Yobs with laser pen walk free

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-walk-free-court.html

How did these two idiots escape a custodial sentence?

But perhaps it is not surprising when the silly magistrate came up with the following analogy.

/// 'You are very lucky it wasn’t very serious. One of you plays rugby - imagine if you were lying on the field with a broken leg waiting for the air ambulance and someone did the same
thing.' ///

Broken leg?????????

These imbeciles prevented an air ambulance from taking a dying man to hospital.

[chaptazbru]

OMG, whatever next !!!! Bloody stupid Judge .....

[penelope2]

There were three imbeciles involved here, the third being the magistrate.

[sandyRoe]

A sentence like that sends out the wrong signal.

[Old_Geezer]

£556 for the pensioner's life ? Seems the judge didn't think he was worth much then. One can maybe hope the ambulance service's claim that the incident made little difference to the pensioner's outcome, is correct.

I think the problem here is that a judgement seems to be based on the outcome rather than the act. So if you are lucky the outcome isn't serious and you get a slap on the wrist, but if you are unlucky the same act has serious consequences and you are treated more severely. Doesn't seem right somehow.

No accounting to the actions of some folk, or the judgements of some trials for that matter.

[mrchirpy]

This is Britain. It's the way we do things.

[d9f1c7]

So causing death by your actions is not murder or even manslaughter then?

[ChuckFickens]

I agree, it's a stupid sentence, I'll also agree with AOGs wording of "imbeciles" and "idiots"

I can't quite figure out what they done that was "savage" though?

[sandyRoe]

Someone could be convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. They were responsible for killing someone but it's not considered manslaughter.
Nobody is saying that the action of these two yobs caused the critically ill patient to die.

[Seadragon]

'It was unlikely the helicopter would have saved the man who had suffered a cardiac arrest, the ambulance service said.'

Hence why not custodial...in my opinion.

[d9f1c7]

irrelevant, so we are going to wait until they directly cause death to get these savages out of circulation are we?

[sandyRoe]

I'm sure these two have learned their lesson. They'll hardly be likely to trouble the courts again.

[bazwillrun]

what are you like with lottery numbers ?!

I'd like to see the outcome for a lot of other criminals who you are pretty sure wont trouble the courts again.

how have you arrived at this amazing view into the future ?

[Zeuhl]

Perhaps this was a factor:

<<It was unlikely the helicopter would have saved the man who had suffered a cardiac arrest, the ambulance service said>>

[Zeuhl]

^^

ie he would have died anyway

[bazwillrun]

they dont know for sure he would have, they just said unlikely, I'm sure they ve been wrong on lots of occasions .

people like yourself are always asking for proof of everything, obviously here youre not intersted in proof just heresay.

yet again we find the same old handwringers doing their best to help the guilty out, either a technicality or some sort of pedantry or semantics.

its very simple, by the action of lasering the medics he prevented care from being administered as soon as it could, the patient wasnt yet dead, so its ludicrous to say well he would have died anyway, nobody knows .

But as usual people like you always want to give the benefit of the doubt to the proven wrongdoer

[FredPuli43]

That the death of the patient was too remote from the action is immaterial. The gravamen of the offence is shining a laser in the eyes of someone flying a helicopter. That means custody, even for a young man who plays rugby (a circumstantial fact which this lay magistrate noticed, and which may give a clue to her sentencing practice).

[sandyRoe]

Indeed. With rugby players it's only youthful hi-jinks. Had he been a thuggish soccer player he could well be enjoying his first taste of porridge.

[Seadragon]

Just to clarify matters - The Air Navigation Order 2009 states two offences, the one named is under Article 222 which prohibits a 'person directing or shining any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft.'

This offence results in a fine up to £2,500 and/or 5 yrs imprisonment. Offenders can also be charged with the lesser offence of 'recklessly endangering an aircraft.' The Magistrate is quoted saying it is a 'stupid, thoughtless thing to do.'

A few mitigating factors present in newspaper article such as distance, expressing remorse, pleading guilty and the professional personnel saying that the helicopter may not have saved the man in time.

Personally I think the fine should have been greater to reflect the seriousness of shining a laser at moving objects, be it helicopters or cars but clearly the Magistrate did not merit this a custodial.

Had it been that the man would definitely have lived but for the actions of the offender preventing his treatment they would be likely facing manslaughter.

[dickythecook]

If it had been an American aircraft these idiots would have been classed as terrorists and that would have been a good use of the very biased extradition laws.