The student that was jailed for 32 months for throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
In the 1970s in my state, that police were as corrupt as corrupt can be. They were even running rackets. Stuff like this leaves a sour taste in many people.
Well, that's nice. :p

One thing I'd like to point out on top of everything in this story, by the way. Anyone think this court ruling will act as a deterrant?

Really?
 

Heathrow

Yes, as in the airport.
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
6,391
Location
London, UK
Car(s)
1995 BMW 325i SE
A BBC report a couple of weeks ago, said the Police were actively seeking to prosecute more than 200 people on serious offences, in connection to the protests. This man is just the first to be successfully prosecuted, some of the others will follow as they are caught, tried and convicted.

So, he is not a scapegoat, just first in a long line of law breakers. For example, the son of Mike Gilmore (of Pink Floyd), was already identified, as the man was seen urinating on the Cenotaph, the country?s main war memorial.

I was a bit surprised at the length of the sentence at first, but reviewing the film more closely and given the context of the disorder, it is probably correct.

Had he not admitted the lesser charge of violent disorder, he may well have found himself facing an attempted murder charge of a police officer. That could have been a much longer sentence.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
But it's okay, after all, just a few hours ago I was reading that you can deal high purity cocaine and only get 36 months imprisonment. And that was for one person of an 11 member gang, 9 others have been sentenced with varying lengths of a 3 month suspended sentence through to 26 months (or 2 years 2 months) with the 11th member to be sentenced next month. Puts things into perspective doesn't it?

That's the whole point of this thread - throw an empty fire extinguisher with a chance (keyword) of injuring or even killing someone if the exact requirements are met, get 32 months imprisonment. Deal high purity cocaine and get similar or even less sentences! The sad thing is, is that the 200 or so police officers involved in taking down this drug gang spent so many man hours only to get such a result, in this respect, I sympathise with the police - and to reiterate again, not all police are thugs in uniform.
I think the big difference there is that you can deal cocaine, but you can't force people to use it. If someone decides to buy cocaine and proceeds to overdose on it, they're largely to blame, not just the dealer. If this college kid found a large group of people who wanted to stand on the ground and wanted him to throw a fire extinguisher at them, then I'm sure he wouldn't be going to prison. It would probably have ended up on some sort of viva la jackass video or something.
 

Ruthi

cows glow, fgs!
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
209
Location
Bath, England
If you're looking for justification behind what happened from me, you won't find it and you won't get the meaning of my posts. What angers me, if it's not already apparent from my initial post, is the length and type of sentence given and the scapegoat having been made. We can argue semantics about what could have happened all we like, as did the courts, but unlike the courts we can't arbitrarily put people in jail for what may have happened and didn't. Some will, and have, said that his sentence is fine. Others want it higher still and some even facepalm because of it not being higher (but I count that as mere internet hate of which there is a great deal already). Whereas I facepalm because of it being too harsh.

I have said time and time again in my previous posts that I agree that he should be sentenced but not to near the degree that he has. But it's okay, after all, just a few hours ago I was reading that you can deal high purity cocaine and only get 36 months imprisonment. And that was for one person of an 11 member gang, 9 others have been sentenced with varying lengths of a 3 month suspended sentence through to 26 months (or 2 years 2 months) with the 11th member to be sentenced next month. Puts things into perspective doesn't it?

That's the whole point of this thread - throw an empty fire extinguisher with a chance (keyword) of injuring or even killing someone if the exact requirements are met, get 32 months imprisonment. Deal high purity cocaine and get similar or even less sentences! The sad thing is, is that the 200 or so police officers involved in taking down this drug gang spent so many man hours only to get such a result, in this respect, I sympathise with the police - and to reiterate again, not all police are thugs in uniform.

Also, it must be stated that the new Greater Manchester Police HQ is being built literally across the road from a HE-providing college campus. Whoever thought of that was either extremely smart in looking as to what the students are doing or extremely dumb in being in such close proximity...only time will tell.

Regards,

Yickle!
He isnt a scape goat, many other people who were there and damaged property(remember the police van) are getting charged too, you just dont hear about it because it is seen as old news now.
Plus, I dont understand what you mean by the bit in bold. Do you think all students go running around trying to hurt police officers or something? Will they try to vandalise the police station? I dont see how it is relevant in the slightest as students never had a problem with the police in the first place, it was the governments planned rise in tuition fees.
Back to the person who threw the extinguisher, he should be punished, he got exactly what he deserved in my opinion. You do not go down to London for a peaceful protest and end up breaking into millbank tower, going to the very top and throwing, not just dropping, throwing a fire extinguisher onto a large crowd down below. It doesnt matter that it didnt hit anyone because it is still the fact that he threw it, with or without the intent to injure someone. If it had hit someone on the head they could have severe head trauma or be dead.
I hold no sympathy for someone who ruined the cause of the protest, the news forgot to mention the thousands of other students who protested safely and peacefully but he was one of the crowd that decided to vandalise property and get us on the news portrayed as a group of angry violent idiots.
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
kettle'd or not....

