Student Protester Jailed

[DaveF]

2 years and 8 months for launching the fire extingusher from the top of Tory HQ.

Pretty swift justice and perhaps a heavy sentence depending on your point of view, especially since no Police Officer was jailed for killing Ian Tomlinson at the G20 riots (well not yet anyway) and this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399125/Family-fury-Asylum-seeker-knocked-girl-escapes-jail-again.html) only got 4 months for a hit and run death?

[marinello59]

That does seem extremely harsh. I haven't read about this anywhere else yet, does he have previous or was this just for one act of idiocy?

[Scouse Hibee]

2 years and 8 months for launching the fire extingusher from the top of Tory HQ.

Pretty swift justice and perhaps a heavy sentence depending on your point of view, especially since no Police Officer was jailed for killing Ian Tomlinson at the G20 riots (well not yet anyway) and this guy (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-399125/Family-fury-Asylum-seeker-knocked-girl-escapes-jail-again.html) only got 4 months for a hit and run death?

And they call it the justice system! One man's justice is another man's injustice.

[DaveF]

That does seem extremely harsh. I haven't read about this anywhere else yet, does he have previous or was this just for one act of idiocy?

No previous, but the judge felt that he had to send a message out about this kind of behaviour, hence the term handed out.

[Speedy]

Did it hit anyone? Seems very harsh if it never.

[Ed De Gramo]

good! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Sir David Gray]

Perhaps it's just me but I see nothing wrong with the sentence

That could quite easily have killed someone and it's only by some good fortune that it didn't. Whether it hit anyone or not is irrelevant, I'm quite sure that at the time of throwing the fire extinguisher off of the building, he meant for it to hit someone.

The way that this guy, and many others, acted during these protests was disgraceful and whilst I have absolutely no doubts that he's not the only one who did something during the protests that deserves a custodial sentence, this at least sends out a pretty strong message that the kind of behaviour seen, during the demonstrations, cannot and will not be tolerated.

I quite often criticise judges when they hand out lenient sentences so I think the judge in this case deserves some praise.

[stoneyburn hibs]

In my opinion the sentencing was fair, sheer luck this bam didnt kill anyone, also think the system was maybe sending out a message to the student protesters.

[Sylar]

Perhaps it's just me but I see nothing wrong with the sentence

That could quite easily have killed someone and it's only by some good fortune that it didn't. Whether it hit anyone or not is irrelevant, I'm quite sure that at the time of throwing the fire extinguisher off of the building, he meant for it to hit someone.

The way that this guy, and many others, acted during these protests was disgraceful and whilst I have absolutely no doubts that he's not the only one who did something during the protests that deserves a custodial sentence, this at least sends out a pretty strong message that the kind of behaviour seen, during the demonstrations, cannot and will not be tolerated.

I quite often criticise judges when they hand out lenient sentences so I think the judge in this case deserves some praise.

And if yer maw had baws, she'd be yer da'. The fact that it didn't hit anyone ISN'T irrelevant in the slightest. Christ, if someone fires a gun into a crowd of people and misses everyone, other than being a bad shot, it's attempted murder instead of a homicide charge (I'm aware the timing of said analogy isn't great considering the recent events in Tucson, but it's the first one which springs to mind).

I've absolutely no argument that what he done was potentially dangerous and it COULD have had much graver consequences, but it didn't hit anyone and no property was damaged. I've no argument with you that this guy is clearly a mindless muppet, who was caught in a fervor and not considering the potential gravity of his actions, but what law has he actually broken (serious question, as I'm not familiar with all potential felonies this act might cover)?

If there is a specific crime which fits his action, does it usually carry such a hefty penalty? If so, then you're right, there can be no complaints, but considering the lack of harm/damage if there is no law covering the "crime", the guy is guilty of nothing other than sheer idiocy.

People get shorter sentences for far inferior crimes.

[AFKA5814_Hibs]

Quite right too. The intent was there to kill someone, which it likely would have done had it fell onto anyone.

Whilst it may seem harsh compared to other offences, like the one above, that's more down to the leniency shown in those cases.

[Beefster]

And if yer maw had baws, she'd be yer da'. The fact that it didn't hit anyone ISN'T irrelevant in the slightest. Christ, if someone fires a gun into a crowd of people and misses everyone, other than being a bad shot, it's attempted murder instead of a homicide charge (I'm aware the timing of said analogy isn't great considering the recent events in Tucson, but it's the first one which springs to mind).

I've absolutely no argument that what he done was potentially dangerous and it COULD have had much graver consequences, but it didn't hit anyone and no property was damaged. I've no argument with you that this guy is clearly a mindless muppet, who was caught in a fervor and not considering the potential gravity of his actions, but what law has he actually broken (serious question, as I'm not familiar with all potential felonies this act might cover)?

If there is a specific crime which fits his action, does it usually carry such a hefty penalty? If so, then you're right, there can be no complaints, but considering the lack of harm/damage if there is no law covering the "crime", the guy is guilty of nothing other than sheer idiocy.

