Para who attacked a civilian on drunken night out gets a more lenient sentence.

[OracleInaCoracle]

here

shouldnt his job be irrelevant? He lost his rag, and beat someone up. a shop worker would have received a harsher sentence, as would a teacher. If getting into a fight with someone will lose you your job, dont get into a fight! its not rocket science!

I get what you mean but it's hard to understand the full situation from a quick news report and you can only trust that the judge considered all the facts.

For example, what good can come of jailing the para? I mean we lose a good soldier who would be risking his own life in service of his country for peanuts on a dubious premise. Would jailing him act as a deterrent to others? Probably not. This wasn't some random attack on a stranger but a (wrong) response to another man deliberately provoking him. I bet a lot of people will think the guy deserved it.

Lastly bear in mind that we train paratroopers and our soldiers to solve problems with violence and to kill. So occasionally we cannot be surprised when they use violence inappropriately. If we train a dog to attack on command, should we be surprised if they then go and attack someone when not ordered to?

Judges do have discretion to apply an appropriate sentence. People who speed and get 12 points can have a ban waived if the judge deems it appropriate. For example if you need to drive for a living then it would be very harsh to make you lose your job as well.

It's a shame they didn't say exactly what offence/s he was convicted of, and what the usual sentencing range is. I can't work out if this was on the lenient side of normal (which would be fair enough, perhaps), or if it really was exceptionally lenient.

The provocation for the fight must have been taken into account too.

Lastly bear in mind that we train paratroopers and our soldiers to solve problems with violence and to kill. So occasionally we cannot be surprised when they use violence inappropriately. If we train a dog to attack on command, should we be surprised if they then go and attack someone when not ordered to?

sorry, I do get what you are saying, but this paragraph stood out, doesnt that make it worse? we have taught him how to kill, so when the red mist descends isnt it worse that he is capable of killing?

Edith, from what I can gather, it was the lenient side of normal because of his job. I dont think thats acceptable.

He may still lose his job. His sentence is such that the Regt could choose to Administratively Discharge him.

Can't really form an opinion on it based on the reporting though.

(and 'Dishonourable Discharge' is actually completely incorrect - even with a jail term it's an Admin Discharge, nothing more. Bit sensationalist really )

"Lastly bear in mind that we train paratroopers and our soldiers to solve problems with violence and to kill. So occasionally we cannot be surprised when they use violence inappropriately. If we train a dog to attack on command, should we be surprised if they then go and attack someone when not ordered to? "

What an absolute crock of shit! So our Forces can beat their wives, their kids, each other, who the fuck they like because a secondary part of their job might be to kill someone who pulls a gun on them?

Going back to the OP, I think the Para should be kicked out of the Army. IMVHO he is just the sort of person we don't want in the Forces. I would not be comfortable knowing that he was in the vicinity of my DH, with a loaded machine gun, just incase the "red mist" decesended again!

I'm not saying it's right, just saying that it can and does happen.

For me as long as it was only a little bit on the side of lenient then I'd be OK with that given he serves his country and will be ordered to the other side of the world to get shot at, bombed at in our name for no obvious reason in a country where noone wants us.

The guy was clearly provoked and it doesn't sound like the other guy suffered any long term damage.

Look at it another way. If I go out on a Saturday night, get drunk, go up to a bouncer and tell him I'm gonna go home and shag his girlfriend. Is anyone going to be surprised when I get a fist in my face? How many people would say I deserved it?

There can be no justice when law's are absolute. That's why judges can vary punishments and it's wrong to second guess that based on one article written in a sensationalist way.

Oracle, I think the issue there is that had he been given say 200 hours Community Service then he would have lost his job, however had he worked for say, Tesco's, he wouldn't - in fact he wouldn't have even had to tell Tesco's that he'd been in court - do you see what I mean?

Like I said it's all a bit sensationalist - the guy was only reported on because he was in the military. Any other job and he wouldn't have been.

(that said, if he was one of my soldiers he would be gone - fair or not I expect them to be squeaky clean and better than Joe Public. Controlled agression is a wonderful thing, this was not controlled, and to me, not acceptable)

The forces have 2 dv units, here in the uk. Of their own. Violence IS an issue. But it isn't 'lenient' sentencing. The judge can use ' exceptional circumstances' when sentencing, in cases he feels it's merited, it's not leniency.

Does sound like the other bloke involved kind of had it coming. If he'd just hit him I'd say he got his just desserts.

I don't think you can compare hitting a man who's been bragging about stealing his girlfriend while he's away serving his country can be compared to DV cases.

not really enough informatiuon in the article to form an opinion of the situation.

I know several people who have gone out of their way to provoke a response from people who are in the forces.

Having read the article linked in the first post, I think the sentencing in this instance is appropriate.