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

I have been trying to figure out if the object will cause fatal damage to someone. My findings are inconclusive.

The object will be traveling about 20.28 meters per second or about 45 miles per hour at the bottom of a 7 storey building.
(X=a*t^2) X is position find t(time) t=2.07 seconds
v=a*t (a=9.81 m/s^2)
v=20.28 m/s
So now the question is will a 2.26kg object injure or kill traveling at 45mph. I can't find an answer.

I only try to solve this because for some reason people think this makes a difference. My personal opinion is that in this case it does not. There is very clearly a law against this in US law, I am sure Britain has one as well. What he did was illegal and therefore punishable under the law.

My hand calcs pretty much agree with your numbers there, I used a higher starting point because the Millbank building has like a lower section before the tower and I assumed the floors dont start till after that bit. In the news reports they used 7th floor and not 7th story. So I've ended up using about 30m. So the numbers I have are higher, but they are higher by the same proportion.

I did my calcs using the biggest extinguisher you might normally find. 9 Liters. Which I guessed would be around 5kg empty as its full weight is 14.2kg. I also assumed the extinguisher wont land flat and will land on its rim. So calculated the area of a contact patch on that rim and used some guess work deceleration time to work out the force of the extinguisher if it stopped almost dead on impact and gave up most of the energy to a guys head, through that contact patch. Its a pretty big number pressure wise, of the order of MPa.
 
fatal or not, it would wreck your shit
 
After college I never get to do calculations anymore. Stupid computers. So I take opportunities like this to do some simple physics. I couldn't find numbers like Spectre produced so I didn't think an energy or force would be useful without a comparison. I didn't account for drag because I don't need to be exact, just an idea.
I am not sure how the college that this person was expelled from is run. But if it is anything like a business, this person would be expelled regardless. Who wants someone like this tarnishing their image. I really think the college part of this is a non issue. Think of it this way. I am the president of X college. A student of yours commits a felony. Do you keep him enrolled in your school?
He might be sentenced for 5 years but he wont be in jail for that long. This will follow him for the rest of his life, like Spectre said. So I don't see how a few months makes a difference either.
 
^ i dont think drag would have much of an effect from that height either, thinking about it. I imagine its not at its terminal velocity and I guess very few people do studies on the Cd of fire extinguishers, or study their progress through air, though it is a bluff object. Maybe ill do some CFD in my spare time and try find out haha, I bet theres some basic fluid dynamics data for a cylinder in one of my text books. That would be good enough. Anyway its besides the point. If it hits you on the bonce from that height your looking at the very least at a massive headache (you get fractured skull, internal bleeding on the brain, memory loss, concusion) and probably being out cold for a while.

And your right by bringing up image. Colleges and businesses alike use their image as a tool for advertisment/recruitment/to sell their warez/ reputation etc etc, they want to protect that image and reputation, easiest solution is to immediately distance yourself from the trouble makers and get rid of them.
 
Last edited:
Argatoga said:
I have responded to your car analogy, please read my updated thesis.

I did read this and poor Spectre concluded your interpretation to be my own analogy (based on his response, which if you hadn't misled him he wouldn't have done). Which it isn't. I never made any mention of driving under the influence because such a thing was not included nor implied in my car analogy, you added that detail.

Argatoga said:
Also please respond to my questions in my quoted post.

I already have throughout this thread, but to save you and anyone else searching this thread, I shall do so again.

Argatoga said:
You used the argument that the purpose of an item should have an effect on the punishment even if it is used as a weapon. When did you say this point was not valid? I am not able to find the post, would you link to it? Below is when you last used this argument, posted after I wrote my counter argument.

Two things, first thing is this quote of myself from the post that you linked:-

YicklePigeon said:
You say to me "stop clinging to that straw" but you're the one using an inappropriate example...still! It seems to me though, that all you can think about is the possibility "if it hit someone on the head they'd be dead!" and its this narrow-minded thinking that I have a problem with because there are far too many variables to consider and few of the outcumes involve death. At least Okaen went to the trouble of attempting to figure it out scientifically.

So, until you can see the fatal flaw in your gun example (as I have already pointed out in my previous post) and acknowledge it, we'll never be able to see eye-to-eye on this.

Okay, I'm reading my quote and I say nothing about whatever object that has been chosen being an influencing factor in punishment.

What it is about, was you using an item in your analogy - a gun (and also, as I recall, discharging it) - which its fundamental purpose is to injure/maim/kill as opposed to a fire extinguisher, which isn't. Nomix and Spectre have both argued about this in recent posts and, as Nomix states, you can't use a gun to slice a banana.

