Fire extinguisher inflames judge

[ajones]

So let me get this straight (as far as you can from a news report).

As part of a mob, he broke into a building, acquired a fire extinguisher from somewhere (hardly normal apparatus to have on an exposed roof top... possible forethought perhaps?) and dropped a heavy missile 7 floors above the Police and other demonstrators. From the looks of it, he was bloody lucky NOT to hit someone.

I don't think "stupid" covers what he did. His actions are indefensible and could have resulted in death. Political views are irrelevant when it comes to actions like this, and he should feel lucky that he was prosecuted for a more minor offense.

Totally agree with the sentence; (but some part of me feels castration to prevent him polluting the gene pool would be more appropriate.)

[usxhe190]

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, yes he was stupid - but - and it's a big but, nobody was actually hurt (by luck or whatever).

Going down the path of deciding sentances for "what could have happened" would be imho worrying.

I will draw comparisons with motoring offences, your average law abiding joe/joanna, paying tax, insurance all have access to something capable of more damage than a fire extinguisher. I'm trying to say, you can sit at home and comment on such outrageous behaviour but overlook your own driveway.

How would they feel if this practice happened with motoring offences? Perhaps it should?

Dangerous Driving
eg overtake with no chance of success, perhaps have a crash but 'luckily' nobody hurt.
Magistrates Court = level 5 fine (up to £5,000) and/or up to 6 months custody
Crown Court = unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years custody (endorse 3 to 11 points)

Death by Dangerous Driving
eg as above but somebody unfortunately dies.
1 to 14 years imprisonment, disqual min 2 years and pass extended test, obligatory endorsement

So, lob a fire extinguisher off the roof and don't hit anyone get 2.5 years (up to 5 years max) - yet drive upwards of 1 ton of metal with no regard for anyones safety and up to 2 years max?

*i'm in no way condoning his actions, he's a complete twonk, and I'm not pro/anti motoring offences.

That's why they are proposing to increase the sentences.

[Bugbait]

I think the sentence is appropriate. He’ll be out in under half the time anyway, not that I agree but that seems to be how the system works in the UK.

I wouldn't say murder either but I'd be on the line between 'violent disorder' and attempted manslaughter.

The law doesn’t recognise attempted manslaughter. The core premise of manslaughter is the lack of premeditation. On the other hand, premeditation is a core requirement for murder.

So, lob a fire extinguisher off the roof and don't hit anyone get 2.5 years (up to 5 years max) - yet drive upwards of 1 ton of metal with no regard for anyones safety and up to 2 years max?

Punishments for motoring offences shouldn’t be used as any sort of benchmark. In many countries the punishment is ridiculously lenient and should be increased.

[aidanjt]

Punishments for motoring offences shouldn’t be used as any sort of benchmark. In many countries the punishment is ridiculously lenient and should be increased.

And why not? If the level of threat a vehicle represents is greater than a falling empty canister, why does the vehicle, which can transfer far greater energy into far more people, with far greater and controlled accuracy, results in half the sentence. How is that just? Not only that, but why should a person be punished more for 'victimising' bobbies than any 'ordinary' person, why continually give police preferential treatment? How is that just? When a bobby breaks the law, why are they constantly granted leniency? Many will even keep their jobs. How is that justice?

This is authoritarian justice. No more, no less.

[ajones]

And why not? If the level of threat a vehicle represents is greater than a falling empty canister, why does the vehicle, which can transfer far greater energy into far more people, with far greater and controlled accuracy, results in half the sentence. How is that just?

Lots of reasons.. You have to be licensed to use a car in the first place and thus trained in their use, reducing the chance that such an event would occur

Not only that, but why should a person be punished more for 'victimising' bobbies than any 'ordinary' person, why continually give police preferential treatment?

Because in knowing that they are the police but still going forward with the attack suggests that the perp is doing so in defiance of the law and is therefore a greater danger to the general public

How is that just? When a bobby breaks the law, why are they constantly granted leniency? Many will even keep their jobs. How is that justice?

'Tis a good point, but I know the danger the police put themselves into and do feel a certain degree of sympathy for them. It's a who watches the watchmen scenario, and as you say is difficult to justify. However, I wouldn't want to be a Bobby in todays society... far too dangerous. Maybe that's part of an answer

This is authoritarian justice. No more, no less.

Isn't that the point or am I missing something blatantly obvious?

[scaryjim]

... I'm just thankful noone filmed the stupid things I did when I was 18.

This, frankly. I never did anything quite as daft as chucking a fire extinguisher off a roof, but I did some pretty dumb things, because when you're 18 you don't really care about the consequences. This bloke was unlucky enough to get caught on camera, and he's being made an example of.

Is the sentence fair?

