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.