People get shorter sentences for far inferior crimes.

What's the difference between firing a single bullet into a crowd and throwing a fire extinguisher into the middle of a crowd from hundreds of feet up in the air? The extinguisher could arguably do more damage. The fact that it left a hole in the paving outside the building shows that.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Nae sympathy for the guy!

However I do think it exposes problems with the judicial system when you see people doing far worse crimes getting far lesser punishments.

It's almost like if you are going to commit a crime do one that doesn't make too many headlines and we will go easy on you.

[lapsedhibee]

People get shorter sentences for far inferior crimes.

:hmmm:

[Sylar]

What's the difference between firing a single bullet into a crowd and throwing a fire extinguisher into the middle of a crowd from hundreds of feet up in the air? The extinguisher could arguably do more damage. The fact that it left a hole in the paving outside the building shows that.

But the point is that it didn't do any damage (to any person anyway).

Can't see why a punishment of a fine (for repairs to the paving) and a lengthy community service wouldn't have been sufficient instead of the taxpayer now paying to have him incarcerated for nothing other than sheer stupidity.

[Sylar]

:hmmm:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/07/04/thug-jailed-for-30-months-after-brutal-assault-on-sex-change-woman-86908-22381712/ - assault with a deadly weapon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/amy-winehouses-husband-jailed-for-27-months-873362.html - assault/perverting the course of justice

http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/112391-Drink-driver-jailed-for-18-months-for-crash-on-Anglesey - drink driving/serious injury

http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/old_story/274/ - child pornography

There are hundreds more examples out there.

[easty]

Got what he deserved, he could have killed someone.

Maybe those idiots who turn up to riot, rather than protest, will think twice about what might happen from now on. Though, I doubt it.

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/07/04/thug-jailed-for-30-months-after-brutal-assault-on-sex-change-woman-86908-22381712/ - assault with a deadly weapon

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/amy-winehouses-husband-jailed-for-27-months-873362.html - assault/perverting the course of justice

http://www.manchesterwired.co.uk/news.php/112391-Drink-driver-jailed-for-18-months-for-crash-on-Anglesey - drink driving/serious injury

http://www.comedy.co.uk/news/old_story/274/ - child pornography

There are hundreds more examples out there.

Apologies, you miss my point. You said that people get shorter sentences for inferior, ie lower-order, crimes, as if there was something wrong with that. Isn't it correct that lower-order crimes attract lighter sentences? :confused:

[Hainan Hibs]

Fantastic, the less of these tax-dodging, work-shy, canterbury wearing, flip-flop wearing (in winter), ***** hoody wearing tossers around University the better.

[easty]

Fantastic, the less of these tax-dodging, work-shy, canterbury wearing, flip-flop wearing (in winter), ***** hoody wearing tossers around University the better.

He did look like a ***** tosser. That probably added at least 3 months to his sentance.

[Beefster]

But the point is that it didn't do any damage (to any person anyway).

Can't see why a punishment of a fine (for repairs to the paving) and a lengthy community service wouldn't have been sufficient instead of the taxpayer now paying to have him incarcerated for nothing other than sheer stupidity.

So you think that someone who shoots a bullet into a crowd and, by some chance, doesn't harm anyone should be let off with a fine (assuming guns were legal)?

Sheer stupidity is urinating on a war memorial or vandalising a monument, not throwing a lethal missile off a tall building into a crowd IMO.

[magpie1892]

He did look like a ***** tosser. That probably added at least 3 months to his sentance.

No word of a lie. If he had gone into court with a short back and sides he would have got a shorter sentence.

[Speedy]

Maybe the sentence isn't as harsh as I first thought but the media always tell us about seemingly unjust short sentences and it maybe clouds our judgement of what a fair sentence actually is.


Quite right too. The intent was there to kill someone, which it likely would have done had it fell onto anyone.

Whilst it may seem harsh compared to other offences, like the one above, that's more down to the leniency shown in those cases.


So you think that someone who shoots a bullet into a crowd and, by some chance, doesn't harm anyone should be let off with a fine (assuming guns were legal)?

Sheer stupidity is urinating on a war memorial or vandalising a monument, not throwing a lethal missile off a tall building into a crowd IMO.

However, I'm not sure there was intent to kill anyone. Look at the video, there's a massive crowd below and it is thrown into the only gap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI

Maybe he did intend to kill someone and just has a crap aim but I don't think you can say it was attempted murder.

What crime was he charged with anyway?

[Ritchie]

as the old saying goes...

if you cant do the time, dont do the crime!

[RyeSloan]

However, I'm not sure there was intent to kill anyone. Look at the video, there's a massive crowd below and it is thrown into the only gap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI

Maybe he did intend to kill someone and just has a crap aim but I don't think you can say it was attempted murder.

What crime was he charged with anyway?

Not sure he had intent to kill? What other intent is there in throwing what he did into a crowd.

