Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[Tiberius]

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)?

Yes, in the case where they made a decision that led to a crime. This point is most often raised with women who are under the influence of alcohol and consent to sex.

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?

He told police in an interview, as far as I can tell.

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's not what the prosecutor said. He didn't state particulars; he stated generics. The crime was burglary and murder. A car is not required for either.

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

Right, hence my point in bringing it up. "Catchphrases" like that should be overruled by a Judge; they are not evidence and they are not reasonable. Honestly, if I had my way I'd have a line of logicians next to the judge to raise objections to faulty arguing.

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.

Apologies, when I said certain I was talking about beyond reasonable doubt. The two are effectively the same in any case (that's another subject though).

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

It is when discussing the logical validity of "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.

Again, I'm not talking about the law. This back and forth has not been about the law, it has been about the statement "no car, no crime".

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.

Right, but this isn't about the law or its application. This is about the use of bad logic in the case.

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'm making references to what is logically possible to demonstrate that that claim "no car, no crime" is logically invalid. The prosecutor is the one making the claim that without the car, the crime could not have been committed. It is he who is stepping into the realm of logically possible things; and I am simply following him in.

There is a very simple test to see if his assertion that if "no car" then "no crime", and that is to see if the crime requires a car. In terms of logic, if P is "car" and Q is "crime", then his statement is:

¬P -> ¬Q

This can be switched with the following due to transposition:

Q -> P

The two logical statements are the same. ¬P -> ¬Q <=> Q -> P

So, is it true that if crime then car? Quite simply, no. Burglary can take place without a car, as can murder. His statement is illogical.

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 straw-manning you at all. I;m not certain that a turn-of-phrase which is entirely accurate in the discussion at hand qualifies as a straw-man.

It is a strawman because you tried to refute an argument that I never even made, which was that we should apply what is logically possible to court procedures. You did this a few times; I called you on it each time. I have never stated that the fact that someone else could have provided the car should change the fact that Mr Holle did, nor have I stated that the possibility of such an event makes him less guilty of being an accomplice.

My argument concerning the logically possible has (and always has been) concerned with the one statement made by the prosecution, which I claim (and have now demonstrated in a formal logical argument) is invalid. My proving this invalidity does not change the facts of the case; it merely brings that statement into disrepute.

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.......

I'd assumed we were advocating a more British form of law here. As I said before, there should be a difference between an accomplice and a willing accomplice. If you give them a gun with no ammo, or are hungover, etc, then you aren't a willing accomplice to murder, but you are an accomplice to the crime they informed you about.

Pretty thin line you're advocating.

Not so sure it is. This area will always be debated, but it can't be as clear cut as the Florida laws seems to make it. Allowances should be made at all times.