The second thing is that your counter argument, as it was then, is now irrelevant. I say that only because your argument has now changed to this:-

Argatoga said:
I have reconsidered my argument. There should be a regard to intention on the part of the perpetrator as well, as death by ignorance does not warrant the same (if any in some cases) punishment. One with intent to kill or maim is a danger to society and must be dealt with appropriately. Putting oneself in a state that has the possibility should be punished, but to a lesser degree if it does not have the purpose or guaranteed likelihood of causing death.

This has been my thinking since day one. Not near as makes no difference, the exact thinking. The only problem becomes when the case is compared to those who actually have caused physical harm, in fact, gone out of their way to do so and not just leave it at one thrown object (regardless of what that object might be) but to make a real mess of their victim. And then, as a result, get less of a sentence.

Two ways of looking at that, either the student should have gotten less or those who got a lot less for a lot worse should have gotten a lot more. Indeed only in one of the examples did one person get twice as much (but, if both the student and the teenage girl gang leader serve their full sentence, they'll both come out when they're 21) but everyone else gets either near as makes no difference or a lot less (right down to community service and suspended sentences). Whichever one you choose is up to you, just keep in mind that neither of us has to agree with one another on that but neither of us can assert their own choice is right and the other's choice isn't.

You also say that incarceration is just for the punishment of the perpetrator and/or protection to the public from the perpetrator. You forget that incarceration can also be employed to give an example to the rest.

But before I go further, again I state that you should read my analogy. Originally it was:-

Someone driving a car from A to B could potentially[/b] injure/maim/kill someone but they get to point B without having done so. Should we put them in jail anyway for that possibility?


The reason, in my mind, that the student was put in jail really wasn't for the possibility of any dire eventuality happening but to make an example so that the Police, justice system and the Government are saying "if you ever so much as pick up throw a piece of paper in anger towards a crowd during a protest, we'll put you in jail!". An exaggeration perhaps, but only to illustrate the point I've made.

However, Interceptor introduced the concept of that hypothetical driver going from A-B honking the horn to get everyone out of their way - I agreed to that as it made the analogy far more comparable than it was previously. It was the flagrant disregard aspect that was (and still is) important, and that the result was the same in that nobody was so much as scratched let alone anything else as a result.

Thing is then is that Mr Policeman comes along and, assuming like the student the driver had no previous, would charge that driver for reckles driving and eventually that driver would go up against a magistrate. That driver, being guilty in this example as the student is, would get a few points on his licence, a fine and maybe community service.

Only if it was a repeated offence, like you recognise as well Arga, would the driver would possibly face jail sentence. The student, however, got jail immediately and for a timeframe that was a lot more than what others were getting for actually causing bodily harm (including brain damage!) which is why I found it so unpalatable. I forget now which other user it was, but the suggestion was a year imprisonment and a fine which is more in keeping with what actually happened rather than what might have happened.

Spectre doesn't understand why the permanent expulsion is important or should be considered - it's quite simply really. The jail sentence, everyone agrees, has a very high likelihood of not being served in full - the permanent expulsion...well...the clue is in the name. And likely it will be that other colleges will be very reticent or even completely reject the guy when he comes out - surely doing his time is enough of a punishment? Surely once he's done his time, and its not as if he went out that day to kill someone, that's it. It's done. Obviously, in the real world there is always a stigma and I have come across ex-offenders trying to get back on their feet and have listened to their problems (and I've had stigma attached as well for other reasons, not criminal, but I understand the gravity of the situation), that being said, there's every reason to believe he may be able to get some form of continuing education in the youth offenders institution and eventually Her Majesty's Hotel.

As Nomix said, its all about image and I'd much rather the college have said "we're excluding you until you are either acquitted or, if imprisoned, completed the sentence given and then we will consider (based on your behaviour while incarcerated) your continuing education if required". But no, they'd rather completely disavow any knowledge of him and his actions. Doesn't make me think highly of them to be honest.

And before this post gets to such a length that it breaks the forum entirely, I best get to the final point that I wish to address:-

Argatoga said:
You accused me of posting only to increase my post count then called me close minded. Either prove these or apologize.

As to the first part, about increasing your post count I said the following:-

YicklePigeon said:
you've finally cut it with the single sentence posts in order to boost your post count - well done!

This is because in this thread, the following posts (one was edited many hours afterwards I note, I disapprove of this only because if you're going to edit your post, edit it within a few minutes of the actual posting, not hours afterwards because I didn't even see it's newly edited form until I was checking the thread just now - next time just make a new post!):-

#10 - just quoting someone else and not even so much as a "5char" let alone a sentence of your own.

