Boy who threw fire extinguisher during student protests jailed

[bobthebuddha]

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...

but just because he was LUCY not to kill or maim anyone doesnt make it less of a crime. Everyone moaning saying "but this person did this or that and got less" surely you should be saying they deserved a more harsh sentence rather than this numpty deserving less of one.

LUCKY not lucy obviously

Yes I see your point, however it's rather like someone having a knife and being jailed because they 'might stab someone'. it isn't supposed to happen.

I am under no illusions that this guy shouldn't have been punished, of course he should. I just feel 3 years is bloody harsh, when worse crimes often lead to community service..

But yes I agree, lesser crimes should get a harsher sentence.

But they don't, there lies the inconsistency I moan about ;)

No it would be like someone having a knife and randomly thrusting it at people. Besides the fact that people do get long sentences for carrying an offensive weapon - because the MIGHT use it.

I don't know who does, onlyjuststillme. Knife crime is regularly reported around these parts (everything from carryng one to waving them about) and I have only seen a maximum sentence of 12 months. Most carry community service orders.

One I read only got an ASBO!

Anyhoo, what grinds my gears is the fact that judges go on about 'only being able to sentence within guidelines of the law'

When quite clearly, they don't.

It is easy to disregard the fact he may have killed someon as it didnt actually happen. But the truth is if it had fallen less than a foot away it WOULD have killed someone. What should the sentence have been then? Why the massive difference between the luck of an object randomly falling a foot away when there was no concious decision to make it do so?

To be honest I have no idea what the sentence should have been, I just feel 3 years is too harsh.

Legally, you cannot be charged on the basis of what COULD have happened through your stupid actions, only what DID happen. That is the key, and no matter how stupid the bloke is he deserves the right kind of justice that the law states.

It's rather like someone being in your garden by your back door. They haven't burgled anyone, they might not even intend to burgle you..but the suspicion is there. Ok, so they could be done for willful destruction to a privet hedge but not for intention as that can't be proved.

The guy threw an extinguisher in anger, who knows whether he intended to actually hurt someone in the heat of that moment? he lost his temper, he was idiotic. Luckily he didn't hurt anyone.

As I said, he should be punished. Yes, a custodial sentence may well be appropriate. And again, if the prisons weren't so bloody full of minor misdemeanours maybe there would be room for him a bit longer..I don't know!

how daft, you throw a heavy object off the top of a building onto a crowd........
and you then are excused as you didn't hurt anyone!!
the intent was there.
he tried to hurt/kill someone.
so imo he is lucky not to be looking at attempted murder or murder.

I think if he'd been black, asian or working class, there would be a lot fewer people bleating about the harshness of his sentence. He threw a heavy object off the top of a building towards a crowd of people below. He clearly intended to at least seriously hurt someone - though at that height the impact would surely kill - it is beyond lucky he didn't. Little shit deserves everything he gets.

"Legally, you cannot be charged on the basis of what COULD have happened through your stupid actions, only what DID happen. "

Why do peoplen keep repeating this, he was charged on what did happen and what he did. His sentencing will be decided in light of the circumstances which surrounded his actions and one of the considerations will be the risks he took and the dangers he posed to the public and the police who he threw the extinguisher at.
If they were attempting to charge him with what could have happened then they'd be charging him with an assault based crime or perhaps a manslaughter or murder charge, he was charged with no such thing. He was charged based on what did happen and sentenced based on the circumstances surrounding the incident.

I added the comment about being charged on what did happen instead of what could have happened because people keep going on about what could have happened!

Of course what could have happened would have resulted in a tougher sentence (I hope) I am just comparing his sentence to some peoples worse crimes, which appear to constantly result in much lighter sentences..often based on what could have happened.

I still maintain he was/is an idiot and deserves punishment. That I have never questioned. I guess I am questioning the whole judicial/sentencing system.