AnOther Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 In the sense of the life consequences of a 32 month sentence as opposed to 30 which I was unaware of (wondered why the apparently odd tariff) I can at least appreciate where PPP is coming from in characterising the sentence as vindictive but am undecided as to whether I agree with him or not. I think I'd need to know a lot more about the character of the defendant to make that call and perhaps some social enquiries might have not been out of place before passing sentence, some haste does seem evident.As an aside though had someone died as a result of this act of supreme recklessness would the charge not have been one of Involuntary manslaughter ?This arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="AnOther"]In the sense of the life consequences of a 32 month sentence as opposed to 30 which I was unaware of (wondered why the apparently odd tariff) I can at least appreciate where PPP is coming from in characterising the sentence as vindictive but am undecided as to whether I agree with him or not. I think I'd need to know a lot more about the character of the defendant to make that call and perhaps some social enquiries might have not been out of place before passing sentence, some haste does seem evident.As an aside though had someone died as a result of this act of supreme recklessness would the charge not have been one of Involuntary manslaughter ?This arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.[/quote]Good post; the actus reus of murder without the mens rea; effectively in legalese without malice; malice has a very different meaning from its common usage. As to the 2 months and the consequence under rehabilitation, I would have felt easier if the judge with cause had handed down a more severe sentence removing the doubts on the border line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 is not aimed at any one personSo what is the case when the projectile was hurled toward a group of policemen ? Wasn't the intent to maim or kill a police man? Does the fact that is a group rather than an individual make a difference ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 No, RH, it doesn't. It is then attempted murder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="Salty Sam"][quote user="pachapapa"] God Forbid it would be worse than a hearing in a Magistrate's Court.[/quote]Which just about indicates your knowledge of the Court system within the UK![quote user="pachapapa"]Small statistical point a hearing in a Crown Court is rare as over 90% of criminal charges will be heard in a Magistrate's Court.[/quote]Just to correct you, over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates' court.[/quote]Yes indeed, 95% is over 90%. [:D] I note that the resident solicitor on TFF used the 95% figure which is presumably where you got the information or do you have the source for the exact figures for the year 2010.Quite agree with your observation of my opinion of the court system to which I refer. I would just observe that the system in Scotland is very different you may not be aware of that despite your Cumbrian proximity to the border; my Northern Ireland contacts assure me that the system is actually quiet good there. I have not the slightest idea how it performs in Wales but no doubt you will be able to clarify that for me.One of the little plus points of choosing to live outside the UK is that the probability of me appearing in a Magistrates Court is relatively remote. The prospect of having to live in a country where the slightest misdemeanour would give me an over 95% of appearing in a Magistrates Court would be a source of fear, stress and anxiety not suited to my advanced years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 I wonder if anybody has reviewed the roof top video and asked themselves exactly what was in this young mans mind ?[url]http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/student-throws-fire-extinguisher-roof-police-4550716[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sid Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 PPP You've certainly opened a hornet's nest with this one. The lad is branded a criminal? Well, of course!! That's because he IS a criminal!I'm with Hoddy on this one; it's a case of other sentences being too lenient.I didn't understand your point about his mother; what's she got to do with the crime at all? She's not on trial here.Remember also that the group of demonstrators had broken into the building in the first place too. A crime in itself. And another thing... you won't have to appear in a Magistrates Court or a Crown Court if you stay on the right side of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="sid"]PPP You've certainly opened a hornet's nest with this one. The lad is branded a criminal? Well, of course!! That's because he IS a criminal!I'm with Hoddy on this one; it's a case of other sentences being too lenient.I didn't understand your point about his mother; what's she got to do with the crime at all? She's not on trial here.Remember also that the group of demonstrators had broken into the building in the first place too. A crime in itself. [/quote]I take no responsibity for any point about his mother; I merely quoted the words of the presiding judge in his summing up. I suggest you take the matter up with the judge and leave me out of it.[:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Well if it wasn't hitting a policeman it was a very poor aim !!PPP I'm surprised you question the decision of a Judge in these circumstances. If one of those policemen had been your brother/father/son/mother/sister/wife I wonder if your comment on the sentence delivered by the Judge would be quite the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 [quote user="Russethouse"]Well if it wasn't hitting a policeman it was a very poor aim !!PPP I'm surprised you question the decision of a Judge in these circumstances. If one of those policemen had been your brother/father/son/mother/sister/wife I wonder if your comment on the sentence delivered by the Judge would be quite the same.