Looking at the video it, to me at least, it's clear that he is aiming for the small pocket of police...easily visible in their yellow jackets. The fact he missed is beside the point, the intent was clearly there I would say.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Not sure he had intent to kill? What other intent is there in throwing what he did into a crowd.

Looking at the video it, to me at least, it's clear that he is aiming for the small pocket of police...easily visible in their yellow jackets. The fact he missed is beside the point, the intent was clearly there I would say.

Maybe he was trying to put out a fire:dunno:

[Speedy]

Not sure he had intent to kill? What other intent is there in throwing what he did into a crowd.

Looking at the video it, to me at least, it's clear that he is aiming for the small pocket of police...easily visible in their yellow jackets. The fact he missed is beside the point, the intent was clearly there I would say.

Just being a general arse in the heat of the moment? I'm not saying that he didn't intend to kill anyone, I'm just saying that it wasn't clear. I couldn't say 100% that he was trying to kill someone.

It turns out he was jailed for violent disorder.

[Ritchie]

Maybe the sentence isn't as harsh as I first thought but the media always tell us about seemingly unjust short sentences and it maybe clouds our judgement of what a fair sentence actually is.





However, I'm not sure there was intent to kill anyone. Look at the video, there's a massive crowd below and it is thrown into the only gap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI

Maybe he did intend to kill someone and just has a crap aim but I don't think you can say it was attempted murder.

What crime was he charged with anyway?

thats the first time i've watched the clip of the offence.

he deserves everything he gets.... complete idiot.

[marinello59]

thats the first time i've watched the clip of the offence.

he deserves everything he gets.... complete idiot.

I just watched that and a lot of my sympathy evaporated. I am still not sure about the length of sentence but he can have no complaints about going to jail.

[RyeSloan]

Just being a general arse in the heat of the moment? I'm not saying that he didn't intend to kill anyone, I'm just saying that it wasn't clear. I couldn't say 100% that he was trying to kill someone.

It turns out he was jailed for violent disorder.

I agree he might not have deliberately thought of killing but he was to my mind definatley trying to do damage (and not to the pavement).

Violent disorder it was with the fact that it also had the potential to kill or severely injure the police it was directed towards or a fellow protester....slightly more than being a 'general arse in the heat of the momement' I would say.

Got all he deserved and for once I think the justice system should be applauded for giving swift judgement and a sentance reflecting the seriousness of the act and the potential that act had to kill or injure.

[Ritchie]

I just watched that and a lot of my sympathy evaporated. I am still not sure about the length of sentence but he can have no complaints about going to jail.

lets be honest, he'll probably only serve half of that sentence so 16 months for almost killing a police officer isn't too unreasonable IMO.

[Beefster]

Maybe the sentence isn't as harsh as I first thought but the media always tell us about seemingly unjust short sentences and it maybe clouds our judgement of what a fair sentence actually is.





However, I'm not sure there was intent to kill anyone. Look at the video, there's a massive crowd below and it is thrown into the only gap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI

Maybe he did intend to kill someone and just has a crap aim but I don't think you can say it was attempted murder.

What crime was he charged with anyway?

I'm not sure that you can lob an object like that from the top of a building, into a crowded square, and claim that you weren't, at the very least, attempting to hurt someone. It missed folk by about a metre. He either has an amazing talent for geometry or had no idea if it was going to hit someone or not.

Edit: This is more or less a repeat of the points SiMar has already made.

[Speedy]

I agree he might not have deliberately thought of killing but he was to my mind definatley trying to do damage (and not to the pavement).

Violent disorder it was with the fact that it also had the potential to kill or severely injure the police it was directed towards or a fellow protester....slightly more than being a 'general arse in the heat of the momement' I would say.

Got all he deserved and for once I think the justice system should be applauded for giving swift judgement and a sentance reflecting the seriousness of the act and the potential that act had to kill or injure.

I was just suggesting that his actions were imo more likely to be as a result of stupidity than the intent to kill someone but stupidity obviously doesn't excuse anyone of their actions.

Regarding your last point, given time to think about it I'd probably have to agree. As I said, my initial thoughts were that it was harsh but that was probably because we(the general public) hear a lot about very short sentences for serious crimes and we, or at least I, tend to forget what a fair sentence is.

[PC Stamp]

Perfectly fair sentence IMHO.

The problem isn't with this sentence it's with the others mentioned and countless others handed down in "mollycoddle offenders" Britain!

[Leicester Fan]

On the plus side, at least he won't have to pay any tuition fees now.

[Speedy]

On the plus side, at least he won't have to pay any tuition fees now.

:greengrin

[hibsdaft]

not got a massive problem for the sentence but i don't agree with those who say he had intent to kill, imo he was probably aiming to miss.

also should be pointed out that the guy gave himself in, pled guilty, and by all accounts is full of remorse over his actions - just look at photos of him, he looks like a ghost.

a sudden moment of stupidity which he will now have to pay for.

[bighairyfaeleith]

On the plus side, at least he won't have to pay any tuition fees now.

aye he'll get his qualifications in the slammer for nowt!!!!