Petition: Eliminate Florida's felony murder rule.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, that was the real crime..lol. The shit grows like a fucking "weed" in Florida..it's all over the god-damned place...I don't know why anyone is looking to steal the shit..

[Tiberius]

The burglary involved a murder, the way that our law is setup an accomplice to any given crime is also culpable for any other crime committed in the course of it's commission Tibs.

Yes, and it's a stupid way to set up a law (which is what the petition is about). People should only be held responsible for the crimes they commit. There is a reason why crimes like burglary have lower sentences that crimes like murder. Even an accomplice to a murder should not get the same sentence as the person who actually committed the murder, unless it can be proved that the accomplice had the same intent.

That's how it is in the UK, and it's a fairer system IMO.

People deny their guilt when murder charges are brought. Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with this ruling. I'm simply pointing out that there are a great many cases where an accomplice denies knowledge of a crime, and he is an accomplice to murder under Florida law...as well as burglary.

Sure, but there are also people who honestly didn't know anything about it. You don't know if he's telling the truth, and neither do I, but the evidence seems to suggest that he was at home, sleeping off a hangover. In that state of mind, whether he knew about the burglary or not is inconsequential; he could have easily thought his friends were joking around, or even that he was dreaming it.

Correction, he lent a car for the commission of a crime which ultimately led to homicide.

Not according to his testimony.

Okay, should we haul in everyone they -might- have borrowed a car from? No, of course not, that's not how this works. No one in this case was charged with what -might- have happened. His car, which he freely lent, presumably with the knowledge that they were going to commit a crime (I understand that he disputes this...but this argument would have had to have been made -perhaps a "friend" threw him under the bus) was used in the commission of a crime, which happened to involve felony murder. That's pretty clear cut.

Wow. That's a pretty appalling strawman of my position. I'm not saying we should charge people based on what might have happened; I'm calling to attention the bad application of logic used by the prosecutor, which was:

"No car, no crime."

This is clearly illogical. It simply does not follow that if Mr Holle had not lent his car, the crime would not have been committed; that was my point. Like I said before, if Mr Holle had said "no", they could have found another car (whether they borrowed it from someone else or stole it) to go and commit the burglary in. Heck, they could have taken public transport, or walked as well.

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.

Look, I do think that these sorts of rulings blow, but they are solid and there are many cases in which you would want to see the accomplice laws applied. Consistent application of law amigo. "I was drunk, I was hungover, I thought they were kidding" is not an effective defense against robbery or murder. Even without felony murder doctrine this kid would still have faced charges as an accomplice to murder (though it's likely that he would have been sentenced, if convicted, much more leniently approaching the scale of manslaughter).

What the felony murder doctrine allows is that accomplices be sentenced (and charged) to the maximum, whereas other laws allow accomplices to be charged with murder/manslaughter even when they do not actively strike a blow or even involve themselves directly in the crime.

I never said accomplices shouldn't be charged, but it's fucking stupid to charge them for the same crime that someone else did. Punishments should be proportional to the crime committed. If Holle did lend his car with the knowledge that it would be involved in a burglary, then he should have been convicted based on his involvement in the burglary (and he should have received a far lighter sentence that anyone in the actual burglary itself).

These are people's lives we're talking about. People make mistakes, they have bad friends. Lending your car to a thief is a big mistake, but it certainly shouldn't cost you your whole life, especially with the amount of people the USA throws in jail anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Another from Florida, I remember seeing this on TYT.

A Florida woman has been sentenced to 20 years behind bars for firing a gun into the ceiling of her home in front of her husband and their two young children.

Florida’s harsh 10-20-Life statutes give harsh punishments for all gun crimes. For pulling a gun out during a crime, the sentence is ten years.
For firing the gun, a mandatory 20-year sentence is issued.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...fails.html

---

Agreed, that's an example of a measure taken to curb and control gun-related crimes which not only fails to curb or control them, but in the process leads to ridiculous convictions and sentences.

Yes, and it's a stupid way to set up a law (which is what the petition is about). People should only be held responsible for the crimes they commit. There is a reason why crimes like burglary have lower sentences that crimes like murder. Even an accomplice to a murder should not get the same sentence as the person who actually committed the murder, unless it can be proved that the accomplice had the same intent.

That's how it is in the UK, and it's a fairer system IMO.

I completely agree. However, removing the felony murder doctrine will not prevent this sort of thing, other laws involving accomplices would have to be altered or removed. Those laws are not, in all or even the majority of cases, bad laws. That's actually one of the reasons I like your system btw (as I'm reading up on it) it allows leeway and consideration, rather than drawing the broad brush, so-to-speak.

Sure, but there are also people who honestly didn't know anything about it. You don't know if he's telling the truth, and neither do I, but the evidence seems to suggest that he was at home, sleeping off a hangover. In that state of mind, whether he knew about the burglary or not is inconsequential; he could have easily thought his friends were joking around, or even that he was dreaming it.

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-.

Not according to his testimony.

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.

Wow. That's a pretty appalling strawman of my position. I'm not saying we should charge people based on what might have happened;

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."

I'm calling to attention the bad application of logic used by the prosecutor, which was:

"No car, no crime."

This is clearly illogical. It simply does not follow that if Mr Holle had not lent his car, the crime would not have been committed; that was my point. Like I said before, if Mr Holle had said "no", they could have found another car

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.

(whether they borrowed it from someone else or stole it) to go and commit the burglary in. Heck, they could have taken public transport, or walked as well.

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. It's not an issue of what is logically possible Tibs.

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 never said accomplices shouldn't be charged, but it's fucking stupid to charge them for the same crime that someone else did. Punishments should be proportional to the crime committed. If Holle did lend his car with the knowledge that it would be involved in a burglary, then he should have been convicted based on his involvement in the burglary (and he should have received a far lighter sentence that anyone in the actual burglary itself).

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?

These are people's lives we're talking about. People make mistakes, they have bad friends. Lending your car to a thief is a big mistake, but it certainly shouldn't cost you your whole life, especially with the amount of people the USA throws in jail anyway.

Agreed, and again I'm glad they didn't kill this kid....they could have ( I checked again to see if the laws have changed..they haven't...sadface).

---

The other two examples on that petition, btw, leave me scratching my fucking head (as I've mentioned). Like I said (just in case it got lost in the noise), I'm all for this petition, but I don't think that the case you and I have been discussing is a very good example of why the doctrine should be repealed. This particular case seems to be precisely the scenario that the doctrine was engineering to address.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Anomalocaris]

Any doubt about the strength of the sadistic, vindictive, self-righteous streak in the American character?

[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.

[Tiberius]

I'm done here. If you think your example trumps a logical statement, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not "logically possible" that you have made an error?

Crime and -this crime- are not interchangeable. Car and -this car- are not interchangeable. You have taken the statement of a prosecuting attorney making a case about a particular crime (and a particular car) and attempted to use the statement to make an observation about crime and cars in general. Believe there's a term for that.

Do you think that the prosecutor is trying to make the argument that crime cannot happen without cars?