[/quote]I am prepared to wager that if a bucket was placed on the ground and you were given an empty fire extinguisher to throw from the same height with similar weather conditions that in 20 throws you would not hit the bucket once.Under what circumstances? I presume hitting a bucket first time or what do you mean?Family association is as irrelevant as if it had been my dog, my cat, my rabbit chained to the ground; this sentimental nonsense has no place in a judicial process that is why the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rose Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Sorry - I've been out all day but just thought I should respond to PPP's comments concerning me...PPP said - If I may add a piece for Rose... your assertion regarding footage taken by Sky News and it's relevancy as evidence reflects badly on what used to be a corner stone of UK justice when the criminal case was based SOLELY on the evidence presented to the court. Your disparaging dismissal of the presiding judges remarks regarding the mother obviously is just a small voice but a disturbing echo of present day attitudes by the public at large in consort.PPP - I did not make any disparaging dismissal of the judges comments... I said...Rose - The judge may have praised his mother - I do to, well done her for doing the right thing... however, Sky news has reported that he was identified by them two hours before he handed himself in... Or are you saying that because he went to the police he should have had a lesser sentence?Are you perhaps reading between the lines? I agreed with the Judge, well done to the mother... However, I do not agree with you on the sentence... this has nothing to do with small voices and disturbing echos... it means I dont agree with you! PPP - Yes I can forgive, even the most heinous crime. But then I am not a bigotted protestant believer. In effect as an 18 year old with a sentence of over 2.5 years he will NEVER EVER extinguish his crime 'spent). It is sad to see the nature of the lack of charity expressed by you and RH in particular but perhaps not surprising. The link below gives a quick introduction to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, commonly referred to as ROA. And who exactly is the biggotted protestant believer? Do you always resort to name calling if one doesn't agree with you?PPP - I am prepared to wager that if a bucket was placed on the ground and you were given an empty fire extinguisher to throw from the same height with similar weather conditions that in 20 throws you would not hit the bucket once.I would agree that if there was one bucket on the ground we would all miss... but there weren't buckets there were 100's of people and chances are if he tried to do it again its very possible someone would get hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkkent Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="pachapapa"] ... the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Wrong. The lady concerned stands over the Old Bailey - the Central Criminal Court and ... very wrong ... she is NOT blindfold, her eyes are wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Rose I think PPP is now clutching at straws - the bucket thing is absolutely laughable and, as you quite rightly say, there was not a bucket on the ground but a number of people - police officers - where the extinguisher was aimed. If PPP wishes to persist with his bucket then he needs to change it to a large number of buckets in close proximity to one another and ask what the chances are of hitting one of them.It does seem that PPP is on his own in wanting the criminal to be able to shrug off his criminality after a short period of time.From my recollection of the judgement account was taken of the mothers action in getting her criminal son to give himself up - no doubt she was aware that he would be identified and it would be better for him not to wait for them to come and get him - and the judge gave a lesser sentence.There also needs to be an element of deterent. The vast amount of damage does nothing to promote a cause and please remember that damage is being paid for by British people via insurance charges. Hopefully, others will think long and hard as to what any criminal activity might mean to their future.Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="AnOther"]I wonder if anybody has reviewed the roof top video and asked themselves exactly what was in this young mans mind ?[url]http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/student-throws-fire-extinguisher-roof-police-4550716[/url][/quote]I noticed from the video that rather than just drop the extinguisher in to the area directly below him (which had very few people in it) he swung it in an arc towards the more densely packed area, that's hardly tying to get it in to a bucket, rather like throwing it at loads of buckets, it could have hit anyone, in fact he was lucky it didn't.As for setting an example, well I can see the point of why it was needed to be done. I believe the Conservatives have just a couple of floors in Millbank Towers, the rest are occupied by other business's. It must of been very scary for all those working there at the time. If this guy was one of those who just broke in then yes I would say the sentence was a bit over the top (although probably those working in the tower would disagree) but he didn't. It is clear from the news footage that he was roughly aiming at a group people and obviously thought he had got away with it until the video was shown on TV and the police appeal was made.I do have some sympathy for the parents, to a degree, imagine if it were your son who had done this, I would be absolutely horrified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="Clarkkent"][quote user="pachapapa"] ... the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Wrong. The lady concerned stands over the Old Bailey - the Central Criminal Court and ... very wrong ... she is NOT blindfold, her eyes are wide open.[/quote]And PPP sets himself up as a font of all knowledge lecturing others on this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave21478 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I often wonder what planet PPP operates on, and this topic confirms my thoughts.Have a look at the video, chief. He didnt just fling the extinguisher over his shoulder without a care where it went, he leaned over, took deliberate aim and threw it at the police.If you put a few dozen of your buckets of water in that area and asked him to do it again, I think he would struggle to miss them. It was only pure blind luck that he missed this time, and as I said before - he is an educated adult - He knew the potential consequences but he chose to throw it anyway.And you think his punishment was too harsh? Unbelievable. Of course he should suffer the results for this for the rest of his life. He should be thanking his lucky stars that he does not have the death or permanent disability of a couple of police officers on his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Russethouse"] Well if it wasn't hitting a policeman it was a very poor aim !!PPP I'm surprised you question the decision of a Judge in these circumstances. If one of those policemen had been your brother/father/son/mother/sister/wife I wonder if your comment on the sentence delivered by the Judge would be quite the same.