#17- a single sentence.

#30 - another single sentence.

#36 - quoting one of my posts in full and just a blanket covering single sentence, no analysis just a single sentence.

#47 - just about two sentences here, of note is the gun analogy coming into play, from someone else? I could have sworn you come up with it yourself.

And then you put effort into your posts (although I only see #64 as a culprit, any others - after I stated what I did - have full paragraphs and at that point I no longer considered you a grunter) and therefore my statement was no longer relevant.

And on the second part, about closed-mindedness, you rejected the content in my posts time and time again making me have to repeat myself. If I'm going to repeat myself, please let it just be on February 2nd thanks!

And on that bombshell, I trust that resolves everything. And tough if it doesn't because I'm sure as hell not typing something of this magnitude again...well not for a little while anyway... ;)

Regards,

Yickle!

P.S. If any of you have managed to get this far and read this post of mine in its entirety, you deserve this:-



The text reads (as its a tad difficult to see) said:
For those with nothing better to do (such as being in the NSFW forum) that are vastly interested in every word that YicklePigeon had to say in this post.

Now go out and make some friends eh? ;)
 
Last edited:
Reckless driving can be a jail offense, not just ticketable/points on license/fine.

Also, still waiting for you to explain how "getting kicked out of school" is worse than "becoming a convicted felon and going to jail."
 
His argument is that it is permanent. And jail time isn't. As I read it.

I have already given my opinion on this matter.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, no, a felony record stays with you for life (except under some rather unlikely circumstances). It is more likely that he will be able to get into another school after 7 years than be able to expunge his record.
 
Just a quick bit of info: after so many years (I do believe 5) it is automatically wiped clean from his criminal record (although the term "felony" doesn't really apply here in the UK). But as regards his education, colleges can still accept him and he may choose to go through the ex-offender learning courses offered by many colleges.

Regards,

Yickle
 
I did read this and poor Spectre concluded your interpretation to be my own analogy (based on his response, which if you hadn't misled him he wouldn't have done).

Citation needed.

Here is the last time you stated your argument:

My argument, to summarise, is this:-

Given that he has no previous, exceptional circumstances, actually had a cause (whether anyone agrees with it or not is irrelevant, the fact is he had one), permanently excluded from his chosen college (surely being in jail is enough) and then gets 32 months for not hitting anyone when, as I have provided for everyone at the very beginning and at least one more during the course of this thread, you can do a lot worse here and get a lot less.

I have never said that he, himself, shouldn't be sentenced, but I can't deny I'm disgusted with the sentence he did receive for not hitting anyone. I forget atm who inferred the following, but a year and a fine on top of that, I could have accepted. And this thread? It wouldn't be in existence.

It is not the same as mine. I stated the kid needs to be punished as an attempted murder because of his intent. You have stated in the above that he should get less than exclusion from his college and 32 months in jail.

Which it isn't. I never made any mention of driving under the influence because such a thing was not included nor implied in my car analogy, you added that detail.

I added drinking under the influence as an EXAMPLE of dangerous driving and how it shouldn?t be punished to the same degree as intent to kill. I used an extreme example to make the point as lesser reckless driving would also fall under this.

I already have throughout this thread, but to save you and anyone else searching this thread, I shall do so again.



Two things, first thing is this quote of myself from the post that you linked:-



Okay, I'm reading my quote and I say nothing about whatever object that has been chosen being an influencing factor in punishment.

What it is about, was you using an item in your analogy - a gun (and also, as I recall, discharging it) - which its fundamental purpose is to injure/maim/kill as opposed to a fire extinguisher, which isn't. Nomix and Spectre have both argued about this in recent posts and, as Nomix states, you can't use a gun to slice a banana.

I quoted the wrong post last night. Here is the one I meant.

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.

If I crammed a banana down someone's throat causing them to chock to death it would be no different than shooting them with a gun. Same end result. The intent of the weapon doesn't change the end result and thus should not be counted in a discussion of his punishment.

The second thing is that your counter argument, as it was then, is now irrelevant. I say that only because your argument has now changed to this:-



This has been my thinking since day one. Not near as makes no difference, the exact thinking. The only problem becomes when the case is compared to those who actually have caused physical harm, in fact, gone out of their way to do so and not just leave it at one thrown object (regardless of what that object might be) but to make a real mess of their victim. And then, as a result, get less of a sentence.