The guy threw a fairly heavy metal object from a roof into a crowd. Ok it hit no one, no one was injured, his conscience is clear, but that still doesn't make it ok. You could say that being in higher education in the UK, the guy should of had a bit more common sense and a bit more of a grown up approach to the whole thing and be intelligent enough to realise throwing something like that off a roof into a crowd below is bloody stupid. For me I dont think theres any real excuse for doing that and the courts have gone and made an example off him.

However, I do agree the 32 months imprisonment is too much. Yobbo's get much less for the same kind of shit, but thats what happens when someone decides to make an example of you, you get over the odds treatment so that people take note. Expulsion from College? I agree with that... heck at any other school/college/uni you would be chucked out too. I've known people chucked out for a lot less than this.

I genuinely think humans are not bad, I believe entirely that he had no intention of going out that day to purposefully injur or kill someone.... I mean who does? theres thankfully very few people in the world who get up, think "im gonna do some one in big time" and then go actually do it. But you know, when you get in a crowd and are lost in the moment, we act like pack animals and do dumb shit like this. Its still not an excuse though, if people have any brains they'd realise what theyre doing is dumb and stop. For the most part the student protesters were very peaceful and respectful, doing protests the proper way. Its just the few dumbasses like this guy, the guy swinging from the war memorial and the likely 'non-university' rabble who just went down for a pint and a fight that soured it.

I agree that the police dont help in these situations, but I mean come on, this is the civil service bred under labour what did you expect? a well thought out plan? hahahahaha as I've said before theres nothing 'civil' nor 'servant' about the civil service.
 
Last edited:

Heathrow

Yes, as in the airport.
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
6,391
Location
London, UK
Car(s)
1995 BMW 325i SE
* snip * other good points

I hold no sympathy for someone who ruined the cause of the protest, the news forgot to mention the thousands of other students who protested safely and peacefully but he was one of the crowd that decided to vandalise property and get us on the news portrayed as a group of angry violent idiots.
Ah, good point. The majority of the protesters were not rioting or breaking the law.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,021
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
If you're looking for justification behind what happened from me, you won't find it and you won't get the meaning of my posts. What angers me, if it's not already apparent from my initial post, is the length and type of sentence given and the scapegoat having been made. We can argue semantics about what could have happened all we like, as did the courts, but unlike the courts we can't arbitrarily put people in jail for what may have happened and didn't. Some will, and have, said that his sentence is fine. Others want it higher still and some even facepalm because of it not being higher (but I count that as mere internet hate of which there is a great deal already). Whereas I facepalm because of it being too harsh.

I have said time and time again in my previous posts that I agree that he should be sentenced but not to near the degree that he has. But it's okay, after all, just a few hours ago I was reading that you can deal high purity cocaine and only get 36 months imprisonment. And that was for one person of an 11 member gang, 9 others have been sentenced with varying lengths of a 3 month suspended sentence through to 26 months (or 2 years 2 months) with the 11th member to be sentenced next month. Puts things into perspective doesn't it?

That's the whole point of this thread - throw an empty fire extinguisher with a chance (keyword) of injuring or even killing someone if the exact requirements are met, get 32 months imprisonment. Deal high purity cocaine and get similar or even less sentences! The sad thing is, is that the 200 or so police officers involved in taking down this drug gang spent so many man hours only to get such a result, in this respect, I sympathise with the police - and to reiterate again, not all police are thugs in uniform.

Also, it must be stated that the new Greater Manchester Police HQ is being built literally across the road from a HE-providing college campus. Whoever thought of that was either extremely smart in looking as to what the students are doing or extremely dumb in being in such close proximity...only time will tell.

