Fire Extinguisher Throwing Student

[Purple Monkey]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/11/student-fire-extinguisher-protests-jailed

What he did was completely stupid, I think that's something we can all agree on. I just don't see what can be gained from giving him such a severe sentence. It's too politically charged in my opinion, and when anything becomes associated with politics logic, reason and fairness seems to go out of the window. I think he's being made an example of, and while that is a form of (twisted) logic, it certainly isn't what I would call justice.

Do you think it's justified?

Edited January 11, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[lifelessfool]

I think perhaps its a little too harsh, what he did was unbelievably stupid, and he was very lucky to not to do any damage. However I'd only see it as fair, if the police overs who man handled Jody Mcintyre got some form of reprecussions, as it wasnt only a small minority of students acting like dicks at the majority of these protests.

[jump]

I'm surprised there wasn't any leniency for turning himself in.

[Purple Monkey]

I'm surprised there wasn't any leniency for turning himself in.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[pehaw]

On one hand Its the establishment trying to reassert itself. Sending a warning shot across the bows. Obviously anticipating troubles ahead and smacking down a big deterrent sentence.

On the other hand, one metre or so to the side and he'd be facing a manslaughter or attempted murder charge.

[lost]

On one hand Its the establishment trying to reassert itself. Sending a warning shot across the bows. Obviously anticipating troubles ahead and smacking down a big deterrent sentence.

On the other hand, one metre or so to the side and he'd be facing a manslaughter or attempted murder charge.

[Greeny_Musicchild]

32 Months? Wow. I think that's excessive. He looks like the kind of guy that would learn his lesson from a few days in prison.

[Purple Monkey]

32 Months? Wow. I think that's excessive. He looks like the kind of guy that would learn his lesson from a few days in prison.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Purple Monkey

[the real new messiah]

Three of the top stories on sky news are this one, One about a woman who's commited benefit fraud for the last eight years, Claiming to be unable to walk and she gets a suspended sentence. The third is a paedophile gang where one of the women gets a four year sentence, Four Fu*;'*<G years for abusing kids and this poor lad gets the best part of his early adult life ruined for a moment of madness

[dakyras]

More absurd political reactionism to the protests

Bloody good article.

[Ed209]

They f**ked him. It's a sentence that is only in the interest of the police and government.

[gratedenini]

Yes. A difficult one. When you see the thing fleein down and how close it lands to The Blue... it probably would have killed someone if it hit em.

My initial feeling was that 32months was too long..but tbh-- so was the MPs sentence last week for welchin 20k.

So you could argue both were politically motivated sentences..or establishment based sentences.

Although I overall support our Justice System compared to just about any other country in the world.. some of the reletive sentences baffle me.

There are seemingly huge variables in like for like crimes.

Of course.. one of the big ones in the publics eyes is (as mentioned above) is Benefit Fraud.

You cant say benefit fraud is the same as robbing the bookies with an iron bar and a mask on eh... but.. it gets emotions running doesn`t it.

I`ve got to say.. If i had the chance to winch more money via the sausage right now--I`d do it--without the batte of an eye.

And--- If I had the chance to walk out of Morrisons today without paying for me kippers.. I would have.

Yeah--it would be wrong... but it wouldn`t compare to these folks who systemattically con the system.

Punishments? well in my eyes.. drugs,hurting the police and noncin.. yer deserve all yer get imo.

Whats John Snape gonna get though?

den

[worm]

I don't have access to the case so have no way of knowing whether it was justified or not.

[gratedenini]

I don't have access to the case so have no way of knowing whether it was justified or not.

[pink_triangle]

I remember at the time, people saying they felt sorry for him being caught on camera. I didnt feel sympathy for him then, as I feel we have to take responsibility for our actions. However the punishment doesnt really fit the crime, I doubt he really needs rehabilitating and the tax payers dont need to pay for it. A friend of a family lost their child in a car accident caused by an disqualified, uninsired driver, he only ended up in jail for 3 years. I suspect he wont serve more than a year but theres definitely a lack of balance in sentencing.

