Student rioter - going down

[Billy the Fish]

What are you talking about man,... he had the item in his hands for a full 2 mins before deciding what to do with it,.. and that decision was to throw it down on top of the police directly below missing by 2 feet only..... now as is said in a comment earlier, if you have a shot at someone with a gun but narrowly miss, does that lessen the seriousness of the offence?

If you want context then some Brighton fans got longer sentences for the same crime except they were just luzzing plastic chairs at Leeds fans with little chance of serious damage. Bearing this in mind, Some could say this student got off lightly.

Fair play, I think I've changed my mind. To be honest I'd forgotten how close it was to hitting someone.

 

[somerset]

........grabbing the nearest object and throwing into an empty space below........

What empty space for goodness sake,..... all the footage clearly shows thousands of police and protestors under and around the building, the item was hurled at the police lines, not the student ranks,..... strange that,... intent in anyones eyes methinks.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

He'll be out well before the sentence runs its course. It was only sheer luck that someone was not hit.

People have a right to protest in peace. He abused that. Defence of being caught up in the moment is ridiculous. I wonder if he would have come forward if his picture had not been spread across the news network.

On sentencing his lawyer was quoted as saying "This represents a genuine tragedy". No, no it doesn't.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Except common law applies in the main to civil cases. This was a criminal matter brought by the state. He was found guilty of violent disorder and given a sentence in line with the tariffs laid down.

It's irrelevant that Johnny Immigrant got 4 months for mass murder in another court. The judge has to first bear in mind the tariff, the severity of his actions, the mitigating circumstances etc etc. He definitely should not take into account a sentence for a drunk driver. It would not be comparing like with like.

If you want context then some Brighton fans got longer sentences for the same crime except they were just luzzing plastic chairs at Leeds fans with little chance of serious damage. Bearing this in mind, Some could say this student got off lightly.

English criminal law derives its main principles from the common law, and therefore is based on case precedents etc. which was my point regarding context etc. Common Law does deal with civil matters as you said so I can't disagree with that. I also think your points are well made and the law doesn't consider the speeding motorist to be intentionally endangering life, even though they are, and clearly the court felt that the student in question was intending to cause harm, and I'm not disagreeing with that verdict.

It's a valid argument to include the comparison with the Brighton fans, whether they had previous or not would surely determine the length of their term. If there happened to be an 18yr old among them with no previous convictions, who eventually gave himself up and pleaded guilty, then I probably would be in the same position as suggesting a lengthy prison sentence was excessive. It is at this point I would suggest context is everything in assessing the severity of the sentence. So either the student got off lightly, or the Brighton fans were treated harshly?

With regard to the empty space, I was wrong to say that, from that distance he clearly couldn't be sure where it was going to land. I've viewed it again having only seen it on the news, and it was completely reckless. My points regarding the severity of the sentence still stand however, and whether the length of this is serving the publics interest.

Got to say, this has certainly been one of the more rational debates on NSC in recent times!

 

[somerset]

English criminal law derives its main principles from the common law, and therefore is based on case precedents etc. which was my point regarding context etc. Common Law does deal with civil matters as you said so I can't disagree with that. I also think your points are well made and the law doesn't consider the speeding motorist to be intentionally endangering life, even though they are, and clearly the court felt that the student in question was intending to cause harm, and I'm not disagreeing with that verdict.

It's a valid argument to include the comparison with the Brighton fans, whether they had previous or not would surely determine the length of their term. If there happened to be an 18yr old among them with no previous convictions, who eventually gave himself up and pleaded guilty, then I probably would be in the same position as suggesting a lengthy prison sentence was excessive. It is at this point I would suggest context is everything in assessing the severity of the sentence. So either the student got off lightly, or the Brighton fans were treated harshly?

With regard to the empty space, I was wrong to say that, from that distance he clearly couldn't be sure where it was going to land. I've viewed it again having only seen it on the news, and it was completely reckless. My points regarding the severity of the sentence still stand however, and whether the length of this is serving the publics interest.

Got to say, this has certainly been one of the more rational debates on NSC in recent times!

Thats because some of the regular more 'colourful' characters who populate this board with f*** yous, and you c***, are probably either still in bed, down the job centre, at the DSS or at lectures.

 

[Dandyman]

Consider your throat well jumped down,...... get a grip mate,.... its a no fookin brainer,..... there is no context or proportion to measure against, it was attempted murder,... and he didn't give himself up willingly, he was coerced by his mother,.. otherwise he would still be having a cosy student style lie-in even now as I write.

Attempted murder ? You mean he was trying to actually kill the other protestors or are you just over-egging things a tad ?

He behaved like a twat and can't escape punishment but given that Met can apparently kill people and get no come back I suspect several people might raise an eyebrow at his punishment.

 

[bhaexpress]

Attempted murder ? You mean he was trying to actually kill the other protestors or are you just over-egging things a tad ?

