Well any behaviour like that is moronic, whatever way you look at it.:dozey:

 

That includes people who cause an accident because they're using their mobile phone or some other gadget while driving, too.

With the privilege of being allowed to drive a car on the road comes responsibility.

 

Yes it was stupid behaviour, noones arguing that but getting 2 years in prison for melting a TV and being a drunken idiot while not actually harming anyone is unfair on them, 2 young peoples lives have been ruined for one act of drunken stupidity that didn't actually harm anyone.

 

It wasn't too long ago I remember your banging on about Ashley Cole being a disgrace and a danger to society for doing 104 MPH on a clear motorway, when in fact it wasn't dangerous at all and he caused no one any harm, oh but he broke the arbitary speed limit in a car that could stop quicker from 104 MPH than a Ford Fiesta probably could from 40, the Daily Mail kneejerk to "shocking"(lol) events is just laughable and pathetic.

^He is a disgrace. That latest incident with the air rifle confirms it. He wasn't on an "open motorway" either. It was an 'A' road in an urban area. He should know better too, arguably even more so than those two teenagers, seeing as he's quite a bit older.

Of course, the level of recklessness was nowhere near as high as that of setting fire to a block of flats or dropping a fire extinguisher from the top of a building, but even so............................... :dozey:

 

Incidentally, if Ashley Cole is do desperate to drive at 100 mph, he should either pay for some time at a race track (after all, he has more than enough money to do so), or go and live in Germany, where there are stretches of motorway you can do that sort of speed legally.

It's obviously taken very seriously in the States too:

 

In US law, endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful and reckless or wanton, and likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person.

The offense is intended to prohibit and therefore deter reckless or wanton conduct that wrongfully creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury to others.

The law specifies several types of endangerment:

 

• Child endangerment: placing a child in a potentially harmful situation, either through negligence or misconduct.
  

 

• Reckless endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.
  

Endangerment can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

^He is a disgrace. That latest incident with the air rifle confirms it. He wasn't on an "open motorway" either. It was an 'A' road in an urban area. He should know better too, arguably even more so than those two teenagers, seeing as he's quite a bit older.

Of course, the level of recklessness was nowhere near as high as that of setting fire to a block of flats or dropping a fire extinguisher from the top of a building, but even so............................... :dozey:

 

Incidentally, if Ashley Cole is do desperate to drive at 100 mph, he should either pay for some time at a race track (after all, he has more than enough money to do so), or go and live in Germany, where there are stretches of motorway you can do that sort of speed legally.

 

As I pointed out at the time, it's a 3 lane A road when, not busy doing 104 MPH down it isn't particularly dangerous, I regularly drive down the same stretch of road and well exceed 50 MPH just to keep up with the flow of traffic, I have no problem with people travelling in excess of 100 MPH on clear motorways or if you're going to be pedantic 3 lane A roads either as it just isn't dangerous to do so, but back to the point of these 2 young men, why do you think it was appropiate to give them a 2 year prison sentance for an act of drunken stupidity which didn't harm anyone and only caused the damage of an oven and a television.

The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

 

HAY LOOK, I CAN BE A LOLYER TOO: if nobody was around with the fire extinguisher incident... yeah. Of course, the TV in microwave in a student building incident would come under this, but I feel the sentence is a little heavy-handed if it also counted the fire extinguisher one as I have described into it

Having discussed this with a couple of "focus" groups, the general consensus appears to be that people should only be jailed if such reckless behaviour results in death(s).

 

If that's the case, what would you consider to be an appropriate punishment for such actions?

Lengthy community service orders amounting to hundreds of hours?

Would this be a sufficient deterrent?

I once lived with a student who put silica gel on a pizza thinking it was a topping. he should have gone to prison for being f***ing stupid.

I once lived with a student who put silica gel on a pizza thinking it was a topping. he should have gone to prison for being f***ing stupid.

 

If people were jailed merely for being "stupid", there'd be more in than out!:P

I once lived with a student who put silica gel on a pizza thinking it was a topping. he should have gone to prison for being f***ing stupid.

 

OMG. Moron.

 

Did he end up being OK, though? I mean, that causes a lot of health issues, and it would be most unfortunate if he ended up dying from something like that. :sad:

Hopefully the severity of these sentences will make sure it stays that way, although I won't be holding my breath................. :dozey:

 

When are you going to realise that regardless of the penalties people will do bad things?

 

Do you think the next time an angry wreckless young kid is on top of a building with a fire extinguisher, and he's actually nuts enough to throw it off, just as he's running up to throw the extinguisher he's going to think "Hmmmm on 2nd thought- that guy was imprisoned for over 2 years for doing the same thing- best not. If it was 6 months it'd totes be worth it."

 

Or the next time some drunken students are in a kitchen out of their mind with a broken TV, just as one of them is about to close the oven door the other one will go "Oh wait I just remembered...". If people are stupid enough to do such things, they will do them, give them 2 years or 2 million, it's not directly affecting anyone.

 

These aren't "societal" issues as you put them across, these are rare and isolated incidents and they will happen again, it just so happens you take great pleasure out of constantly repeating how disgusted you are by these people. So the judge 'making examples' of people and giving incredibly harsh sentences isn't going to put a stop to anything or make a difference to anything, like what exactly do you mean by this decision is putting a 'stop' to anything stupid happening for the time being? Do you really think people stopped doing stupid things since that court decision?

