Fire Extinguisher thrower Jailed

[blaaah]

The 18 year old student who was at the top of the building at Millbank, the Conservative party headquarters in London, threw a 6kg Extinguisher in the direction of the crowd below. Edward Woollard was sentenced for 2 years and 8 months after pleading guilty.
Personally I think the sentence should be considerably longer with this being in my view attempted murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk

 

[Dotini]

The 18 year old student who was at the top of the building at Millbank, the Conservative party headquarters in London, threw a 6kg Extinguisher in the direction of the crowd below. Edward Woollard was sentenced for 2 years and 8 months after pleading guilty.
Personally I think the sentence should be considerably longer with this being in my view attempted murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk

My neighbor and fellow Boeing employee was killed one morning not too long ago by youths throwing large rocks off an overpass into the windshields of cars passing underneath. They were apprehended, but due to their age (16), never really punished. A large family I know lost their loving father for nothing more than the amusement of children. True story.

 

[blaaah]

Were they privately prosecuted? Legal age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old in the UK, maybe America is different. So anyone over 10 can be locked up for crimes.

 

[Dotini]

Were they privately prosecuted? Legal age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old in the UK, maybe America is different. So anyone over 10 can be locked up for crimes.

I recall they were remanded to juvenile detention for a period of a few months, and released. I'm not aware of any civil proceedings for damages. I could ask one of the survivors who is a friend of mine, but I hesitate to disturb his present tranquility with such a question.

 

[lbsf1]

The 18 year old student who was at the top of the building at Millbank, the Conservative party headquarters in London, threw a 6kg Extinguisher in the direction of the crowd below. Edward Woollard was sentenced for 2 years and 8 months after pleading guilty.
Personally I think the sentence should be considerably longer with this being in my view attempted murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk

For people not aware of why the riot happened, before the election the liberal democrat party got all of their top mp's to sign a pledge not to raise uni fee's and to do anything to stop them being raised, however then they got in power in a coalition with the conservatives, the conservatives then proposed a raise in uni fee's and the lib dems showed no sign of resistance to this raise. Students then rioted up and down the country.

The important thing in my mind was that he didn't intend to kill a certain person, (it wasn't a failed murder attempt on someone) if you get what I mean, no one was actually injured so it is hard to give a large sentence because no one was injured or anything.

I was angry about this rise as its going to hit me hard as I'm not is bracket that could gain help from the government to get into uni however we don't have enough money just spend this amount without worrying. Now you don't have to pay back a student loan untill you earn 21,000 a year however people are going to leave uni with a a loan 3 times that of before.

Bearing this in mind the new goverment have also taken away child benifits which everyone used to get, (in our case of me and my brother about 1,800 a year). And have cut lots of other public service's however still spend lots on international aid, (about 1/3 of the education budget.)

 

[Dotini]

I was angry about this rise as its going to hit me hard as I'm not is bracket that could gain help from the government to get into uni however we don't have enough money just spend this amount without worrying. Now you don't have to pay back a student loan untill you earn 21,000 a year however people are going to leave uni with a a loan 3 times that of before.

Bearing this in mind the new goverment have also taken away child benifits which everyone used to get, (in our case of me and my brother about 1,800 a year). And have cut lots of other public service's however still spend lots on international aid, (about 1/3 of the education budget.)

I can well understand the anger provoked by the betrayal of citizens by government. We see that currently manifested by the Tea Party in the US.

At a personal level, my nephew graduated as a Juris Doctor from a semi prestigious University in 2010, and was luckily one of only 20% of the graduating class who found jobs in the field of law.

How angry and disappointed must a person feel who has attended first rate schools and universities for 19 years, receive a doctorate, only to learn that he is unemployable (for the nonce), and anyway owes $80,000?

The government of the UK and well as the US has run up a debt which it is unable to pay. On top of the similar debts of the public, the corporations, the states and municipalities, the crushing interest owed on the debt in a time of declining revenues make continued normal government operations untenable. Too much austerity and the economy collapses in a heap of cards. Too much continued spending and borrowing and the economy collapses in a heap of cards. This is called being "impaled on the horns of a dilemma". Others might more simply say, "we're screwed!" It's no wonder both our governments are reacting spastically, without coherent effect. Citizens naturally react in helpless rage and fury.

