Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to
and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head
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.
Avizandum wrote: »
(despite no real evidence of an actual intention to kill, just recklessness which isn't enough)
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.
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.
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.
Flashman's Ghost wrote: »
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