[/quote]I am prepared to wager that if a bucket was placed on the ground and you were given an empty fire extinguisher to throw from the same height with similar weather conditions that in 20 throws you would not hit the bucket once.Under what circumstances? I presume hitting a bucket first time or what do you mean?Family association is as irrelevant as if it had been my dog, my cat, my rabbit chained to the ground; this sentimental nonsense has no place in a judicial process that is why the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Watch the video PPP, the extinguisher is thrown toward a group of police who move to avoid it (presumably, but they move) What has happened to your standards when you think that trying to maim or kill a police officer does not deserve a criminal record ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="Russethouse"]Watch the video PPP, the extinguisher is thrown toward a group of police who move to avoid it (presumably, but they move).....[/quote]I don't think he was that clever to be honest in just singling out the police, I just think he hrew it at the group in general i.e. anywhere there were people. The 'hole' was created by the police round part of the entrance that they had entered through to stop others from going in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="PaulT"][quote user="Clarkkent"] [quote user="pachapapa"] ... the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Wrong. The lady concerned stands over the Old Bailey - the Central Criminal Court and ... very wrong ... she is NOT blindfold, her eyes are wide open.[/quote]And PPP sets himself up as a font of all knowledge lecturing others on this forum[/quote]20/20 you must be so happy... the Supreme Court is in Parliament Square....to be frank I have never noticed that the statue did not have a blindfold, possibly easier to see a blindfold on a bucket from the top of Millbank.[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Proc_65824_DSC_0056_jpg.jpg[/IMG]At least she will be able to see the rendition flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 It will be in Parliament Square once 'The Guildhall' have been refurbished and modified. However you are evading the issue that your wrong and ClarkKent is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Russethouse"] Well if it wasn't hitting a policeman it was a very poor aim !!PPP I'm surprised you question the decision of a Judge in these circumstances. If one of those policemen had been your brother/father/son/mother/sister/wife I wonder if your comment on the sentence delivered by the Judge would be quite the same.[/quote]I am prepared to wager that if a bucket was placed on the ground and you were given an empty fire extinguisher to throw from the same height with similar weather conditions that in 20 throws you would not hit the bucket once.Under what circumstances? I presume hitting a bucket first time or what do you mean?Family association is as irrelevant as if it had been my dog, my cat, my rabbit chained to the ground; this sentimental nonsense has no place in a judicial process that is why the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Watch the video PPP, the extinguisher is thrown toward a group of police who move to avoid it (presumably, but they move) What has happened to your standards when you think that trying to maim or kill a police officer does not deserve a criminal record ?[/quote]I have never stated or implied that throwing a fire extinguisher from a building with a tumultuous crowd heaving below would not mutatis mutandis have a chance of hitting someone.I offer to change the wager, I put € 10,000 in escrow you do the same; you get 10 throws. If you hit me you get the € 10,000 + the wager; vice versa for me. Joust to be completed before PPPs 75 th birthday.Let me make an observation, a bull in an arena would have more chance of catching me than your extinguisher.[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 [quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="pachapapa"][quote user="Russethouse"] Well if it wasn't hitting a policeman it was a very poor aim !!PPP I'm surprised you question the decision of a Judge in these circumstances. If one of those policemen had been your brother/father/son/mother/sister/wife I wonder if your comment on the sentence delivered by the Judge would be quite the same.[/quote]I am prepared to wager that if a bucket was placed on the ground and you were given an empty fire extinguisher to throw from the same height with similar weather conditions that in 20 throws you would not hit the bucket once.Under what circumstances? I presume hitting a bucket first time or what do you mean?Family association is as irrelevant as if it had been my dog, my cat, my rabbit chained to the ground; this sentimental nonsense has no place in a judicial process that is why the lady at the now Supreme Court has scales and a blindfold over her eyes. [/quote]Watch the video PPP, the extinguisher is thrown toward a group of police who move to avoid it (presumably, but they move) What has happened to your standards when you think that trying to maim or kill a police officer does not deserve a criminal record ?[/quote]I have never stated or implied that throwing a fire extinguisher from a building with a tumultuous crowd heaving below would not mutatis mutandis have a chance of hitting someone.I offer to change the wager, I put € 10,000 in escrow you do the same; you get 10 throws. If you hit me you get the € 10,000 + the wager; vice versa for me. Joust to be completed before PPPs 75 th birthday.Let me make an observation, a bull in an arena would have more chance of catching me than your extinguisher.[:D][/quote]What a load of otsh you are coming up with and who are you trying to impress by using Latin?I take it then PPP that the extinguisher only had the potnetial to hit one specific person and if it hit anyone else it would not count.Is it only me thinking that you are making an absolute fool of yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon-the-censored Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 PaulT said - Is it only me thinking that you are making an absolute fool of yourself?PaulT - you are not alone !Simon :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 No, you are not the only one.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 I think the only fools are perhaps those who are having their chains yanked and that have responded to his thread. Which I suppose now includes me [:D]I think it may have got more response than the bullfighting thread [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now