Two ways of looking at that, either the student should have gotten less or those who got a lot less for a lot worse should have gotten a lot more. Indeed only in one of the examples did one person get twice as much (but, if both the student and the teenage girl gang leader serve their full sentence, they'll both come out when they're 21) but everyone else gets either near as makes no difference or a lot less (right down to community service and suspended sentences). Whichever one you choose is up to you, just keep in mind that neither of us has to agree with one another on that but neither of us can assert their own choice is right and the other's choice isn't.

My argument is that he should be punished as an attempted murderer regardless of what the intent of the object he used to kill was.

You also say that incarceration is just for the punishment of the perpetrator and/or protection to the public from the perpetrator. You forget that incarceration can also be employed to give an example to the rest.

I have no issue with your point as quoted above.

But before I go further, again I state that you should read my analogy. Originally it was:-



The reason, in my mind, that the student was put in jail really wasn't for the possibility of any dire eventuality happening but to make an example so that the Police, justice system and the Government are saying "if you ever so much as pick up throw a piece of paper in anger towards a crowd during a protest, we'll put you in jail!". An exaggeration perhaps, but only to illustrate the point I've made.

However, Interceptor introduced the concept of that hypothetical driver going from A-B honking the horn to get everyone out of their way - I agreed to that as it made the analogy far more comparable than it was previously. It was the flagrant disregard aspect that was (and still is) important, and that the result was the same in that nobody was so much as scratched let alone anything else as a result.

Thing is then is that Mr Policeman comes along and, assuming like the student the driver had no previous, would charge that driver for reckles driving and eventually that driver would go up against a magistrate. That driver, being guilty in this example as the student is, would get a few points on his licence, a fine and maybe community service.

Only if it was a repeated offence, like you recognise as well Arga, would the driver would possibly face jail sentence. The student, however, got jail immediately and for a timeframe that was a lot more than what others were getting for actually causing bodily harm (including brain damage!) which is why I found it so unpalatable. I forget now which other user it was, but the suggestion was a year imprisonment and a fine which is more in keeping with what actually happened rather than what might have happened.

You missed my point. The student intended to kill, my hypothetic driver did not. Here is my thesis again.

I have reconsidered my argument. There should be a regard to intention on the part of the perpetrator as well, as death by ignorance does not warrant the same (if any in some cases) punishment. One with intent to kill or maim is a danger to society and must be dealt with appropriately. Putting oneself in a state that has the possibility should be punished, but to a lesser degree if it does not have the purpose or guaranteed likelihood of causing death.

The student intended to kill, so he is a danger to society and should be removed from it until he is consider no longer to be a danger.

And before this post gets to such a length that it breaks the forum entirely, I best get to the final point that I wish to address:-



As to the first part, about increasing your post count I said the following:-



This is because in this thread, the following posts (one was edited many hours afterwards I note, I disapprove of this only because if you're going to edit your post, edit it within a few minutes of the actual posting, not hours afterwards because I didn't even see it's newly edited form until I was checking the thread just now - next time just make a new post!):-

I edit posts hours after I post them there to fix spelling errors. Ask the mods for my update history if you are not convinced of this.

#10 - just quoting someone else and not even so much as a "5char" let alone a sentence of your own.

#17- a single sentence.

#30 - another single sentence.

#36 - quoting one of my posts in full and just a blanket covering single sentence, no analysis just a single sentence.

#47 - just about two sentences here, of note is the gun analogy coming into play, from someone else? I could have sworn you come up with it yourself.

And then you put effort into your posts (although I only see #64 as a culprit, any others - after I stated what I did - have full paragraphs and at that point I no longer considered you a grunter) and therefore my statement was no longer relevant.

You are still assuming my intent. Length of an argument does not make it a better one. If one sentence will do so be it. More words can easily translate to confusion and fluff. I posted one lines as I saw no need to write more. I just quoted someone as an affirmative that I thought the same.

Now prove my intent to only increase my post count or apologize.

And on the second part, about closed-mindedness, you rejected the content in my posts time and time again making me have to repeat myself. If I'm going to repeat myself, please let it just be on February 2nd thanks!

I have not rejected your arguments I have provided counter examples and logic. I fully expect you too to provide rebuttals, this is how an argument is suppose to be conducted.

But you tried to change my thinking by employing "you're wrong and I'm right" tactics. If you'd have just said "this is my thinking on the subject, its different to yours yes, doesn't make your any less valid than my own though" or something to that effect we'd be fine. But you didn't.

I have asked this before, please provide quotes and links when making these assertions.
 
