Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[Tiberius]

Most likely, yeah, but what counts is whether or not the jury concluded that he had no knowledge of the crime. Again, a hungover state of mind is not an effective defense...ever take a look at just how many crimes are committed under the influence? Whether he knew about the burglary or not is not inconsequential Tibs...if he knowingly aided in the commission of a crime that culminated in homocide he is an accomplice -to homicide-.

My point was, can someone in the state of mind he was in be held responsible for decisions like that? If you are hungover, you aren't 100% mentally fit, and you are also probably tired. Your ability to make rational decisions is reduced. At that point, I think his knowledge about the burglary becomes inconsequential, since he was not in a right state of mind to act properly on it.

I guess what I also want is a distinction between "accomplice" and "willing accomplice". If he knew about the burglary, he is a willing accomplice to the burglary. However, he was not a willing accomplice to the murder.

Yes, because we all know that personal testimony (and especially so in defense of murder charges) is the best arbitrator of truth.....Look, the jury convicted him. I know it sounds callous, but had there been knock-down drag out evidence that he did know, and the jury acquitted him...I'd be defending his acquittal against those who characterized it as a miscarriage of justice.

All we have is his testimony to go on. The point of a court is to prove that someone is guilty based on the evidence without any doubt. If there is doubt, there cannot be a conviction. If a guy says that he thought they were joking around, then we have to believe him unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Hyperbole Tibs...I'm not actually arguing against your opinion here, I also think it was a shitty application of law. I'm not trying to straw man your position, I;m attempting to explain to you why -what could have happened- is not really relevant in a charge regarding -what did happen-. Though if I were the guys defender, I'd probably make the same argument as you just did.

Lets cast ourselves in the roles Tibs, you as defense counsel, I'm representing the state.

Def-"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the perpetrators of this crime could have borrowed anyones car, or even taken the bus"

Pros-"They could have.....but in this case...they did not. We are not here to deliberate upon what could have happened, but to ensure that justice is carried out for what did."

Whether or not you are not trying to strawman my position is irrelevant; you are strawmaning it, and your response strawmans it again. Let me be very clear:

I am not saying that people should be charged or acquitted based on what could have happened.

That they took his car is in no doubt. He (if he knew about the crime) is guilty of lending them a car for the purposes of burglary. However, what the prosecutor said was palpably false. He argued "No car, no crime." in those exact words.

That argument is not logical. It is a non-sequitur. THAT is what I was arguing about. "No car, no crime" is exactly the same argument as "No conception, no crime". We don't blame the mother for birthing the killer, because there is no direct causal link between the mother and the murder. We cannot say for certain (which we are supposed to in a court of law) that if the murderer hadn't existed, the murder would not have taken place. Clearly, it is possible that the victim could have been murdered by another person.

Likewise, there is no direct causal link between Mr Holle and the murder either. We cannot say for certain that if Mr Holle had not lent his car, the murder would not have taken place. Clearly, it is possible that the murderer could have obtained other transportation.

This is not to say that the possibility of these events transpiring without the car makes Mr Holle innocent of any crime; it merely points out the incredibly bad application of logic in the argument "no car, no crime".

But they didn't Tibs, this crime did involve his car, if some other car was involved it would be some other crime, some other case (with regards to the defendant). Hehehe, time for a joke. Trials are not about the application of logic, but the application of law.

See above; this has nothing to do with whether some car could have been involved affecting the case; it has everything to do with the bad application of logic on the part of the prosecutor. Honestly, my comment was meant to be a very minor observation, and I have no idea why it's now become the focus.

Absolutely, but they did not, and again, our system is not set up so that -what might have happened- how things -might have gone down- is an issue in very many instances. What is important is what -did- happen. What -did- go down.

Again, never said anything about the system being set up this way, or that it should be set up this way. This is entirely about the illogical statement made by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor might as well have thrown the murderer's mother in jail as well, saying "No conception, no crime"...it's exactly the same argument.

Really? lol...okay....

I provided a better explanation of why the arguments are similar above.

I agree. However....since you seem to be fond of what might have happened...had the item lent been a gun, the burglary leading to homocide..would we be looking at a different situation, possibly with more severe sentencing? Would you feel that the accomplice was an accomplice only to burglary and not to murder? Does it matter what tool a person lent to commit a crime?

Firstly, I'm not "fond of what might have happened", that is your strawman. However, yes, we can go into hypothetical scenarios if you wish...that is what (imo) we should do with every law to make sure they are fair.

Yes, if a gun was lent, then the sentencing should have been more severe than if the car was lent. The reason being, a car's main use is transportation, and unless Mr Holle lent his car so that his friend could go around and run people over, all the criminals used it for was transportation. A gun's purpose is to scare, harass, and (ultimately) shoot people. If you lend a person a gun to do a burglary, you must be aware that at some point, they may need to shoot people. As such, you aren't simply providing transportation to a burglary; you are providing the active means to kill someone, and you should be held as an accomplice to murder if that is the result. Still though, being an accomplice to murder should have a reduced sentence to that of the actual killer, unless you were instructing them to go kill people rather than burgle them. I doubt many burglars go in with intentions of killing people though.