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

[LaurieFairyonthetreeEatsCake]

2 years, 8 months in jail

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.

Did some idiot actually post, "at worst he could have killed one or two people..."
I really do despair sometimes!

Then campaign for stricter punishments for drunk drivers, slhilly.

imagine one of those coppers going home to their partner all emotional because they KNEW they had been inches away from death

imagine knowing that you/DH were THAT lucky to escape - a step to the left or right at the wrong moment and - BANG! dead, gone.

that no one was killed was a miracle, it really was - he should still be severly punished

Mmmm as if one or two is ok, but any more would of been totally unacceptable!

Yes, they did, lochness. What's one or two folks, at worst?

What's a copper with his head and body smashed in?

FFS.

Maybe we could introduce the medieval justice option where for his punishment he stands still at the bottom of a building and someone throws a fire extinguisher at him? After all, it might not hit him.

I think 2 and a bit years is about right. He was so "caught up in the moment" he tried to seriously injure (I doubt he was thinking of murder, but I believe he was thinking of doing harm) some police officers and was prevented only by luck. Not going to be getting out the violins for him ay time soon.

I haven't read all these posts as haven't time but I am incensed at this sentence when police kill innocent people (Ian Tomlinson) and lie about their involvement. Even when it can be proved on video that at the very least Ian Tomlinson was assaulted by a police officer (without his no. on his uniform - what happened - got off scott free. Same thing happened with the police who killed the Chilean man on the train who they thought was a bomber - they put 7 bullets into him, when they already had him on the floor. They also told lies saying he wore a padded jacket (he didn;t) saying he jumped the barrier (he didn't) and what happened to the police - got off scot free. Another young woman was seen on video being assaulted by a police officer, saying he thought she had a weapon (it was a carton of orange and the woman was about 5 feet high what happened - got off scott free.

Can anyone tell me of a case they know of where a police officer has actually been taken to court (they don't usually get that far because the CPS come up some excuse why they can't be tried) and on the rare occasions there is a trial they are let off scott free. In one case the Judge actually told the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict - what use of a jury then.

I think this young man's mother was honest but naieve and trusted the police and courts that he would get a non custodial sentence - she's learned the hard way. His future has been ruined, while the police are free to assault, lie and kill people with impunity. Makes my blood boil.

Agree with you slhilly. I wonder if these posters who are posting vitriolic comments have anything to say about the atrocities that the police commit and get away scot free.

YABVU - I wouldn't want to see a custodial sentence for the students who got involved in 'horseplay' with Charles and Camilla's car for instance, but for lobbing a fire extinguisher off a fucking roof where he could so easily have killed someone. What a fucking arse wipe - he so deserves prison and a criminal record

Jeez...."at worst" does not imply that killing one or two people is a trivial thing. It means that it's not as bad as killing six or eight people, as drunk drivers have been known to do. If you read out of context, you can make a statement look idiotic. But the context is there for you to read, lochnessmumster. I was responding to Dittany's comparison with drunk-driving.

Dittany, intent is important but surely must typically be less important than actual harm caused:

• the harm is the bad thing we are seeking to minimise. Where the intent is self-defense, for example, that is based on the argument that the harm inflicted by the person defending themselves was necessary to avoid the harm inflicted by others
• harm is clear, intent must always contain an element of conjecture

I personally would wnat to see some idiot who recklessly drove a car when drunk and killed four people go to prison for longer than some idiot who threw a fire extinguisher off a roof and killed a police officer.

YABU, he was lucky he didn't kill anyone and he knew what he was doing.

He'll be out in half the time as well.

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

nananina- havn't watched the news today my dear? Police officer given 2 life sentences?
Any way, your point is irrelevant, just because the police don't always play fair, does not mean this eedjit can endanger lives.
And it wasn't just police officers standing there.
An eye for an eye will leave us all blind.

I wouldn't be surprised if he has been 'advised' as to how to plead with the proviso that once his solicitors appeal he will have a very good chance of getting his sentence reduced but this initial sentence will serve the purpose of deterring others from protest.Any sentence over 2.5 years is declarable for life which is a terrible blot on his record no matter how remorseful he is or how he learns from this.Although the place they are sending him to could have a dreadful effect on him

'YABVU - I wouldn't want to see a custodial sentence for the students who got involved in 'horseplay' with Charles and Camilla's car for instance,'

Seriously? For attacking someone's car and poking that woman with a stick and that's 'horseplay'?

No wonder this country is so fucked up when it comes to the criminal justice system.

OH and i wonder how vitriolic you would be nananina, had someone you loved been standing there.

A police officer was today handed a life sentence for rape.

Sorry, but the whole "others got less for worse" or "the police have done worse things" is a massive straw man argument. It always, always comes up in discussions of this type.

Answer me this: does the fact that the police shot dead an innocent man have any effect whatsoever upon the culpability/intent/criminality of this young man? If they hadn't made that horrible mistake would this young man have decided not to throw anything of the building?

If the answer to those questions is 'no' then the argument is completely irrelevant.

nananina so true

noddyholder - seriously? You believe that? You think some man in a black suit and dark glasses rocked up on the doorstep of his solicitor's office and had a word? I am honestly astounded.

People give the criminal justice system far more credit for organised, political statement than it deserves. If you spent any time trying to navigate it, you would laugh your socks off at the conspiracy theories.

YANBU

IMVHO it seems a bit out of kilter with other sentencing examples.

Yes he was stupid, thankfully no-one was killed. He handed himself in and plead guilty - saving the courts time and money.

Who hasn't done something wreckless and stupid in the heat of the moment? - driven too fast, not taken care for other peoples' safety, broken the speed limit in a 30 zone, had one too many and then got in a car, jay walked - especially when they were barely out of short trousers or skirts IYSWIM. Youth is wreckless and often does not look at the long term consequences.

WRT sentencing, a good friend of mine was killed in her early 20's whilst driving (many years ago) - the man who pretty much murdered her had already had ishoos with his driving and convictions, he also walked away from the accident and didn't report in to the police for 48 hours (wonder why...)

After his suspended sentence was passed down - without even a driving ban - he strode out of the court laughing .

There is very little equality within the justice system. This student is a young man with the rest of his life ahead of him, branded as a criminal, with a record, for just being stoopid and thankfully doing no harm. If he'd killed someone, fair enough - send 'im down - but he didn't.

well, slhilly, you're whole point remains idiotic. Drunk drivers should be treated more harshly. It makes no sense to say that because people have been given less for more serious crimes that it follows to lighten the sentance in this case.
Total arse over elbow thinking. Idiotic infact.

YANBU - it is way too harsh. He is young and was stupid - I don't think he was trying to kill someone, I think he was caught up in the moment.

He is being made a scapegoat and it's Political. I'm disgusted by it actually.

The guy that murdered my cousin got less time than that.

Kaloki: yes. Attempted murder and murder rightly have different sentencing guidelines. The impact of a crime on a victim is rightly taken into account in sentencing. If he had killed someone or injured them, I would want him to go to jail for longer than his current sentence.

Did the judge say something about motive in his summing up? There is a well-recognised and very sensible distinction based on intent in English law -- you said he attempted to harm someone, but I'm not sure if he was convicted of that or just reckless endangerment.

noddyholder.
You need to lay off the weird conspiricy shit TV/internet because it is seriously damaging your intelligence.

nananina.
There is so much I want to say to you I barely know where to start so I'll quote my mother.
Two wrongs do not make a right.