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.

angemorange i agree that many other people given 'lenient' sentences for far worse crimes but that doesn't mean this sentance is wrong.
To me it shows that the other sentances were too soft but that is not going to change why you have the wolly tree huggers that will find excuses for the behaviour of some and the tax payer is not willing to pay the leval of tax which would ensure we have enough jail places for all who deserve them.

It's the comparison that's unfair evildead2 - and it is a valid point on my opinion of the criminal justice system - other people are entitled to opinions that don't tarry with yours

evildead I swerved dangerously in by car a few weeks ago, when to lads about 13 or so hid behind a bridge and lobbed compacted snowballs at oncoming cars. I didn't lose control and hit a pedestrian or kill myself -but I could have. Should they be plucked from their parents and put into care or into a YOI? Or might that be a tad over the top under the circumstances?

13 is not 18 fellatio and the circumstances are different snowballs aren't quite fire extinguishers, but I do think some serious punishment should have been doled out. Yes.

Because that was fucking stupid.

If this man didn't realise the potential consequences of dropping a heavy metal object off a high building into an area where there were lots of people, he really shouldn't be allowed out.

I would be willing to accept a 13 year old might not realize that a snowball could force someone to swirve in to an accident I mean.

And in that case educating them about road safety and doing public service would be a good idea and a deterent.

I don't think the man we are speaking about in the OP thought throwing a fire hydrant from that hight would not result in something dangerous.

Throwing a fire extinguisher even into a space where no-one was standing at the time of throwing, seems an incredibly dangerous act.

Without having gone into what was in the fire extinguisher, (ie foam or water) it is clear that you are in effect throwing a small bomb, because the contents are under pressure and the extinguisher has not been designed to withstand dropping from that height.

So yes he was immature, and did not injure or kill someone, but the simple fact was he knew nothing about whether someone might have walked / run into the path of that extinguisher, and when it hit, could have thrown out debris to kill or maim dozens.

It would not be on a par with a nail bomb, perhaps, but in my book comes close.

So he gave himself up, so what. Someone, somewhere, might have (after a spell drinking) bragged that they knew who threw the extinguisher, and it could have leaked that way.

Did he deserve a shorter sentence? Probably not. After all, his was a serious crime and given the likelihood of repeated actions by students, seems likely that someone somewhere was going to go far too far. He was the first, and might not be the last. It serves as a warning (which all penalties do) that there is a penalty to pay for misdeeds such as that.

Motoring offenders getting off with less ? Well sentences should be harsher for them, then, don't try to argue a lesser sentence needed for him simply because someone wasn't killed. While it would not easily have been classed a murder (he could have struck anyone who walked under the extinguisher), it comes down to a crazy act and clearly causing distress and danger to anyone at ground level within 100 metres.

I can't bring myself to feel sorry for him. He was old enough and supposedly bright enough to know it was wrong.

I don't think that hi sentence is too long. I think it is more that sentences given out to some others are too lenient.

For those who think that the sentence was too harsh, the most common argument seems to be that drink-drivers often get less. Just a few points:

• In the normal scheme of things, drink drivers who actually kill or harm someone generally get far stiffer sentences. It is the sentences that are more lenient on the surface that get the news attention.

• In what way is this act less serious than drink driving? Both have the capacity to kill or injure. Arguably, there was a greater likelihood of death in this lad's actions than in a great many drink driving cases.

• He has been sentenced on the basis of a) his actions, b) the consequences of his actions (criminal damage), and c) the potential consequences of his actions. Drink drivers who are arrested are sentenced on the basis of a & c.

Just a thought for his mother who encouraged him to turn himself in. How bloody hard for her - I have a lot of respect. He would have been caught at some point and she has probably saved him from extra jail time. Must have been horrific to be in her shoes.