Last edited:
Spectre said:
Yickle, in Texas, intoxication assault (which is hitting someone with your car whilst drunk) will get you a $10,000 fine and 2-10 YEARS in the state penitentiary as it is a third degree felony.

(Btw Spectre, this isn't towards you, I'm just pointing out that you posted this immediately after Arga had repeated his "drunk driver" element that you addressed to me, which either a) means you've been misled by Arga and/or b) just a genuine mistake on your part, and I'm leaning towards option a in that)

So Arga, there's your proof, straight after you repeated your drunk driver element which was entirely unnecessary.

For the rest, you'll find that typing one sentence after quoting someone's full post is just grunting out an answer. You've been shown the problem posts, and yet again you've dodged and still "want an apology".

As it stands, you've been explained to, you've been dealt with as fairly as possible (I've never made a post chock full of profantity as an example), changed your argument (not necessarily a bad thing) at least once (possibly twice) and introduced elements that simply weren't there. And okay, quoting the wrong post is one thing but my post that you now quote stands as again you misread my post - which now I'm beginning to believe is on purpose.

But nothing is getting through to you because of, I suspect, your very own nature. And at the end of the day, I don't put effort into my posts to make my thinking as clear as possible just for you to repeatedly ask for the same questions/points etc to "be proven" as this says to me the answers I gave were either not good enough for you or you simply put anything that didn't fit your reality into your blindspot. I can't prove either of those last two possibilities conclusively however, as that would be in the realm of trying to prove whether or not a man on a cloud created everything we know and cherish.

Regards,

Yickle.
 
However, Interceptor introduced the concept of that hypothetical driver going from A-B honking the horn to get everyone out of their way - I agreed to that as it made the analogy far more comparable than it was previously. It was the flagrant disregard aspect that was (and still is) important, and that the result was the same in that nobody was so much as scratched let alone anything else as a result.


Interceptor might correct me on this but he wasn't talking about someone honking on his daily commute but, being the proper analogy, about someone intentionally doing this kind of stuff:


Edit: Also, by german law in the stated case the car would be considered a weapon. Same goes for a boot used so kick someone into hospital. Same goes for a fire extinguisher.
 
Last edited:
(Btw Spectre, this isn't towards you, I'm just pointing out that you posted this immediately after Arga had repeated his "drunk driver" element that you addressed to me, which either a) means you've been misled by Arga and/or b) just a genuine mistake on your part, and I'm leaning towards option a in that)

So Arga, there's your proof, straight after you repeated your drunk driver element which was entirely unnecessary.

For the rest, you'll find that typing one sentence after quoting someone's full post is just grunting out an answer. You've been shown the problem posts, and yet again you've dodged and still "want an apology".

As it stands, you've been explained to, you've been dealt with as fairly as possible (I've never made a post chock full of profantity as an example), changed your argument (not necessarily a bad thing) at least once (possibly twice) and introduced elements that simply weren't there. And okay, quoting the wrong post is one thing but my post that you now quote stands as again you misread my post - which now I'm beginning to believe is on purpose.

But nothing is getting through to you because of, I suspect, your very own nature. And at the end of the day, I don't put effort into my posts to make my thinking as clear as possible just for you to repeatedly ask for the same questions/points etc to "be proven" as this says to me the answers I gave were either not good enough for you or you simply put anything that didn't fit your reality into your blindspot. I can't prove either of those last two possibilities conclusively however, as that would be in the realm of trying to prove whether or not a man on a cloud created everything we know and cherish.

Regards,

Yickle.

I directly answered your post skipping over Spectre's, I did not change my argument. Again I make spelling errors and then correct them much latter. In fact Spectre has on numerous occasions during this thread pointed out my spelling errors via IM. He will vouch for this.

I have already said that I only post what I felt was needed, if I feel I only need one line or a quote to make or show my agreement with a point I do so. If I was a post whore as you have implied I doubt my reputation here would be as it is. Please reread my post above as you seem to have missed what I wrote. I still want an apology.

Insults include much more than profanity.

You have coped out of the meat of the post where I provided a counter argument to your's concerning intent and punishment.

Quote the passages I wrote then provide a counter examples.
 
Last edited:
I for one am not a man of many words. If something can be said in one sentence it doesn't need to be made into a paragraph. I dislike the link between word count and effort.
 
I for one am not a man of many words. If something can be said in one sentence it doesn't need to be made into a paragraph. I dislike the link between word count and effort.

http://img267.imageshack.**/img267/248/walloftextrunaway138371.jpg
 
Top