Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

A valid consideration, but there are implications to this that go beyond this particular case. Should we begin to reassess whether or not people under the influence of narcotics are 100% mentally fit? Should this have an effect on how they are sentenced (or what they can be charge with/convicted of)?

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.

Another valid point, which our system does not address entirely.

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.

Pretty sure we also have the testimony of his peers. How did we get the idea that they asked him to borrow his car for the commission of a robbery?

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.

Actually it's not Tibs, if he didn't lend his car this particular crime -which includes all circumstance of the crime- would not have been committed.

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".

It's a fairly strange catchphrase, sure, probably put together for a jury, just throwing that out there.

We don't blame the mother for birthing the killer, because there is no direct causal link between the mother and the murder.

Actually, the reason that parents are not culpable in any way for the crimes their progeny might commit is due to emancipation law. Beyond a certain point we expect a human being to assume full responsibility for their actions, but before that point parents can be held culpable for the actions of their children. We generally don't charge them with murder in the case of children killing children, but the parents can (and often are) held accountable in civil court after criminal charges have been sussed out.

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.

Maybe in your system, not ours. Ours isn't based on certainty, but upon "reasonable doubt". Again, what is logically possible is not an issue when we are referencing events that demonstrably did occur.

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.

Again, what is logically possible is not at issue......

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".

Actually it's proper application of a (bad) law. This crime, these circumstances, these particulars, not what could have happened but what did happen.

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.

Mostly because I think that you're incorrect on this count, and while I share your disdain for the law and it's application, the prosecutor clearly made the case as to why Mr. Holle was facing these charges, that the law demanded that he face those charges, and that conviction of those charges demanded such a sentence.

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.

To which you keep making references to what is logically possible, Tibs, I want you to apply the "what is logically possible" argument to some other crimes. Crimes where the guilt and culpability of the defendant is not in any way questionable. Even with a smoking gun in hand, standing over the corpse, covered in blood, admitting guilt to thirty eye-witnesses, on camera.....it is still logically possible that someone else may have murdered the victim..if the perpetrator had not.

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

And Ive explained why they are not.

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.

We -can- go into them? How many times have you referenced what was logically possible here as a criticism of the prosecution Tibs? I'm not certain that a turn-of-phrase which is entirely accurate in the discussion at hand qualifies as a straw-man.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Whoah, whoah, why? Maybe they told you all they were going to do was scare somebody? Maybe you lent them a gun but no ammo. Maybe you were hungover.......and along a similar line of reasoning..maybe they told you they were going to rob somebody and needed a car but never mentioned killing anyone.......(isn't it logically possible, btw, that they could have gotten a gun from anyone if you did not give them yours)?

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.

Pretty thin line you're advocating. I mean, you have to get to the guy to kill him..you know...?

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.

Agree completely. Florida actually assumed most of these laws because we were making a run at becoming the murder capitol of the US for awhile there. You know..alot of coastline to dispose of evidence, alot of drugs coming in (and out). We started to drift towards the draconian in an attempt to remedy a very difficult problem.