Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Boy who threw fire extinguisher during student protests jailed

112 replies

bobthebuddha · 11/01/2011 14:30

For 2 years and 8 months. Not condoning his actions in any way, but having read what his mother had to say I find myself feeling for her and him. Not a popular position I daresay.

If I'd been in her position I freely confess would have actively discouraged my son to hand himself in knowing that a) no-one had been hurt, dangerous as his action was b) he would be likely to be 'made an example of' (in the week that a man found guilty of severely beating a 2 year old walked free from court) and c) his life would indeed be 'ruined'. I hope I never find myself in that position once DS reaches 18...

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 11/01/2011 14:54

It is sad for any mother to discover that their 'loving, caring, gentle' son has a vicious side but it happens all the time. His life will change now but that's the chance he took when he opted to throw a fire-extinguisher off a building with no thought for the lives or safety of the people below. Given that the maximum was 5 years, the sentence seems appropriate.

DurhamDurham · 11/01/2011 15:00

I feel sorry for his mum, poor woman. I do not feel sorry for her son, he threw the extinguisher from a high building, it's only by chance he didn't kill anyone. He seems like a selfish rather spoilt individual.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:03

Boo hoo. You do the crime, you do the time.

Would you feel as sorry if he were some track-suit wearing sink estate-dweller? Doubt it.

With attitudes like yours, it's no wonder no one has any sense of societal or personal responsibility.

I'd have turned my own son in for that. Because I'd think black-burning shame of myself and feel an utter failure of a mother for having turned out such an irresponsible, selfish thug for a child.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:04

If I was his mum I'd have dragged him to the police.

I feel for his mum, not for him.

lalalonglegs · 11/01/2011 15:05

I think the sentence is harsh for an 18yo without (I believe) any previous record. It was an appallingly stupid thing to do but 18yo's do do appallingly stupid things especially in the context of being in a crowd - I think there should have been a bit more lenience.

scurryfunge · 11/01/2011 15:06

Well, he won't be doing that again will he?

He only has himself to blame -no one else.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:07

lalalonglegs he is an adult. He aimed and threw a heavy object at a crowd of people. Why should they have been lenient?

LadyBiscuit · 11/01/2011 15:10

He is a stupid fool and deserves punishment. I wish the copper who nearly dealt Alfie Meadows a fatal blow to his head was also being pursued and punished. Angry

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:11

18-year-olds can join the armed forces and die serving their country.

They're adults.

So this punk.

This whole 'there needs be lenience' is the reason why have people like Chindamo walking the streets.

lalalonglegs · 11/01/2011 15:12

Because it was apparently his first crime and because no one got hurt. If you commit a crime that is stupid and dangerous - say drive after drinking - you don't get punished as severely if you haven't hurt someone in the process.

I also suspect that the crime wasn't premeditated and, even if he were not going to be locked up for the next year or two, he wouldn't be repeating it.

DurhamDurham · 11/01/2011 15:12

lalalonglegs he was shown leniency, he could have been given 5 years. He got off lightly.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:13

Oh, okay. A mate's house was just burgled and ransaked. The kid who did it is 18. But no one got hurt so the judge should be lenient.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:14

And drink drivers should go to jail, IMO, in addition to losing their licenses for life because driving is a priviledge and not a right.

But that's neither here nor there because the max punishment for this person's particular crime was 5 years and he got half that.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:15

He aimed the fire extinguisher at a crowd, don't know about you, but I'd call that intent to harm. The only other alternative is that he is so incredibly thick he didn't realise it had a high chance of hurting someone. In which case it is in the public interest to put him away

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:15

He's not a boy, either.

He's a man.

lalalonglegs · 11/01/2011 15:23

I agree it was a really stupid and dangerous thing to do but, as there was no pattern of criminal behaviour before and his intention that day probably wasn't to go up on the roof of a building and do it, then that has to be taken into account. Someone who burgles is likely to be planning that behaviour and continue to behave that way until caught and punished. Regardless of whether drink-drivers should be jailed when they have not caused actual harm, they're not and the same reasoning should be applied to other crimes.

I'd also disagree that someone who is in full-time education and has only ever lived at home, reliant on his parents for his day-to-day living could be described as a man.

herbietea · 11/01/2011 15:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:26

Just because he hadn't planned it for days bfore, he still made a conscious decision to do something which he knew was likely to result in harm to others.

Of course he is a man not a boy, he is definitely old enough to know right from wrong, and to know that heavy objects dropped onto crowds of people are likely to cause injury or death.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:26

'I'd also disagree that someone who is in full-time education and has only ever lived at home, reliant on his parents for his day-to-day living could be described as a man.'

Well, the court disagrees. It considers him an adult, a man. He could leave the house and get married with no parental consent, serve his country in the armed forces, buy a house, etc.

And by law the max sentence he could have received for this crime was 5 years, he got half that. That's lenient.

If the sentences for other crimes are too short that's a matter for the criminal justice system and law makers to address. Contact your MP to find out what he/she is doing about it.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:26

lala what do you think the intent would be behind throwing something heavy at a crowd of people?

a) to hit someone
b) to miss them entirely

scurryfunge · 11/01/2011 15:27

There is no point in comparing sentences to different offences -each case is judged on its own. He is a man by the law's standard but will probably go to a young offenders institution for his sentence.

You can't have mindless thugs doing what they like to the danger of all around them just because he feels like it.

expatinscotland · 11/01/2011 15:28

He's on film. First picking it up, then spraying it, then hurling it. So, he thought about it.

He's no better than any other criminal punk from anywhere. A thug is a thug.

Let's hope he learns how not to behave like a thug in the future.

2shoes · 11/01/2011 15:29

I don't feel sorry for the man, he deserves to be punished. he was very lucky he didn't kill someone.

lalalonglegs · 11/01/2011 15:31

I absolutely accept that he is legally an adult but, in the context of the thread title, I think he can be called a boy without controversy.

I also accept that there should be some punishment but I feel that 2.8 years is disproportionately severe, especially as I think he handed himself in (could be wrong on that one).

Obviously I am in a minority and will have to live with that as will he.

KalokiMallow · 11/01/2011 15:34

How is it severe for throwing something with the intent to harm?