mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 So you expect all students to have the same political affiliations, do you? No, and I didn't claim so either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blonde Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If the Extinguisher had hit someone, then people would'nt be critiscising the sentence he received but moaning that he didn't get long enough. I think the sentence he got was fair for doing something so dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wasn't necessarily saying that he was acting reasonably, i was merely pointing out that anything can be classed as provocation. It does appear that is the case, which is crazy! I guess maybe its the jurors thinking "it could have been me". Its so easy to kill someone with a car completely by accident. Throwing an extinguisher off a roof on the other hand requires direct intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newboy2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 32 months for dinting tarmack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 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. I didn't, i'm still going to crack your CMS though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 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....... ....... I'd assume he was done for "violent disorder". So don't let your momma get you to turn yourself in. My bold = tell that to Ian Tomlinson, abit of twisted justice imo. But had the crowd moved or had he misaimed (assuming his statement is true) it would have been at the very least manslaughter! It didn't look from the footage that there was a gap big enough to aim at the gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No, and I didn't claim so either. So they all could've been anarchists then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I didn't, i'm still going to crack your CMS though! Feel free (though try to remember, you'll be committing a criminal act in doing so). BTW, I think you'll find posting that you're going to commit a criminal act is against the forum rules:D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 But had the crowd moved or had he misaimed (assuming his statement is true) it would have been at the very least manslaughter! But it didn't, hence no manslaughter charge, why continue discussing some fictional event that never happened? It didn't look from the footage that there was a gap big enough to aim at the gap. The footage is unreliable, it is edited and doctored to give you pretty much whatever impression the news crew want to give. Just because it did not look like a gap was there on the piece of footage, it does not mean that no gap was there at another point in time not shown on the footage, unless you think that the camera showing you the 4guy throwing the extinguisher and the one showing the crowd were somehow synced during the news article you watched. To me it is obvious there was a gap, 1) because the defendant claims to have aimed for it, 2) it never hit anyone standing in the gap that is disputed to have existed. Prosecutors told Southwark crown court that if an officer had not shouted a warning someone could have been killed. If you watch the footage, not many officers were looking up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk And not many flinched, it was a good shot considering he aimed for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Feel free (though try to remember, you'll be committing a criminal act in doing so). BTW, I think you'll find posting that you're going to commit a criminal act is against the forum rules. Good job he didn't twitter it, you know how quick the authorities are to crack down on some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.