Rikesh Patel fired pellets at a 12-year-old girl from his accommodation at Compton Park, Compton Road West, hitting her in the leg and leaving a bruise.For no reason (though what reason would you have?). He was a university student who happened to think an amusing way of passing the time was to snipe at the neighbour's kids...
Two weeks later, he shot two 14-year-old boys in the head and neck.
Both suffered superficial injuries.
Judge Martin Walsh told 20-year-old Patel he could have blinded the boys.Should be case closed, right?
Police were called to the scene of the shooting and a porter said he believed Patel had an airgun. His room was searched and police found the weapon and pellets.
Patel admitted three charges of assault on April 28 and May 6.
Mr Dean Kershaw, defending, said Patel, who was studying to be an accountant, had since been expelled by the university. He was a bright student with four A-Levels, but behaved like a “buffoon and an idiot”.No, he behaved like a creepy psycopath...
Still, our justice system will take a dim view of this, in light of Cumbria, surely?
Patel was given three months’ custody, suspended for two years, and ordered to do 180 hours of unpaid work.*sigh*
He was given a curfew for four months from 7pm to 7am.
Yes, admittedly, an airgun is not a .22 rifle or a shotgun. But how come the sentence is so light, given the intent to cause harm to strangers?
Update: For an example of oddity in sentencing, check out the case noted in the comments by DerekP:
Sentencing the pair, Judge Clement Goldstone QC said the courts needed to deter people from taking the law into their own hands.Well, judge, one way to do that is to actually do your job, isn't it?
"But how come the sentence is so light, given the intent to cause harm to strangers?" I hope somebody has a good answer, Julia.
Those of us who sense Patel is a disturbed, dangerous individual who will go on to seriously harm himself or others, were disposed to put him away for a long time.
A .22 air rifle is a very dangerous weapon if used inappropriately and yes it can kill, blind or maim. The sentence should have reflected that, but sadly no, this is today's Britain.
Patel uses an airgun to shoot harmless passers-by; result - suspended sentence.
Brumell uses a BB gun to defend himself and his girlfriend against a gang who attacked him before; result - jailed for a year.
Thoughts on this glaring disparity, anyone?
"Those of us who sense Patel is a disturbed, dangerous individual who will go on to seriously harm himself or others, were disposed to put him away for a long time."
Indeed. I see no sign of the usual 'reports' (social workers, psychiatrists, etc) that are called for in all other cases. I hope there were some?
"...sadly no, this is today's Britain."
And the response to Cumbria will be another pointless set of regulations that will harm the law abiding, mark my words. While this chap skates free...
"Thoughts on this glaring disparity, anyone?"
I have thoughts, all right...
Having seen how our judicial system works in that assumes everyone can change their ways if they are not jailed on their first offence, I also suspect that the judge's hands are tied in that he has to follow guidelines set down which leave him with the only option for a suspended sentance.
As to why there is a disparity with the other case where the "gun wielding nutter" got locked up. I blame the CPS. Its the CPS that decide on how to prosecute crimes.
In the first case they went all progressive and decided that because he was training to be an accountant he couldn't be a real criminal. He was a professional person and such acts that he carried out must have been through sheer stupidity. Therefore he only gets charged with assault rather than anything more serious.
In the second case, they still went all progressive but must have thought that because he lived in a dangerous area, only worked on a supermarket till checkout, he was just the usual low life. He was not a professional and therefore it was normal for him to be violent. The other point against him is the vigilante aspect. The CPS don't like that, they would prefer that all such decisions are made by themselves and not the general public. And because of this he was charged with a serious crime, even though no one was injured.
So in conclusion, the sooner the CPS are cut back and the more the police actually make the decisions to prosecute the better.
What makes you think the police would be any more decent than the CPS? After all, they're the ones arresting 'easy targets' instead of more dangerous characters in the first place.
SBML - The CPS don't like that, they would prefer that all such decisions are made by themselves and not the general public.
I think that's the attitude of the police as well. And the Courts, going by the judge's comments - "That action on you [sic] part, on the part of anyone who is confronted with this situation, requires deterrent punishment."
Which is why anyone who is attacked is somehow supposed to use only an unprepared level of force that some lawyer (safe in an office) thinks is 'reasonable' in a situation where there is no reasoning, unless you can suddenly threaten the criminals with a risk they hadn't anticipated.
And from the newspaper report of Brummel's case, the real outcome of that attitude is that Brummel was left with the choice of breaking the law to prevent a threat to life, or allowing him and his girlfriend to be attacked by a violent gang.
Prevent a rape and go to jail? Or be deterred, as the judge prefers, and let the gang do what they want?
Whose side is the law on?
Post a Comment