 

Harsh and cruel as it is, today some kids would have kicked the shit out of a cat, some chavs lit a firework while in a car on the highway, somewhere a father doesn't want to keep a bunch of pups so he threw them in a river, it must be hard to accept but the severe sentences you coincidentally are a fan of that 'stop' such behaviour which you love to remind us is mindless, those sentences stopping anything, they are just needlessly over the top and unfair.

 

A message has to be sent out to put a stop to such moronic behaviour.

 

I don't know what would be more lawls, Mark genuinely thinking the jail sentence will stop people cooking televisions, or it will stop people generally acting like morons!

^You failed to say what you reckon would be a fair punishment for such behaviour. I get the impression that if you had your way, people would be able to do whatever they liked and get away scot-free.:dozey:

Or the next time some drunken students are in a kitchen out of their mind with a broken TV, just as one of them is about to close the oven door the other one will go "Oh wait I just remembered...". If people are stupid enough to do such things, they will do them, give them 2 years or 2 million, it's not directly affecting anyone.

 

These aren't "societal" issues as you put them across, these are rare and isolated incidents and they will happen again, it just so happens you take great pleasure out of constantly repeating how disgusted you are by these people. So the judge 'making examples' of people and giving incredibly harsh sentences isn't going to put a stop to anything or make a difference to anything, like what exactly do you mean by this decision is putting a 'stop' to anything stupid happening for the time being? Do you really think people stopped doing stupid things since that court decision?

 

Harsh and cruel as it is, today some kids would have kicked the shit out of a cat, some chavs lit a firework while in a car on the highway, somewhere a father doesn't want to keep a bunch of pups so he threw them in a river, it must be hard to accept but the severe sentences you coincidentally are a fan of that 'stop' such behaviour which you love to remind us is mindless, those sentences stopping anything, they are just needlessly over the top and unfair.

 

 

 

I don't know what would be more lawls, Mark genuinely thinking the jail sentence will stop people cooking televisions, or it will stop people generally acting like morons!

 

I've remembered a guy I know at a party a few years ago was very drunk and drugged up and decided to piss in the Koi Carp pond at this house, I know it's wrong but it was kind of lol worthy at the time, mainly due to him wearing his gfs coat and falling about singing, I guess you had to be there.

 

Mark both of us have said Community Service would have been appropiate.

^You failed to say what you reckon would be a fair punishment for such behaviour. I get the impression that if you had your way, people would be able to do whatever they liked and get away scot-free.:dozey:

 

I said before, community service. I don't think a very short jail sentence would be uncalled for though. You shouldn't have even bothered responding, the only thing you brought up was completely irrelevant because I have indeed stated what the sentence should be, how pointless. Oh and then you make the completely unfounded assumption that I'd let everyone commit crimes and murders without punishment, despite how I've said more then once that they do deserve some form of punishment. Thanks for that- whatever that was, Mark. :thinking:

 

But regardless, I made some points which you just completely disregarded, if they were too in-depth for you to deal with, fair enough, but I'll make it very simple: how exactly is a long jail sentence for acts of random stupidity going to stop more random stupidity? There are millions of people in the UK and nothing can possibly stop some of them doing stupid things, I can't believe that you think since this court decision, as there have been no noteworthy media-wide situations where someone does something particularly idiotic, for the time being that activity has been stopped and everyone in the UK is suddenly now acting reasonably in the fear that cooking a television will get them locked up.

 

If things were my way justice would be fair, we wouldn't be handing out over-the-top sentences to people just because the media takes an interest, you seem to just brush over that as if it's OK because you don't give a shit about justice towards people who make stupid mistakes, in typical Daily Mail fashion, they did wrong END OF! Banish them! Hang them from the lamp posts for all eternity! It's not about the crime itself it's hating them that makes you feel great, if things were run by you Ashley Cole would be in prison for 70 years for driving too fast and Lady Gaga would get a hundred life sentences for wasting food, because your opinion gets clouded and biased by your personal opinion of people and you can't possibly form an un-biased opinion on whether or not this sentence was harsh, so you just gloss over it.

 

But on a more serious note, it's things like this which makes you wonder why they don't just bring back executions, eh Mark? It's political correctness GONE MAD

If Lady GaGa should be jailed for anything, it should be for crimes against music.:rolleyes:

As for Ashley Cole, I reckon we've already covered that one in the "stupidity" section.:P

Oh boy, here we go again.

If Lady GaGa should be jailed for anything, it should be for crimes against music.:rolleyes:

 

Please don't start with that bullshit again, we all get it, you don't like her work, I can't say I love it myself, it doesn't mean she doesn't have talent.

I too agree on community service being a more appropriate form of punishment.

Yeah, that actually makes sense.

Death penalty

Nah, save that for anyone who dares to have a miscarriage.

I too agree on community service being a more appropriate form of punishment.

 

For the drunken pranksters, or Lady GaGa?:P

I wish I had the confidence/lack of esteem to try and joke around with people who don't really like me.

For the drunken pranksters, or Lady GaGa?:P

 

Context, learn it. :P

Few things wrong with this article

 

1)Josh and Dan didn't alert people on premises, I did, me and Ben saw them walking about and they claimed to have gone to a casino and not known anything about the fire.

 

2)Once they returned to the flat they left a minute later again without saying a word

 

3)I rang emergency services and then Dan and Josh returned about 15 minutes later

 

4)I was friends with them at the time and don't think they should of gone to prison, a considerable amount of community service would of done, bit I can see why a judge imprisoned them.

Nice first post.