Home Politics & Debate

DEMOlition 2010 - thoughts?

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was wrong, he got what he deserved.

    If I offered him any advice, it would be to wear a police uniform next time. No charges would follow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    It was wrong, he got what he deserved.

    If I offered him any advice, it would be to wear a police uniform next time. No charges would follow.

    He's a champagne socialist by all accounts :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    2 years and 8 months will mean at most 1 year and 4 months inside with the remaining time out on licence. He may qualify for HDC which would see him out 135 days earlier than the half way point.

    Earliest date of release (based on current sentence) is somewhere around 28 December 2011 with the latest being somewhere around 11 May 2012.

    On the whole a fair sentence for the crime. Although, the police are claiming that he tried to kill them and should have been charged with attempted murder (despite no real evidence of an actual intention to kill, just recklessness which isn't enough)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avizandum wrote: »
    (despite no real evidence of an actual intention to kill, just recklessness which isn't enough)

    Any idiot should have realised that a fire extinguisher thrown from that height would kill someone.

    Anyway, regardless of what his intent was, the guy is a moron. Kudos to his mum for getting him to come forward, hopefully he'll realise that her getting him to come forward probably meant a significant reduction in his sentence and won't use it as an excuse to blame her for his woes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does seem harsh given that no-one was hurt. he's eighteen and like most blokes when we were his age 'young, dumb and full of cum'. He's probably not too bright, easily led and peopel older and with a willingness to sacrifice the pawns have filled him with a glow on romanticism of revolutionary violence - thinking he's big cos he's striking a blow against the 'man'.

    A few months community service would have been much better
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Any idiot should have realised that a fire extinguisher thrown from that height would kill someone.

    Anyway, regardless of what his intent was, the guy is a moron. Kudos to his mum for getting him to come forward, hopefully he'll realise that her getting him to come forward probably meant a significant reduction in his sentence and won't use it as an excuse to blame her for his woes.

    Knowledge that it may kill is not the same as intending to kill a person. There has to be a clear intention to extinguish life for it to be attempted murder. Acting recklessly or intending to injure would not be sufficient to prove the mens rea, therefore the charge would not be competent and a conviction impossible. The Law is very clear on that point.

    Agreed he is a moron
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does it not count that he didn't (at the time) seem to care if it hurt someone or not? His actions could have remained exactly the same had it not been for a few inches differences, where it could have resulted in death.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Avizandum wrote: »
    Knowledge that it may kill is not the same as intending to kill a person. There has to be a clear intention to extinguish life for it to be attempted murder. Acting recklessly or intending to injure would not be sufficient to prove the mens rea, therefore the charge would not be competent and a conviction impossible. The Law is very clear on that point.



    I'm not disagreeing with you, his claim that he was acting recklessly is just a claim. The only reason he wasn't done for attempted murder was because it was a credible claim. He could quite easily have been lying through his teeth :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Does it not count that he didn't (at the time) seem to care if it hurt someone or not? His actions could have remained exactly the same had it not been for a few inches differences, where it could have resulted in death.

    Not in the slightest, it's just recklessness which doesn't fulfil the mens rea for attempted murder...there has to be an intention by the offender to actually kill a person (or persons). There was no actual evidence that his intention to kill anyone at the time he launched the fire extinguisher from the roof. His intention may well have been to kill or it may reasonably have been to cause injury or fear.

    Contrary to what some people have suggested elsewhere (sadly, many of them claiming to be police officers, who should know better), a person launching an item off a roof cannot be automatically summed to be on a murderous rampage.

    The sentence of 32 months was entirely justified for the offence to which he had admitted. It was incredibly reckless, the violence that day was significant (one of the elements of violent disorder is not to simply look at the conduct of the offender, but the general conduct), the damage to property was also very significant. The very real possibility of death or serious injury form the fire extinguisher existed. What saved him from a longer sentence was his previous good character and not only his plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity, but the fact that he actually handed himself into the police.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Looking the guy, somehow I don't think we lost a Nobel laureate in the making. Bugger got what he deserved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It does seem harsh given that no-one was hurt. he's eighteen and like most blokes when we were his age 'young, dumb and full of cum'. He's probably not too bright, easily led and peopel older and with a willingness to sacrifice the pawns have filled him with a glow on romanticism of revolutionary violence - thinking he's big cos he's striking a blow against the 'man'.

    A few months community service would have been much better

    It was by sheer luck that no one was killed. I think the sentence was about right; the dip-shit needs it impressing upon him that you can't be that much of a first-class cunt.
Sign In or Register to comment.