Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To feel sorry for (and think the punishment is too long) for the 18 year old who threw the fire extinguisher in the protests

608 replies

LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake · 11/01/2011 13:56

2 years, 8 months in jail Shock

here

That's a looooong time. Is the reasoning supposed to be that it's a deterrent?

There are people with asbo's who cause no end of trouble and don't get sentences like this.

OP posts:
noddyholder · 11/01/2011 19:45

If you really imagine it as your own child you must feel some empathy.My ds is nearly 17 and him and his friends are all good decent kids but do do some silly things.My ds is dyspraxic and is not a great swimmer but ran into the sea fully clothes and in october bloody freezing dangerous but the whole atmosphere of his 'crowd' obliterated any fear or sense.i know he was only hurting and endangering himself they all were but they didn't see that until well after the event unlike us oldies who are cautious because we have experienced things.I do think what he did was reckless but calling him a thug etc is just knee jerk DM stuff

slhilly · 11/01/2011 19:45

Correcting the silly underline error:

Hum.

Kaloki asks what he might have intended doing other than causing people harm. No-one can know for sure, but my guess is that he wanted to set the fire extinguisher off by throwing it off the building, thus getting it to spray everyone. I think stupidity rather than active malice (ie intent to do harm) is a likely explanation.

Similarly, I think stupidity with only a small amount of malice lies behind the action of the police officer who pushed over Ian Tomlinson and killed him and was punished for this actual harm with ... no punishment at all. I doubt the police officer wanted to cause serious harm, but I struggle to imagine he didn't want Ian Tomlinson to be sore and bruised.

There are times when "Justice? Just us" feels all too appropriate to me.

Expat, btw, you tell the heart-warming story of the man who killed his girlfriend by drunk-driving at 120mph and then reformed. You mention that he served 3 years for his crime ie 4months longer than this man's sentence, and 1yr8months longer than he's likely to actually serve. Do you think that differential is appropriate? If not, what would you change: increase the sentence for your drunk-driving involuntary killer, decrease the sentence on the fire extinguisher tosser (I'm quite pleased with that pun), or both?

One other comment: there seem to be a lot of people making extraodinarily vitriolic comments about this man. In particular, a lot of suggestions that he should suffer for the rest of his life only be able to get dead-end jobs, etc etc. These comments frankly sound a lot like vengeance, sadism and mob rule not a desire to see the rule of law prevail. Will someone justify them? What is the value of such hate-filled speech?

TandB · 11/01/2011 19:46

Alicatte - cruel and unusual is not the basis for an appeal. Manifestly excessive is.

18 months custody and a fine are poles apart in terms of sentencing. A fine is almost the lowest level of sentence available. 18 months custody is relatively hefty. A fine would not be imposed for violent disorder.

girliefriend · 11/01/2011 19:47

yanbu I think it is part of a message that wants to deter people from protesting peaceful or not. I think what he did was really stupid, dangerous, reckless and a custodial sentance is appropriate but I think this sentance is too long.

alicatte · 11/01/2011 19:51

Do you think so kungfu? Its just that a step relative of my BIL who was in his forties got involved with football violence and threw furniture, including metal chairs, at some fans AND a policeman. He was convicted of 'Violent Affray' and got a suspended 9 month sentence. We were all 'raised eyebrows' and horrified about it at the time but apparently the judge was swayed because he was self-employed and it would not benefit society to imprison him.

This young man seems to have done no more (and possibly less) than my BIL's stepbrother.

AND the stepbrother had a previous offence.

It just seems a bit - well WRONG.

lifeinCrimbo · 11/01/2011 19:52

Yes, he was silly and made a mistake.
No, he didnt actually hurt anyone.

Yes, he should have gone to court, and be given a fright.
But, the sentence is completely disproportionate to the 'crime' (what was he actually charged with??)

"I've seen drink drivers who have killed people get less." exactly.
"This government is making a scapegoat out of a teenager who handed himself in, and a monkey out of his mum who told him to do so." :(

ashamedandconfused · 11/01/2011 19:52

My kids have been told from the age of 3 that its wrong and dangerous to do stupid things like throw stones off bridges, snowballs at cars etc etc

this was an ADULT - 18 - old enough to drive, vote etc - and he did something unbelievably stupid and dangerous

no doubt he regrets it hugely,but my sympathy for him is very limited and he should be soooo glad he did not hurt anyone (by amazing fluke)

dittany · 11/01/2011 19:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 19:56

So basically he's attempted to hurt others but people want him to be treated more leniently because he didn't actually succeed? Nice Hmm

TandB · 11/01/2011 19:57

alicatte - there is no such offence as violent affray. Affray is lower level. Violent disorder is high-end, just below riot.

