llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 but then, you impaired your own judgment. it wasn't some outside agent did it. wouldn't you say? yes that is what I was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 you said the video has been used to show what the reporter wants it to show, now it is showing the facts is it? hmmmmm:hihi: all the video proves is just how lucky he was! Presumably when you throw waste of the top of a building into a skip everyone in the area has to wear hard hats and the public are not allowed near it. I wonder why that would be:confused: I said the news footage shows what they want you to see, you was the one claiming you couldn't see any gap from the footage. I've provided you with footage that there was a gap, I've also confirmed using the news footage that he was aiming for the gap, yes this is fact, as much a fact as you saying you couldn't see a gap from what I can only assume was the news footage, which happens to be an angle that makes the area look more populated than it actually was. The officer was wearing a hard hat and the public weren't allowed near the spot where the extinguisher landed, I'm still trying to establish what point it is your trying to make. You also said that "nobody has an aim that good", and I gave you a personal example of where I have experienced people with an aim that good from a higher height into a smaller area of space. The gap he threw it at was larger than the 2 skips we used to aim at, the lighter the object the less chance of hitting the target, the heavier the object the easier it was to hit the skips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Ryan* Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 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. Too true!! You could probably get less for rape!! Or theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddgitt Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 How do you unintentionally get drunk and drive a car? An accident is unforeseeable. How do you unintentionally get drunk? You drink - it is reasonably forseeable that you get drunk. If you drive when drunk, it is reasonably foreseeable that you'll have an accident. If you send a lad to work on the docks with no training whatsoever, it is reasonably foreseeable that he'll have or cause an accident. It's reasonably foreseeable, that if you chucked a fire extinguisher off a roof, it'll hit someone/something/bounce and hurt someone. Reasonably foreseeable is the key term in many types of law, particularly health and safety law. I originally thought a custodial sentence was harsh until I watched the video on the news - unless he makes a habit of throwing extinguishers off buildings there's no way he could have been sure where it would've gone and what would've happened. Therefore I now think he deserves a stretch, as it was reckless and stupid and potentially lethal. I think now his sentence is a bit harsh. 1 year max would've done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I said the news footage shows what they want you to see, you was the one claiming you couldn't see any gap from the footage. I've provided you with footage that there was a gap, I've also confirmed using the news footage that he was aiming for the gap, yes this is fact, as much a fact as you saying you couldn't see a gap from what I can only assume was the news footage, which happens to be an angle that makes the area look more populated than it actually was. The officer was wearing a hard hat and the public weren't allowed near the spot where the extinguisher landed, I'm still trying to establish what point it is your trying to make. You also said that "nobody has an aim that good", and I gave you a personal example of where I have experienced people with an aim that good from a higher height into a smaller area of space. The gap he threw it at was larger than the 2 skips we used to aim at, the lighter the object the less chance of hitting the target, the heavier the object the easier it was to hit the skips. nope wrong yet again, I have already corrected you on this. The crowd could easily have moved, the news stated it landed a metre away from the police officer. When you throw stuff into skips there is an exclusion zone for the general public and everyone on site has to wear hard hats. You ignored this because it doesn't fit in with your aiming claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 yes that is what I was saying. should you not then be prosecuted on the strength of your mind at the first pint, shot or whatever coz you knew where it was likely to lead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 should you not then be prosecuted on the strength of your mind at the first pint, shot or whatever coz you knew where it was likely to lead? As I said I think drink driving should be treated as a murder/attempted impairment of judgement should be a mitigating factor so the fact that you were drunk when you made the decision to drive should have a bearing on the sentencing because of the intent BUT these situations are in no way comparable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 nope wrong yet again, I have already corrected you on this. The crowd could easily have moved, the news stated it landed a metre away from the police officer. When you throw stuff into skips there is an exclusion zone for the general public and everyone on site has to wear hard hats. You ignored this because it doesn't fit in with your aiming claims. Could have, ifs and buts are not a good reason to send a message via a harsh sentence though. The crowd could have moved forward to be clobbered by the riot squad, but it didn't, why are you so willing to conjure imaginary events when the actual event never happened that way. His intention was to throw it at the gap, the news footage proves this better than the footage I provided, as he aims it, he takes a couple of swings and then lets go. The police officer had body armour and a helmet, your ignoring this because it supports what I'm saying. I'm ignoring the imaginary events because it didn't happen that way, regardless of the fact it could have. If the crowd had surged forward the defendant could have decided it too risky and not thrown it. The only danger that I can see is that the officer could have moved forward, or the extinguisher could have bounced in a different direction and took out another officers legs (who was chatting to two other officers and was oblivious to the fact it landed until it bounced past). Like I've said I'm not condoning throwing fire extinguishers off a building, but making examples of people that turn themselves in is wrong imo, it gives a message not to turn yourself in. Which does more harm to society than this one lad could ever have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 As I said I think drink driving should be treated as a murder/attempted impairment of judgement should be a mitigating factor so the fact that you were drunk when you made the decision to drive should have a bearing on the sentencing because of the intent BUT these situations are in no way comparable! yeah yeah. the situations, in themselves are not comparable, i don't think. but that they are handled by the same system with such varied results even when loss of life is concerned is disturbing. mob rule, adrenaline, etc could have been mitigating for the boy. they've been used successfully before, but the media made that impossible, i think. my point is, under the system, looked at as a whole, with precedent, and comparison of other crimes done and judged, his sentence does seem harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 i suppose the other question would be-"for this moment of madness, considering our system takes prior records into things, does the kid deserve to have his studies, life etc derailed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.