They are not adults and untill you have children at that age you will not understand that there are plenty of good parents but you cannot watch them 24/7 & they will do things unpredicable at 18 because of there imaturity there brains do not stop growing till you are 21 which used to be the age of adulthood He threw that fire thing off the roof because he was stupid not a criminal like the MPs who are stealing millions in second home expensises for sink plugs & floating duck houses....Tax Payers money is used for a sea of stuff all ages, all races,& yes Tax Payers Money should have been used to vunrable children in a way of protecting them to avoid a situation like this happening they are not adults the age was 15,16,17,18 as this covers the future of a change in fees as at this age they are doing a levels in an attempt to get to university in a few years time they new they were on the streets & coming & they should have used there brains to avoid what happened by any age depending on there age

He deserved to get a jail sentence - at 18 he is an adult who chose to commit a crime knowing it could result in injury or death.
I wish that jail sentences and punishments were harsher in general actually. And that there was a bit of zero tolerance against aggressive gangs of youths, drunks and druggies who make peoples' lives hell.

Norwegian - you can judge a case by what could of happened. I could go into a school and randomly fire shots - if i don't happen to hit anyone, shouldn't i be punished? And no i'm not saying its the same thing, it obviously isn't, but it illustrates the point. If you do something knowing it could kill a person, you should be punished.

overwhealmed there are 18 year olds on this site raising children of their own.

You don't need to be a mother of an 18 year old to know about 18 year olds. In fact I was one. I lived abroad on my own, I was a vegan and protested for animal rights and never once in all that time felt the need to turn a little bit homicidal and risk throwing a dangerous weapon in to a crowd. And that was without 24/7 supervision. Maybe I was just exceptional though

If you belive 18 is not an adult I suppose you also feel they should not be allowed to join the army, drive, drink, or live independantly.

Maybe it is mothers who treat their adult offspring like small children that creates this problem.

For those of you who think the sentence is unfair, if someone had fired a gun into a crowd bur managed by pure fluke not to hit anyone, would you think 2 years 8 months was too long?

Because when he threw that extinguisher it became a weapon.

deepheat, you said:
"In the normal scheme of things, drink drivers who actually kill or harm someone generally get far stiffer sentences. It is the sentences that are more lenient on the surface that get the news attention."

Do you have any evidence to demonstrate these points? Is there a link out there somewhere that shows the average custodial sentence handed out to those who kill or harm?

Thank you Kungfupanda and Kaloki for your posts. I wholeheartedly agree with them.

What is sad is that so many people are prepared to condemn criminal sentencing as wrong, overly lenient and arbitrary without having the slightest idea how sentencing actually works. If you care, inform yourselves, and protest for change.

The biggest canard is the complaint that sentences are wrong because they are harsher than the sentences particular people have got for far worse things. The point is, that while as a matter of general policy (broadly a matter for government and legislation) we obviously do rank different types of offences, so e.g. sexual abuse of a child is worse than burglary, you can't do that in individual cases.

Judges have had their freedom to sentence quite heavily limited by laws and guidelines. The judge in this case was not free to ignore the sentencing guidelines on violent disorder laid down for him and sentence this chap according to how serious he thought the offence was when compared to drink-driving.

And to all the conspiracy theorists and those who feel 'the government' made him a scapegoat: you may have been watching too much Judge John Deede. I mean, really. Try spending a day observing in your local Mags or Crown Court and watch the under-funded disarray that unfolds in front of you, held together only
by the efforts of generally decent, hard-working professionals who do their best.

There are some bastard judges out there but even the bastards tend to be independent people with a sense of duty, not lapdogs of the government.

I would not think he was sentenced on the basis of what might have happened. Nor are drink drivers. But a lot of people discuss that aspect. "Gabby"

YAB very U.
He could easily have killed someone.

but he didnt go into a school, it was at a protest. he didnt hold anyone down and throw one into their face.

actually, I'm curious. Those of you who think the sentence was too harsh...

If the fire extinguisher had, by chance, fallen on someone, do you think the punishment should have been more severe?

NorwegianMoon He aimed a heavy object at a crowd of people. He was trying to hit someone.

The lad with the fire extinguisher got 2 years 8 months

this bastard got 2 years 3 months.

Go compare.

Presumably by the end of his sentence the country in its wisdom will have created a permanently embittered activist highly skilled in the criminal arts.

Bit of an own goal that.