He behaved like a twat and can't escape punishment but given that Met can apparently kill people and get no come back I suspect several people might raise an eyebrow at his punishment.

Well, put it this way, if the extinguisher had it somebody it would have probably killed them in which case it would have been murder. There's no such offence as 'Acting like a complete twat' on the statuate books I'm afraid.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well, put it this way, if the extinguisher had it somebody it would have probably killed them in which case it would have been murder. There's no such offence as 'Acting like a complete twat' on the statuate books I'm afraid.

It would most likely be involuntary manslaughter if someone had been killed, otherwise he would have been charged with attempted murder in this case would he not?

 

[bhaexpress]

It would most likely be involuntary manslaughter if someone had been killed, otherwise he would have been charged with attempted murder in this case would he not?

Semantics, a very stupid act and not worth arguing over.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Semantics, a very stupid act and not worth arguing over.

why post on the thread then

no one is disputing the stupidity of the act, the debate has been about the law and the severity of the sentence.

 

[bhaexpress]

why post on the thread then

no one is disputing the stupidity of the act, the debate has been about the law and the severity of the sentence.

Meerly politely replying to Dandyman, don't get so upset.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It would most likely be involuntary manslaughter if someone had been killed, otherwise he would have been charged with attempted murder in this case would he not?

No, because to be found guilty of attempted murder the court has to prove your intent to kill, whereas for the substantive offence of murder, you only have to prove an intent to cause serious harm.

Manslaughter might be more likely in the circumstances you describe, but I still think even the smartest of lawyers might struggle to demonstrate a lack of appreciation of the possible consequences by the defendant. Lobbing a large solid object off a tall building...it doesn't take much of a genius to consider what might happen does it? Take the police out of this, as I think that's colouring some people's judgement. It's a bunch of people on the ground, whatever they're wearing (if you look at the pictures, there are plenty of students within a few feet too, check out their stunned faces).

Involuntary manslaughter is an American legal concept.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Involuntary manslaughter is an American legal concept.

not according to the CPS it isn't...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/involuntary_manslaughter/

 

[KneeOn]

Because the legal system is f***ed up. I think the sentance is the right one. Maybe it will put some of the other pampered students off kicking things in and behaving like complete bell ends because they have to put something back into the system. Hey considered getting a job in the evenings and weekends on the tills to help pay your way ?. Nah , would rather go to the cheap Uni bar and get pissed and then stagger to a party until 7am. There are some students who go for the education and work hard but tbh 80% of them go because there is nothing else to do, the cheap booze, endless parties and shagging opportunities. Good luck to them, but come on at least be honest with yourselves.

You do not go through the process of applying for and studying to get in to uni just for that.

Also many students DO have jobs. this 80% bollocks shows that you know f*** all about what students are like.

 

[SeagullRic]

Because the legal system is f***ed up. I think the sentance is the right one. Maybe it will put some of the other pampered students off kicking things in and behaving like complete bell ends because they have to put something back into the system. Hey considered getting a job in the evenings and weekends on the tills to help pay your way ?. Nah , would rather go to the cheap Uni bar and get pissed and then stagger to a party until 7am. There are some students who go for the education and work hard but tbh 80% of them go because there is nothing else to do, the cheap booze, endless parties and shagging opportunities. Good luck to them, but come on at least be honest with yourselves.

Wow, I didn't know you were an expert on University demographics. Still, now I know why your posts on student motivation and general lifestyle are so informative.

On a slight side note, could someone please explain to me why students have such a bad reputation for being lazy and drinking? Is it really accurate to state that students go out on the piss more than 18-25 years olds with full time jobs?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Wow, I didn't know you were an expert on University demographics. Still, now I know why your posts on student motivation and general lifestyle are so informative.

On a slight side note, could someone please explain to me why students have such a bad reputation for being lazy and drinking? Is it really accurate to state that students go out on the piss more than 18-25 years olds with full time jobs?

Yes.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

You do not go through the process of applying for and studying to get in to uni just for that.

Also many students DO have jobs. this 80% bollocks shows that you know f*** all about what students are like.

Get real. I only said what is true. Deal with it.

 

[brightonlass2009]

Because the legal system is f***ed up. I think the sentance is the right one. Maybe it will put some of the other pampered students off kicking things in and behaving like complete bell ends because they have to put something back into the system. Hey considered getting a job in the evenings and weekends on the tills to help pay your way ?. Nah , would rather go to the cheap Uni bar and get pissed and then stagger to a party until 7am. There are some students who go for the education and work hard but tbh 80% of them go because there is nothing else to do, the cheap booze, endless parties and shagging opportunities. Good luck to them, but come on at least be honest with yourselves.

Why is this relevant to the question? And why are you an authority on what student living is like? 80% is a stupid out of the air figure that is totally not true.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I made it up but I think there maybe a grain of truth in it.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

I made it up but I think there maybe a grain of truth in it.

there's several people on this board that are/were recently of the demographic that you're criticising

they might know a bit more about it than you, unfortunately