A suspended sentence is not a low level sentence - it is still a custodial sentence of the relevant length. It just means that the judge found reason to suspend it. Still a million miles from a fine.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 19:57

So basically he's attempted to hurt others but people want him to be treated more leniently because he didn't actually succeed? Nice Hmm

TandB · 11/01/2011 19:58

Also - throwing chairs at people - relatively unlikely to kill. Throwing a heavy object off a high building onto a crowd. Actually pretty unbelievable that no-one was injured.

dittany · 11/01/2011 19:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alicatte · 11/01/2011 20:02

Sorry Kungfu - we cross posted there. I know no more than my friend at the Law Centre tells me or I read on the Government websites (I checked up the sentencing averages from an old report on a parliamentary committee with Angela Eagle asking some questions - I am only a teacher - I came across the ubiquitous 'cruel and unusual' thing as a result of a conversation with a European Lawyer at a dinner party he told me it could be applied across the board, I am very trusting)

Thank you for clearing it up. So it was, then, a little heavy as a sentence.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 20:02

I really love the comments about "didn't you do anything silly as a teenager?"

Yes, I did, lots - but at no point did I deliberately endanger other peoples lives!

HonestyBox · 11/01/2011 20:03

I am surprised at the sentence, feel a better punishment would have been many, many hours of a productive sort of community service. Who knows what sort of person prison will turn him into? I feel he had a moment of madness and was caught up in the whole emotion of the event, rather than having serious criminal intent. He has a lot of growing up to do. And thank god he didn't kill anyone, then it would obviously be a different story.

lochnessmumster · 11/01/2011 20:04

A few people on this thread seem to be saying that because in other cases people are given lighter sentences, this guy should have been treated less harshly.
Surely others need to be given tougher sentences.
This idiot must have known the danger he was putting people below in. He's bloody lucky not tp be serving life for murder.

slhilly · 11/01/2011 20:04

I think drunk-driving is much worse than his offence. At worst, he could have killed one or two people and two would have been quite a stretch. A car is not a 9kg lump of metal travelling at a max speed of c30mph, as in this case; it is a 1,000kg+ lump of metal travelling at 60mph or more, filled with explosive liquid. And it can hit another object the same size or heavier travelling in the opposite direction. As kinetic energy scales with the square of speed, the results of two 1,000kg objects colliding at 120mph are potentially way more devastating than a fire extinguisher being thrown (and of course, other cars can have secondary crashes as they swerve / brake / drive into the original pileup). As we know because multiple deaths from a single car being driven by a drunkard are all too common.

slhilly · 11/01/2011 20:05

Gah! Stupid post error again...

I think drunk-driving is much worse than his offence. At worst, he could have killed one or two people and two would have been quite a stretch. A car is not a 9kg lump of metal travelling at a max speed of c30mph, as in this case; it is a 1,000kg+ lump of metal travelling at 60mph or more, filled with explosive liquid. And it can hit another object the same size or heavier travelling in the opposite direction. As kinetic energy scales with the square of speed, the results of two 1,000kg objects colliding at 120mph are potentially way more devastating than a fire extinguisher being thrown (and of course, other cars can have secondary crashes as they swerve / brake / drive into the original pileup). As we know because multiple deaths from a single car being driven by a drunkard are all too common.

dittany · 11/01/2011 20:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 20:06

Quite lochness he should be grateful that this sentence is all he got!

overthesea · 11/01/2011 20:07

I really disagree with this lad going to prison. This is just a case of a person being used as an example which I absolutely detest.

He did a seriously stupid thing in the heat of the moment as stupid 18 year olds are wont to do. I doubt for one moment he thought about the consequences. And as it happened there weren't any. Lucky for him. But all the same, you can't sentence people on a 'what if' scenario. He could have been punished in a far more productive way.

dittany · 11/01/2011 20:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lochnessmumster · 11/01/2011 20:08

And as for the "he got caught up in the whole emotion of the event" bollocks, that arguement could be put forward for lots of violent crimes.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 20:10

'Who can't relate to that? Most of our actions at this age are impulsive and daft, and his were no different. Of course he should be punished severely, but this?'

No, I really can't relate to chucking a fire extinguisher into a crowd from the top of a building.

Impulsive and daft, indeed, but a crime with intent to do very grave harm.

That is the difference between this individual's actions and the silliness of other youthful ones.

slhilly, I'm not a lawyer or a judge and did not hand down that man's sentence, it also took place about 23 years ago in another country known for tough sentencing. If he did the same now, in that same country, he'd have been looking at a conviction of vehicular homicide and a much longer sentence.