If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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
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)
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.
A few months community service would have been much better
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
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
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.
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.