Respectfully submitted, open to correction,
Dotini

 

[Stevisiov]

For people not aware of why the riot happened, before the election the liberal democrat party got all of their top mp's to sign a pledge not to raise uni fee's and to do anything to stop them being raised, however then they got in power in a coalition with the conservatives, the conservatives then proposed a raise in uni fee's and the lib dems showed no sign of resistance to this raise. Students then rioted up and down the country.

Whether it was a justified riot or not, it's of irrelevance to this topic.

The important thing in my mind was that he didn't intend to kill a certain person, (it wasn't a failed murder attempt on someone) if you get what I mean, no one was actually injured so it is hard to give a large sentence because no one was injured or anything.

He threw a very hard and heavy object down into a street of protesters and police, metres away from a policeman.



and from another angle


Watching that, it's hard to believe there was no intent there. You don't throw a fire extinguisher off a building into a square full of people, hoping that it will miss everyone.

The fact that he threw a lethal object off a building at a group of people, tells me a lot about the intent, you aren't going to try and tell me that he was throwing it as close to the police as possible without hitting them, in order to scare them a little are you?

I'm surprised he didn't get more time for that, he certainly deserves it in my opinion.

I was angry about this rise as its going to hit me hard as I'm not is bracket that could gain help from the government to get into uni however we don't have enough money just spend this amount without worrying. Now you don't have to pay back a student loan untill you earn 21,000 a year however people are going to leave uni with a a loan 3 times that of before.

Bearing this in mind the new goverment have also taken away child benifits which everyone used to get, (in our case of me and my brother about 1,800 a year). And have cut lots of other public service's however still spend lots on international aid, (about 1/3 of the education budget.)

Again, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. The protest may be justifiable, trying to protest by killing police isn't. It's attempted murder in my eyes, and whatever the protest was about doesn't change that on bit.

[edit]Oh and I apologies for linking to 'The Sun'.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Yep, I'd have called it attempted murder before seeing those videos, after, it's a no-brainer.

If you pull out a gun, and do a drive-by, but miss everyone... is that not attempted murder?

 

[lbsf1]

I was posting the part about the backround to the riots so americans who visited this thread would know what these riots were about.

The guy obviously wasn't right to do what he did hence the 2.66year sentence, please note that he didn't actually murder someone so therefore it is completely different to murder atself, it also wasn't a planned murder attempt so it is different to most murders you here on the news. I think the sentence he was given is fair because no one is hurt and there isn't families of dead ones campaigning for harsher sentenced like there is in murder cases.

Thats my view anyway.
Luke

 

[Dotini]

In my State of Washington, reckless endangerment is punishable by up to a year in jail.

RCW 9A.36.050
Reckless endangerment.


(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

A drive-by shooting, being a felony, is punishable by one or more years in prison.

(1) A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.

(2) A person who unlawfully discharges a firearm from a moving motor vehicle may be inferred to have engaged in reckless conduct, unless the discharge is shown by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such recklessness.

(3) Drive-by shooting is a class B felony.

 

[lbsf1]

A drive-by shooting, being a felony, is punishable by one or more years in prison.

I would out that in the same catagory as what happened with the fire extinquisher, it is most likely be an attempt to murder however if it directed at someone in particular rather than just at a group of people then I see it is slightly different.

 

[Omnis]

What a chav.

 

[Dotini]

What a chav.

A chav (pronounced /ˈtʃæv/ (CHAV)) is a stereotype of certain young people in the United Kingdom. Also known as a charver in Yorkshire and North East England[1] "chavs" are said to be aggressive teenagers, of white working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

 

[lbsf1]

What a chav.

Agreed, these protests haven't helped with the view of the average teenager.

 

[Stevisiov]

In my State of Washington, reckless endangerment is punishable by up to a year in jail.

RCW 9A.36.050
Reckless endangerment.


(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

A drive-by shooting, being a felony, is punishable by one or more years in prison.

(1) A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.

(2) A person who unlawfully discharges a firearm from a moving motor vehicle may be inferred to have engaged in reckless conduct, unless the discharge is shown by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such recklessness.

(3) Drive-by shooting is a class B felony.

I get your point. You could call this reckless endangerment, I also think you could call this attempted murder.

