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.

I don't know...but he threw a fire extinguisher...not as if he was trying to defend himself?

If someone was attacking me I'd smack them in the face, not launch a fire extinguisher with the advantage of pre-meditation.

If he DIDN'T get locked up and he did it again at another protest and he killed someone you knew, and he was well known for this kind of violent behaviour everyone would be saying "Well if they knew he was capable of this why didn't they lock him up before?".

Presumably he would have been charged with attempted murder if they thought that was the case?

I'm not defending him. TBH I'm more aggrieved that my son's attackers got a lesser sentence.

Well 2 and a half years for ATTEMPTING TO MURDER isn't too harsh.

It's the fact the jury found him guilty of INTENDING to murder by injury.

It's back to the whole intent. Plus it was a huge media circus, so they had to show they were taking it seriously-and of course to send a message to future idiots protesters.

And I think that's the crux of the matter as others have pointed out - the fact that it was a high profile case and therefore he probably got a longer sentence than he may have otherwise got.

My dh had something thrown at him that could have caused serious injury whilst in the course of his duty. The bloke got a caution.

to ledkr.. agree with you.. and my lads think he deserved all he got!!!

When you say something are you talking a ball of paper of a fire extinguisher?

Well a ball of paper isn't going to causes him serious injury is it? I don't care for your sarcasm.

have you who say sentence too severe actually seen the footage,he looks over and then throws it down,the exstinguisher misses people by inches.That was clearly designed to-well quite frankly kill someone.
If you drink drive you "could" kill or hurt someone if you carry a weapon you "may" stab someone.If you throw a heavy object off a high building onto human beings then you will almost certainly hurt or kill someone.Yes it would be very clever now to say well he didnt,watch the footage it was pure fluke,he is lucky really he isnt on a murder charge.

It really was incredibly close wasn't it ledkr? :( Poor people stood near where it hit, can you imagine how that must have felt?

I like how no one on any of these threads has replied to my question of what they'd feel about the sentence if it'd been a gun he was aiming into the crowd rather than a fire extinguisher?

Can't understand the young and naive argument. He is bright enough to go to university, I don't believe he can't see the danger in throwing a very heavy object from a height onto a crowd below. Seems like a dangerous person in need of a jail sentance to me.

yeah would stay with you wouldnt it?Me and kids nearly got hit by a fire engine a few yrs back,i still think about my mum losing us all when i go past the crossing where it happened.I bet people who are defending the knobhead would feel differently if it had been there loved one that nearly got hit.

Feel sorry for him . This idiot hearled a fire extinguisher from a roof, he could have killed someone. The punishment have to fit the crime, which HE committed.

Young and nieve my left foot, this man was supposidly intilligent and bright. He is a thug.

yanbu.

seems unlike any other sort of sentence for doing something dangerous that might have caused injury or death.

So, pointdog replace the fire extinguisher with a gun aimed into the crowd, still too long a sentence?

I don't understand why people keep saying that other offences aren't sentenced on the basis of what might have happened. That is exactly what happens in relation to drink driving and possession of knives, to use two examples cited by a previous poster.

The sentencing goes up for drink driving depending on how high the alcohol reading is - that isn't just for fun. It is because the more drunk you are, the more likely someone is to be hurt. Aggravating features are long distance driven, children in the car, injury/damage caused etc. The judge always has in mind the issue of what could have happened.

Knives - there is relatively recent case law that makes it clear that carrying a knife should generally lead to a custodial sentence. It is quite clear that the issue is one of danger, ie what might have happened. People who actually use knives are not sentenced for possession of a knife - they are sentenced for the assault they commit. Possession of a bladed article or possession of an offensive weapon are offences purely because they could lead to harm. Aggravating features of these offences are if the knife was being carried in a more dangerous situation - eg in a fight, as part of a gang etc.

Things are generally illegal because they carry a risk of harm. You can't separate this risk of harm from the offence itself when sentencing. Of course consideration is given to what could have happened. If it wasn't, an awful lot of people would get away with minor sentences just because they were incompetent and didn't pull off the crime they attempted.

If you can't sentence on the basis of what could have happened, then presumably those convicted of attempted murder should get a fine?

This person is an adult, he is supposidly intelligent, and of sound mind, he hearled a heavy object off a roof, with gravity could be extremely heavy. It was sheer luck that it did not hit anyone, the consequences could have been tragic and he could have ended up with a murder charge. Let that be a lesson to him, with rights come responsibilities. He has to accept that, do the time and try and move on.

rupert1 That's just silly. His mum made him hand himself in, I wouldn't generalise his behaviour to the rest of the family. Nor is it worthy of the death penalty or life imprisonment.

There is no difference between hurling the object off a roof, and hurling it off a bridge on a motorway, both can kill and are serious offences which carry heavy penalties i.e. custodial sentance.

It is no joke

It's not too long. What the hell did he think would happen when he threw it off the roof? He's an adult and you don't get to say "Oops, sorry, didn't think/know it could hurt/kill somebody!"

I think many of the mum's posting on here that he deserves such a long sentence would not be so sure had it been thier 18 year old child (no offence, just sometimes it is good to put yourself in anothers position when trying to analyze something like this). Yes it was rediculous and thank goodness no one was hurt but as others have already said, what about the people who do much worse and get off much better? And sentencing based on what could have happened is equally as rediculous as his initial action's. He obviously felt remorse and guilt to turn himself in so the wieght of the repurcussions of his actions must have been hitting home. It is far too long a sentence. Although, if someone had been hurt, I would of course say that it should be longer, but as it stands and by the grace of god, no one was.