Well, how do you judge? How many other cases of 18 year olds being prosecuted for throwing fire extinguishers off roofs during student protests are there to compare against? tbh I don't care if the sentence was fair or not, but it'd be nice if there was just a tiny bit of consistency in the system. Plenty of people have already highlighted cases where the sentencing is utterly inconsistent: I imagine there are as many examples that make this look lenient as make it look harsh, too. So perhaps what we need to concern ourselves with more is not whether this one case was appropriate, but with how you reform a system that is so utterly internally inconsistent.


Oh, and before anyone asks, I personally have no idea. Just sounding off while I eat my lunch

[badass]

All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, yes he was stupid - but - and it's a big but, nobody was actually hurt (by luck or whatever).

Going down the path of deciding sentances for "what could have happened" would be imho worrying.

I will draw comparisons with motoring offences, your average law abiding joe/joanna, paying tax, insurance all have access to something capable of more damage than a fire extinguisher. I'm trying to say, you can sit at home and comment on such outrageous behaviour but overlook your own driveway.

How would they feel if this practice happened with motoring offences? Perhaps it should?

Dangerous Driving
eg overtake with no chance of success, perhaps have a crash but 'luckily' nobody hurt.
Magistrates Court = level 5 fine (up to £5,000) and/or up to 6 months custody
Crown Court = unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years custody (endorse 3 to 11 points)

Death by Dangerous Driving
eg as above but somebody unfortunately dies.
1 to 14 years imprisonment, disqual min 2 years and pass extended test, obligatory endorsement

So, lob a fire extinguisher off the roof and don't hit anyone get 2.5 years (up to 5 years max) - yet drive upwards of 1 ton of metal with no regard for anyones safety and up to 2 years max?

*i'm in no way condoning his actions, he's a complete twonk, and I'm not pro/anti motoring offences.

In the example you give for the Dangerous driving without causing death, the driver should be facing years behind bars, a minimum 2 year disqualification and an extended driving test to ever drive again.
The problem is that most people see driving as a right and without realising it think it's more acceptable to be reckless in a car than in other circumstances.

[chuckskull]

And why not? If the level of threat a vehicle represents is greater than a falling empty canister, why does the vehicle, which can transfer far greater energy into far more people, with far greater and controlled accuracy, results in half the sentence. How is that just? Not only that, but why should a person be punished more for 'victimising' bobbies than any 'ordinary' person, why continually give police preferential treatment? How is that just? When a bobby breaks the law, why are they constantly granted leniency? Many will even keep their jobs. How is that justice?

This is authoritarian justice. No more, no less.

Motoring law's are deeply flawed an have been for some time, you can get less for killing someone in a car than this guy got. So they make an absolutely useless point of reference.

I've seen no evidence it was empty Even if it was it will still be 10kg+ of high tensile reinforced metal travelling about 100mph, landing on concrete barely marked it, a human head wouldn't even slow it down.

On the second point, the police get no preferential treatment when it comes to violence against them, in fact quite the opposite. The chances of a custodial sentence for injuring an officer is far lower than if it's another member of the public. It's often seen as the police officers fault if they are attacked and this country seems to have a rather disturbing attitude, even in the judiciary and CPS that resisting and fighting the police is somehow 'ok'. Not that any of this is relevant as he wasn't convicted of any crimes against a person, he was convicted of a disorder offence.

There is absolutely no leniency for officers caught breaking the law, this perception comes from the media reporting voraciously when an officer is accused of something and utterly ignoring it when they are acquitted, last year over 75% of all complaints against officers were found to have no basis whatsoever and utterly false. Many of that 75% were front page news. You're taking far to much of your opinion of the police force from old cop shows and the tabloids sorry. The reality is very different.

The police force is meant to be authoritarian, they have to be. How much effect do you think an utterly liberal force would have on crime?

au·thor·i·tar·i·an
 –adjective
exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

If the police were not authoritarian people would die simple as that. Equally there are a great many safeguards to ensure this is balanced against the individual freedoms of the public. So long as they are acting within the laws and to enforce the laws set out by our democracy, the police have the right and responsibility to be authoritarian in the performance of their duties.

If you believe the government is authoritarian, that's a different argument but one quickly trumped by the fact you haven't been dragged out of your house with a bag over your head for calling them that publicly.

[Bugbait]

And why not?

I’ve already stated that I believe that vehicular punishments are far too lenient, so it’s like comparing bad with the even worse. In context of this fire extinguisher incidence I fully agree, it’s not just. However, the correction should be a significant increase in punishment for vehicular incidences and not more lenience for the extinguisher case.

Not only that, but why should a person be punished more for 'victimising' bobbies than any 'ordinary' person, why continually give police preferential treatment?

I agree with ajones’ justification of this.