[sifi]

I don't have access to the case so have no way of knowing whether it was justified or not.

Edited January 11, 2011 by sifi

[grumpyhack]

If you chuck a heavy fire extinguisher off the top of a tall building when you know there's a crowd of people below you can't surely claim that you were unaware of the possible consequences. It's not far short of attempted murder.

[feral chile]

I think the sentence was probably fair, it was an incredibly reckless act, but I do feel saddened by it. It's a tragedy for this guy. The article says that he would have been the first member of his family to go to uni, and now the poor guy's in prison instead.

it's so easy to get carried away when your adrenaline's pumping. One moment of madness, and he's ruined his life. But at least he doesn't have the death of anyone on his conscience - that would really be impossible for most people to live with.

[gratedenini]

I think the sentence was probably fair, it was an incredibly reckless act, but I do feel saddened by it. It's a tragedy for this guy. The article says that he would have been the first member of his family to go to uni, and now the poor guy's in prison instead.

it's so easy to get carried away when your adrenaline's pumping. One moment of madness, and he's ruined his life. But at least he doesn't have the death of anyone on his conscience - that would really be impossible for most people to live with.

[Sparticus]

The guy, whether it was a moment of madness or not, endangered the public.

I'm not one for high horses, but he's eighteen, you know the consequences, a f**king penny could kill someone from that height.

With that being said i'm planting myself firmly in the "that'll teach em" camp; he acted with complete disregard to others and wont be making the same mistake again, tough shit i'm afraid!

[markeee]

Whilst some people say the sentence was too lenient, the problem is, you can't really give him more when there are people walking away with much less after stabbing someone

[worm]

Would you like one of my precis on the case M`lug Worm?

den

[gratedenini]

No, I'd need to hear the prosecution's evidence as well as the defense. What I can't do with any level of validity is speak about the justification of a sentence according to the presentation of the media.

[eFestivals]

It was a very stupid and reckless act, with potential disasterous consequences. But there's few 18 year olds who aren't stupid and reckless at some point, so while the danger from what he did shouldn't be ignored, it also should have been considered with his age in mind, and that he was caught up in the moment.

When put against the sentence handed out to a mature man who had reached a high level of public office and who had very deliberately chosen rip off the people of this country for £20k (which I suspect is merely what he got caught for - there's very possibly more he stole) - I'm talking about the ex-MP David Chaytor - and who got just 18 months, this sentence for this kid is shown as excessive and very definitely politically motivated.

The sentence of Chaytor should have been politically motivated too, bearing in mind that he's in politics. But it wasn't, because the other MPs know that he's merely a scapegoat for the thieving they've also done, and the number of MPs who have since spoken in support of Chaytor saying he was a 'conscientious MP' is sickening.

Edited January 12, 2011 by eFestivals

[RABun]

Personally i think its very harsh. If it had been some kid randomly throwing something heavy off the top of a car park and it narrowly missed someone, if they were caught, they would get a caution and slap on the wrist.

Its an interesting concept though - do we punish on actions or consequences.

If we punish on actions and do not take into account the outcome of those actions is that a fairer system?

I only ask because its come up at work recently although not in terms of punishment.

If someone dies on a building site all hell breaks loose massive investigations, things get shut down by HSE. Its a massive deal - as it should be.

If the same unsafe action does not result in someones death its classed as a near miss and usually is investigated, but not with the same urgency. However the same actions could result in either outcome. The only differential is time, space and luck.

Someone said something about an uninsured driver being under-punished because he killed a child. Obviously its a horrible thing to happen, but would the reaction be different if he had just been caught after being pulled over? No of course not, but its the same action just a different outcome.

So in a way all sentences are subjective based on the consequences not the initial actions. But the initial action is where the personal choice is in these things.