrelevant this is interesting:

Motor manslaughter

 

Because of a reluctance by juries to convict when the charge was manslaughter, a statutory offence of "causing death by dangerous driving" was introduced. Following the Road Traffic Law Review Committee (1988), the Road Traffic Act 1991 abandoned recklessness in favour of the pre-statutory objective test of "dangerousness", i.e. did the driving fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver. The Committee also recommended that manslaughter should be an optional charge for the more serious driving cases. Note the possibility of charging an aggravated taking without consent for less seriously dangerous driving where death results.

 

It sounds like the charge was reduced to get a higher conviction rate!

 

It does appear that is the case, which is crazy!

[decaff]

I think the height looked enough to make it irrelevant although Im not sure how long the fall is required to be before it hits constant velocity?

 

Apparently it takes 7 stories for a cat to hit terminal velocity

 

(PLEASE NOTE I have never and would never through a cat from any window, i got this little fact from QI)

[sccsux]

I have never and would never through a cat from any window

 

That's what verandas are for:hihi:

[spooky3]

That's what verandas are for:hihi:

 

Did you miss that spelling mistake, or are you selective on who you correct?

[Digsy]

“When the extinguisher was emptied, I lobbed it to go into a gap in the crowd below. I was absolutely not intending that anyone in anyway would be hurt. Very soon afterwards, I realised it was something I should not have done. I regret bitterly what I did.”

 

He aimed for the gap in the crowd, which is where it landed, he never intended to hurt anyone, hence throwing it at the gap and not the crowd, and funnily enough it didn't hurt anyone, because it landed in the gap he aimed for.

 

That does not mean it was a wise thing to do, but all these murder/manslaughter accusations are a little far fetched because.......

 

Edward Woollard, 18, pleaded guilty to violent disorder at the protests in November when students and school children tried to storm Tory Party headquarters.

 

....... I'd assume he was done for "violent disorder".

 

But the judge added: “The courts have a duty to provide the community with such protection from violence as they can. This means sending out a very clear message to anyone minded to behave in this way that an offence of this seriousness will not be tolerated.

 

So don't let your momma get you to turn yourself in.

My bold = tell that to Ian Tomlinson, abit of twisted justice imo.

[sccsux]

are you selective on who you correct?

 

Naah. I was just having fun (you said you didn't understand what another poster said, so I told you the reason for his confusion, never said I cared, one way or the other - I understood what you meant). Chill and don't take my comment on another thread to heart.