When a bobby breaks the law, why are they constantly granted leniency? Many will even keep their jobs. How is that justice?

You’re right, it’s not just. Again, we shouldn’t try to correct the problem by being more lenient to all but addressing the lack of justice in the case of Police infractions. I personally fully support greater punishments for those “in power”. Example: When Police and MP’s break the law, given they are in (perceived?) positions of elevated power then they should face greater punishment.

[aidanjt]

Lots of reasons.. You have to be licensed to use a car in the first place and thus trained in their use, reducing the chance that such an event would occur.

How likely is it for a falling canister to occur? Then how likely is that canister liable to hit anyone, even when aimed at a group of people the chances are very very low, so low, that it didn't happen. Anyone can maliciously use a vehicle to injure or kill anyone, including cops, with great ease. A license only guarantees that the driver can at least rudimentary use a vehicle and observe general road regulations. Not that they wont misuse it. The same applies to a firearm. It is in fact, far far more likely that you will be killed by a car than a falling canister. To the degree that hundreds of people die from a vehicle impact every year, and none die from falling canisters.

Because in knowing that they are the police but still going forward with the attack suggests that the perp is doing so in defiance of the law and is therefore a greater danger to the general public.

The police aren't the law. And when the police start surveilling, and assaulting the public, they become the greater treat to the public.

'Tis a good point, but I know the danger the police put themselves into and do feel a certain degree of sympathy for them. It's a who watches the watchmen scenario, and as you say is difficult to justify. However, I wouldn't want to be a Bobby in todays society... far too dangerous. Maybe that's part of an answer

More dangerous than the Blitz, or when the IRA was assaulting the British power structure? A bunch of rightly pissed off citizens hardly represents the greatest threat British police has ever known.

Isn't that the point or am I missing something blatantly obvious?

Is it? I thought the point was that Britain is suppose to be a free country. Why bother overthrowing the noble oligarchs only to replace it with another oligarchy to dictate, and squash dissent?

[mikerr]

How likely is it for a falling canister to occur? Then how likely is that canister liable to hit anyone, even when aimed at a group of people the chances are very very low, so low, that it didn't happen.

Er no - dropping a canister onto a crowd of people is highly likely to hit someone.
And a 10kg canister dropped from that height could easily kill anyone it hit.

IMO far from being unlucky to be filmed - it was his lucky day it didn't hit anyone.

[Flash477]

How likely is it for a falling canister to occur? Then how likely is that canister liable to hit anyone, even when aimed at a group of people the chances are very very low, so low, that it didn't happen. Anyone can maliciously use a vehicle to injure or kill anyone, including cops, with great ease. A license only guarantees that the driver can at least rudimentary use a vehicle and observe general road regulations. Not that they wont misuse it. The same applies to a firearm. It is in fact, far far more likely that you will be killed by a car than a falling canister. To the degree that hundreds of people die from a vehicle impact every year, and none die from falling canisters.

I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the worst justifications I have ever heard!

The reason that very few people get killed by falling canisters is because they are hardly any that do fall, unless they have exploded (and thus launched) because of a fire. The fact is he chose to throw the canister.

If someone chose to use a car to kill someone then it would be classed as murder - if the car lost control and killed someone then it would probably be manslaughter if it was something that could have been avoided.

The difference between a car and what he did is that he intentionally chose to throw it into a crowded area, hoping that it would miss (or maybe hoping it would hit). If you intentionally killed someone in a car then that would be murder, if you lost control then it may be manslaughter if it was caused by something you could have prevented, but they did not intentionally choose to put people at risk.

[aidanjt]

Er no - dropping a canister onto a crowd of people is highly likely to hit someone.
And a 10kg canister dropped from that height could easily kill anyone it hit.

IMO far from being unlucky to be filmed - it was his lucky day it didn't hit anyone.

So highly likely to hit someone, that it didn't. That automatically puts the probability at less than 50% for that given scenario.

[aidanjt]

I'm sorry, but that has to be one of the worst justifications I have ever heard!

Read again. It wasn't a justification. It was a rebuttal against the notion that probability of an events occurrence should be used as a measure of punishment.

[format]

Interesting to compare this case to the Iain Tomlinson incident.

[TooNice]

I never did anything quite as daft as chucking a fire extinguisher off a roof, but I did some pretty dumb things, because when you're 18 you don't really care about the consequences.

If that's really the case, we ought to raise the age of majority (and the rights that comes with it) and trial every crime committed by 18 years old in a young offender's court. Personally, I'd hate it if that were to happen. When you are adult you should at least care enough about the consequences not to do something that would recklessly endanger others. This is not like tattooing the name of your partner, or posting a video of you lighting a fart on fire, where the consequences do not cause do not pose a danger to others.