Regards,

Yickle!
To use an example previously mentioned, if I shoot randomly into a crowd with a gun and manage not to hit anyone I should be allowed to suffer a far lesser punishment? He threw a fire extinguisher into a crowd from a hight that would have killed someone if it hit.
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Had he not admitted the lesser charge of violent disorder, he may well have found himself facing an attempted murder charge of a police officer. That could have been a much longer sentence.
He's also lucky he wasn't charged with "tampering with fire safety equipment" which is in fact a criminal offense!
 

klankymen

BLT Master
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
3,300
Location
M?nchen, K?nigreich Bayern
Car(s)
plastic Japanese iPod dock on wheels
In the US, at least, jails are facilities used to hold people for less than a year, aka for misdemeanors usually. Prison is where you go when convicted of a felony and your term is longer than a year.
Well, is one a worse place to be than the other? I'm just asking because it seems like you can get either jail or prison, depending on the judge's ruling. At least that's how I'm reading it from the linked site.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,038
Don't have the time to read this whole thread right now (I will later) but I glanced at the article in the OP. It reminded me of an incident at my school when during a riot someone threw a 4-gallon jug of water out of a window over a dozen stories high. Miraculously the jug didn't hit anyone but it did land right next to the chief of police. That 4-gallon jug would have killed him for sure had it landed on him. Needless to say they found out who did it and fucked them royally up the ass. A fire extinguisher, even an empty one, can do at least as much and probably more damage. I'd give that little prick 60 months easily.
 

SpitfireMK461

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
2,682
Location
Northern Virginia
Car(s)
2013 Mini Cooper S
Well, is one a worse place to be than the other? I'm just asking because it seems like you can get either jail or prison, depending on the judge's ruling. At least that's how I'm reading it from the linked site.
Well prison will hold anyone from people like Bernie Madoff to child rapists and serial killers. It all depends on what prison facility you get sent to. I imagine a crime like this would get you sent to a lesser prison, not a maximum security prison housing death row inmates.

Jail is probably a sucky place to be, but I imagine you aren't going to get shanked or raped.
 

YicklePigeon

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
67
Location
Lancashire, England
Car(s)
Bicycle
He isnt a scape goat, many other people who were there and damaged property(remember the police van) are getting charged too, you just dont hear about it because it is seen as old news now.
Plus, I dont understand what you mean by the bit in bold. Do you think all students go running around trying to hurt police officers or something? Will they try to vandalise the police station? I dont see how it is relevant in the slightest as students never had a problem with the police in the first place, it was the governments planned rise in tuition fees.
Back to the person who threw the extinguisher, he should be punished, he got exactly what he deserved in my opinion. You do not go down to London for a peaceful protest and end up breaking into millbank tower, going to the very top and throwing, not just dropping, throwing a fire extinguisher onto a large crowd down below. It doesnt matter that it didnt hit anyone because it is still the fact that he threw it, with or without the intent to injure someone. If it had hit someone on the head they could have severe head trauma or be dead.
I hold no sympathy for someone who ruined the cause of the protest, the news forgot to mention the thousands of other students who protested safely and peacefully but he was one of the crowd that decided to vandalise property and get us on the news portrayed as a group of angry violent idiots.
A few points:

1. The news didn't "forget" to mention the peaceful protests, I recall (although I don't have the link to hand right now) how a sit-in protest eventually caused the university it was in to ask the students to move to another room to protest or face being removed. Also, many students during the Millbank Tower protest and others that had been interviewed stated their disgust at how the protest turned to violence.

2. The paragraph you placed in bold - have you not considered that when there is another protest that involves the police taking violent action against student protesters at any place to come (look to the videos I provided of other protests as well as the various news stories), that when this new HQ is finally completed and functional that it won't be a target? Do you think that the police will be safe when its a conveniently placed target for next time they get out their batons and charge in on their horses into crowds of people? (deserving being jailed themselves for such actions)

3. Your final paragraph (I hold no sympathy... etc) reads as though you attribute everything to the "ruining" of the protest to one person? I suspect you meant "I have no sympathy for someone who HELPED to ruin a peaceful protest", so there's your chance to rethink that one.

I really do believe that you care about the situation as a whole, however, the problem is that whilst the Government are one enemy, its goons (the police) are another and if you had experienced what other protesters did (including innocent people who had nothing to do with the protest) then that'd be a different matter entirely. Again, I state not all police are thugs, but like with certain more militant students, it is always the minority that get the most spotlight.

If anything, the only reason why the Government (on all sides) was complaining about the violence was because they had lost any control that they had over the situation. When Cameron put forward that those who caused any violence would be "pursued to the fullest extent of the law" what he was really saying was "we will pursue those who are typically ordinary members of the public with no previous history and make examples of them because its easier to do that than catch all the murderers, rapists etc!".

In any event, just to state AGAIN for those who conveniently miss it, I have stated time and time again that the student deserved punishment, just that the punishment was far too severe. Especially given the real criminals and thugs who DID do harm and went out of their way to do such harm (of whom I also referenced).

And if you can't take it from me, take a look at otispunkmeyer's post, it would appear he gets the point.

