Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Brutal......never say shit to the gestapo...eh?

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.

Should he have to.....I'm sorry, was he trying crime itself or this particular crime?

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.

See the above.

It is when discussing the logical validity of "No car, no crime".

See the above.

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".

Which is an accurate statement, see the above.

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

See....the...above?

I'm making references to what is logically possible to demonstrate that that claim "no car, no crime" is logically invalid.

You know what I'm going to say here.

The prosecutor is the one making the claim that without the car, the crime could not have been committed.

Yes, and he;s correct.

It is he who is stepping into the realm of logically possible things; and I am simply following him in.

Actually, he's just relating the particulars of the crime and how that makes Mr. Holle culpable under Florida law in very simple terms.

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.

Thank you Clive. Nevertheless, this crime could not have been committed, and these charges could not have been brought, without that car. No car....no crime.

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.

We've suffered a disconnect, I apologize, I assumed that you thought that this was a bad ruling and a bad law and were making arguments to support that conclusion.

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.

By way of removing the specific circumstances to which the prosecution is referring....so no..you haven't. If the statement stood on it's own, and referred to nothing in particular...sure...but it doesn't.

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.

Fair enough. But I'm wondering how you square this statement with your previous statement..

"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."

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.

Agreed.