Assuming in this bizarre scenario that a drive by shooting that killed no one, could be classified just two things; attempted murder or reckless endangerment. It's much harder to designate a drive-by shooting as reckless endangerment, unless you could categorically prove that the shots were specifically aimed away from the target. Without such evidence, its fair to assume attempted murder.

Now, in the case of throwing a lethal object off a high building in a public area, I personally would consider it reckless endangerment, even if no one was visibly in the vicinity. Throwing it directly into a crowd of people, I would be more inclined to designate that as an attempted murder.

Of course, we can always interpret the situation differently, but I am sure, we can all agree, that it was reckless endangerment at the very minimum. I would go as far as to suggest attempted murder, but of course, It may be a case of agreeing to disagree at this point.

I would out that in the same catagory as what happened with the fire extinquisher, it is most likely be an attempt to murder however if it directed at someone in particular rather than just at a group of people then I see it is slightly different.

Are you suggesting that, if you target a group to kill an anonymous person within that group, its not as bad as specifically targeting a member of that group to kill?

If you throw a lethal object at a group, it's an attempted murder.

If you throw a lethal object at a person, it's attempted murder.

How is one any less serious than another?

 

[Famine]

A chav (pronounced /ˈtʃæv/ (CHAV)) is a stereotype of certain young people in the United Kingdom. Also known as a charver in Yorkshire and North East England[1] "chavs" are said to be aggressive teenagers, of white working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav

Wikipedia (pronounced /ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdi.ə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-&#601 is a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project which should not necessarily be taken as a beacon of all truth, particularly in matters of cross-oceanic slang interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia

 

[lbsf1]

I get your point. You could call this reckless endangerment, I also think you could call this attempted murder.

Assuming in this bizarre scenario that a drive by shooting that killed no one, could be classified just two things; attempted murder or reckless endangerment. It's much harder to designate a drive-by shooting as reckless endangerment, unless you could categorically prove that the shots were specifically aimed away from the target. Without such evidence, its fair to assume attempted murder.

Now, in the case of throwing a lethal object off a high building in a public area, I personally would consider it reckless endangerment, even if no one was visibly in the vicinity. Throwing it directly into a crowd of people, I would be more inclined to designate that as an attempted murder.

Of course, we can always interpret the situation differently, but I am sure, we can all agree, that it was reckless endangerment at the very minimum. I would go as far as to suggest attempted murder, but of course, It may be a case of agreeing to disagree at this point.




Are you suggesting that, if you target a group to kill an anonymous person within that group, its not as bad as specifically targeting a member of that group to kill?

If you throw a lethal object at a group, it's an attempted murder.

If you throw a lethal object at a person, it's attempted murder.

How is one any less serious than another?

The difference to me is whether you have targeted a specific person with planning to kill THAT person rather then just doing something that could have killed someone.

 

[Stevisiov]

The difference to me is whether you have targeted a specific person with planning to kill THAT person rather then just doing something that could have killed someone.

It's not really a case of 'could have killed someone', that is a misleading way to describe it. It's a case of 'intending to kill someone', the fact that they don't care which policeman in particular they killed is largely irrelevant in my eyes.

In my eyes, throwing a lethal object in attempt to kill someone in a member of a group, is the same as throwing a lethal object in an attempt to kill a specific person in a group.

In both scenario's they tried to kill someone, except in the latter case, it appears they didn't care who, so long as that person was a policeman.

Attempted murder.

If I shoot one bullet at a crowd of people with no particular discrimination as to who that person is, it's attempted murder, I don't have to choose a specific target to make it so.

 

[Alex p.]

My neighbor and fellow Boeing employee was killed one morning not too long ago by youths throwing large rocks off an overpass into the windshields of cars passing underneath. They were apprehended, but due to their age (16), never really punished. A large family I know lost their loving father for nothing more than the amusement of children. True story.

It's always the good, who have to die...

 

[McLaren]

In America, he would have been sentenced to life in prison without parole while the man who just killed 3 people got 3 years in jail.

 

[FishforRent]

In America, he would have been sentenced to life in prison without parole while the man who just killed 3 people got 3 years in jail.

And get out in 18 months...

 

[Jawsers]

And get out in 18 months...

Actually that is more likely to occur in Canada.