Argatoga: using an allegory such as you are to try and justify your own viewpoint is pointless as:-

1. Guns != fire extinguishers. One is designed to injure, maim and kill - the other isn't. The example I gave (and the evolution suggested by Interceptor) as regards a driver of a car (or any vehicle) is acceptable as a car is designed to get a person(s) from A to B; not kill and therefore is fine as a point of comparison.

2. For your claim that the fire extinguisher "would have killed someone" from the height and manner in which it was thrown, you have an overactive imagination. The circumstances required are so specific that I can counter-argue that it could easily, again if the circumstances were right, hit someone in the leg, or scrape someones nose or bounce into someone's stomach upon collision with the ground. Sound ludicrous? That's because it is! As we are smack dab in "could haves, maybes, ifs and buts" territory. Congrats.

So until you can put in the effort that Ruthi and others have, you'll be ignored for the rest of this thread.

Regards,

Yickle.
 

MadCat360

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
7,569
Location
Mazda Raceway
Car(s)
*Carless* Waaahhh
To use an example previously mentioned, if I shoot randomly into a crowd with a gun and manage not to hit anyone I should be allowed to suffer a far lesser punishment? He threw a fire extinguisher into a crowd from a hight that would have killed someone if it hit.
Lesser punishment if no harm is done.

32 months is too long in my opinion. But he shouldn't get off free. When a sentence is determined the factors of the act do play a part. Who was he attacking? How much damage did he do? How many victims? etc. This stuff is outlined in sentencing guidelines.

For murder you could do anywhere from 120 to 260 months. For attempted murder it's more like 25-40 months (of course there's usually additional charges involved there, so could be more).

In the US, at least, jails are facilities used to hold people for less than a year, aka for misdemeanors usually. Prison is where you go when convicted of a felony and your term is longer than a year.
Any felon will go to prison. Doesn't have to be a year, even a couple months will land you in prison.

Well prison will hold anyone from people like Bernie Madoff to child rapists and serial killers. It all depends on what prison facility you get sent to. I imagine a crime like this would get you sent to a lesser prison, not a maximum security prison housing death row inmates.

Jail is probably a sucky place to be, but I imagine you aren't going to get shanked or raped.
There are many different types of prisons. There are maximum security prisons where your drug dealers, violent criminals, gang members, and guys like Madoff go. Then at the other end of the spectrum you have the ones that are much nicer, where "minor" felons tend to go - tax evasion, the "little Madoffs", that sort of thing. The latter is more like a big dorm with barbed wire. I've been to both those types (not as an inmate lol), I'd imagine there are facilities that run the gambit inbetween.

But it's no guarantee where you'll go. If you're convicted of a felony and you have like a year, you'll probably spend a month or two in the county jail. This serves a couple of purposes. It allows the government to get you in the system quickly and ready for transfer, and you get an opportunity to get your stuff in order in an easier manner since you stay local.

From there it just depends on what space is like. If the jail is filling up they'll just move you to the nearest prison. In most civic centers that's usually a high security place. But they will make an effort to get you to the appropriate facility, because they don't like wasting high-security space on nonviolent criminals.
 
Last edited:

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
A few points:

1. The news didn't "forget" to mention the peaceful protests, I recall (although I don't have the link to hand right now) how a sit-in protest eventually caused the university it was in to ask the students to move to another room to protest or face being removed. Also, many students during the Millbank Tower protest and others that had been interviewed stated their disgust at how the protest turned to violence.

2. The paragraph you placed in bold - have you not considered that when there is another protest that involves the police taking violent action against student protesters at any place to come (look to the videos I provided of other protests as well as the various news stories), that when this new HQ is finally completed and functional that it won't be a target? Do you think that the police will be safe when its a conveniently placed target for next time they get out their batons and charge in on their horses into crowds of people? (deserving being jailed themselves for such actions)

3. Your final paragraph (I hold no sympathy... etc) reads as though you attribute everything to the "ruining" of the protest to one person? I suspect you meant "I have no sympathy for someone who HELPED to ruin a peaceful protest", so there's your chance to rethink that one.

I really do believe that you care about the situation as a whole, however, the problem is that whilst the Government are one enemy, its goons (the police) are another and if you had experienced what other protesters did (including innocent people who had nothing to do with the protest) then that'd be a different matter entirely. Again, I state not all police are thugs, but like with certain more militant students, it is always the minority that get the most spotlight.

If anything, the only reason why the Government (on all sides) was complaining about the violence was because they had lost any control that they had over the situation. When Cameron put forward that those who caused any violence would be "pursued to the fullest extent of the law" what he was really saying was "we will pursue those who are typically ordinary members of the public with no previous history and make examples of them because its easier to do that than catch all the murderers, rapists etc!".

In any event, just to state AGAIN for those who conveniently miss it, I have stated time and time again that the student deserved punishment, just that the punishment was far too severe. Especially given the real criminals and thugs who DID do harm and went out of their way to do such harm (of whom I also referenced).

And if you can't take it from me, take a look at otispunkmeyer's post, it would appear he gets the point.

Argatoga: using an allegory such as you are to try and justify your own viewpoint is pointless as:-

1. Guns != fire extinguishers. One is designed to injure, maim and kill - the other isn't. The example I gave (and the evolution suggested by Interceptor) as regards a driver of a car (or any vehicle) is acceptable as a car is designed to get a person(s) from A to B; not kill and therefore is fine as a point of comparison.

2. For your claim that the fire extinguisher "would have killed someone" from the height and manner in which it was thrown, you have an overactive imagination. The circumstances required are so specific that I can counter-argue that it could easily, again if the circumstances were right, hit someone in the leg, or scrape someones nose or bounce into someone's stomach upon collision with the ground. Sound ludicrous? That's because it is! As we are smack dab in "could haves, maybes, ifs and buts" territory. Congrats.

So until you can put in the effort that Ruthi and others have, you'll be ignored for the rest of this thread.

Regards,

Yickle.
ummm you quoted Ruthi, tried to pick apart his/her post, then told them "until you can put the effort that Ruthi and others have, you'll be ignored for the rest of the thread"

So you just told someone they'll be ignored unless they do what they've been doing for the rest of the thread. Did you quote the wrong person ?
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,021
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Argatoga: using an allegory such as you are to try and justify your own viewpoint is pointless as:-

1. Guns != fire extinguishers. One is designed to injure, maim and kill - the other isn't. The example I gave (and the evolution suggested by Interceptor) as regards a driver of a car (or any vehicle) is acceptable as a car is designed to get a person(s) from A to B; not kill and therefore is fine as a point of comparison.
If I bludgeon someone to death with a rock it is a lesser crime than shooting them with a gun? I don't understand your logic. Throwing a heavy object from that height WILL kill someone it does not matter what it is. Stop using that straw man.

2. For your claim that the fire extinguisher "would have killed someone" from the height and manner in which it was thrown, you have an overactive imagination. The circumstances required are so specific that I can counter-argue that it could easily, again if the circumstances were right, hit someone in the leg, or scrape someones nose or bounce into someone's stomach upon collision with the ground. Sound ludicrous? That's because it is! As we are smack dab in "could haves, maybes, ifs and buts" territory. Congrats.
My example still stands. If I shot randomly into a crowd I might hit someone or I might not, I might maim someone in the leg, I might not.

So until you can put in the effort that Ruthi and others have, you'll be ignored for the rest of this thread.
Ha.
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
It might kill, depending on the height. I am, however, agreed on the rest.
 

captain_70s

Forum Addict
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
6,214
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Car(s)
'77 Triumph Dolomite 1300 + '83 Triumph Acclaim
To be honest the only reason anyone would argue his sentence should be shorter (or indeed care about it at all) is because they agree with the reason behind his actions.

I bet everyone would want him to have a longer sentence if he had pulled this sort of stunt at a protest again immigration rather than against student fees.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
18,021
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
For fun let me dissect the logic here.

Argatoga: using an allegory such as you are to try and justify your own viewpoint is pointless as:-

1. Guns != fire extinguishers. One is designed to injure, maim and kill - the other isn't. The example I gave (and the evolution suggested by Interceptor) as regards a driver of a car (or any vehicle) is acceptable as a car is designed to get a person(s) from A to B; not kill and therefore is fine as a point of comparison.
If object is not designed to kill, then using it to harm/kill is a lesser crime than using something designed to kill.

Thus

If he threw an empty artillery shell that was the same weight as the fire extinguisher then he should be punished more so than throwing a fire extinguisher as the shell was designed to kill.

If I deliberately hit someone with a car in order to maim/kill them then I should not be punished as badly as someone who throws an empty artillery shell off a building as a car was not designed to main/kill.

Counter my argument with a formula and an "if ... then ..." statement. If I am blatantly wrong it shouldn't be hard.
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
To be honest the only reason anyone would argue his sentence should be shorter (or indeed care about it at all) is because they agree with the reason behind his actions.

I bet everyone would want him to have a longer sentence if he had pulled this sort of stunt at a protest again immigration rather than against student fees.
I wouldn't. And if he threw them at a bunch of neo nazis, it wouldn't make me want him going free either.
 
Top