Not So Absurd... Cars Kill, Let's Ban 'em

Timshel

New member
Interesting article on felony murder rule, as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/u...login&pagewanted=print&oref=login&oref=slogin

Early in the morning of March 10, 2003, after a raucous party that lasted into the small hours, a groggy and hungover 20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend. That decision, prosecutors later said, was tantamount to murder.

The friend used the car to drive three men to the Pensacola home of a marijuana dealer, aiming to steal a safe. The burglary turned violent, and one of the men killed the dealer’s 18-year-old daughter by beating her head in with a shotgun he found in the home.

Mr. Holle was a mile and a half away, but that did not matter.

He was convicted of murder under a distinctively American legal doctrine that makes accomplices as liable as the actual killer for murders committed during felonies like burglaries, rapes and robberies.

Mr. Holle, who had given the police a series of statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted of first-degree murder. He is serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Wakulla Correctional Institution here, 20 miles southwest of Tallahassee.

A prosecutor explained the theory to the jury at Mr. Holle’s trial in Pensacola in 2004. “No car, no crime,” said the prosecutor, David Rimmer. “No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”
 
No, they can serve a usefull purose, lets just regulate them. Limits on speed and create mandentory registration for owners. We will set safety standards, and make it so that some are not street legal. We can let the police have cars that would not otherwise be street legal.
 
Felony murder is an interesting concept. But if the guy knew the others were going to commit a crime, he should not have assisted.
 
Is this supposed to be about guns?

It's not.

It's about an idiot who let his friend use his car to go rob and kill people.

What's the issue?
 
Exactly, If it was a gun he had lent them it would be the same now wouldnt it.

He asisted someone who he knew full well was intending to commit a crime with his help.

There are all kinds of vehicles that are not legal to just own by anyone. Can you just go buy a tank?

There are certain weapons the average citizen should not be allowed to own either.
 
No, they can serve a usefull purose, lets just regulate them. Limits on speed and create mandentory registration for owners. We will set safety standards, and make it so that some are not street legal. We can let the police have cars that would not otherwise be street legal.

If guns have no useful purpose then why do cops have them?

Car licensing is a requirement for use on government roads. Street legal, what do you think that means.
 
If guns have no useful purpose then why do cops have them?

Car licensing is a requirement for use on government roads. Street legal, what do you think that means.

I never said guns served no useful purpose?


Street legal means that a car is properly registered, but it also means it does not have certian modifications that are outside the legal standards for vehicles to be on the roads.
 
Is this supposed to be about guns?

It's not.

It's about an idiot who let his friend use his car to go rob and kill people.

What's the issue?

Pointing out that it's not so absurd. The prosecutor even argued "no gun, no murder."

And you are wrong on this. The guy had no idea that anyone was going to be killed. He may have known they were going to commit a robbery. Sentencing him to life is unjust.
 
I never said guns served no useful purpose?

Ok, misread you.

Street legal means that a car is properly registered, but it also means it does not have certian modifications that are outside the legal standards for vehicles to be on the roads.

Yes, it means it is legal for street use. You can do whatever the hell you want to your car. You just can't drive it on roads. I am okay with that sort of licensing. If you want to bring your gun to use on government property, say school or the courthouse, it should have to be licensed.
 
Pointing out that it's not so absurd. The prosecutor even argued "no gun, no murder."

And you are wrong on this. The guy had no idea that anyone was going to be killed. He may have known they were going to commit a robbery. Sentencing him to life is unjust.

So change the felony murder law. I agree the law is unjust, but its applied all the time.
 
Yeah, as I said, the article raises interesting issues on that alone. We can discuss.

Just spun it a little here, because the prosecutor acts as if the car caused the crime.
 
Exactly, If it was a gun he had lent them it would be the same now wouldnt it.

He asisted someone who he knew full well was intending to commit a crime with his help.

There are all kinds of vehicles that are not legal to just own by anyone. Can you just go buy a tank?

There are certain weapons the average citizen should not be allowed to own either.

sure you can buy a tank. The guns are disabled/missing though.
 
Pointing out that it's not so absurd. The prosecutor even argued "no gun, no murder."

And you are wrong on this. The guy had no idea that anyone was going to be killed. He may have known they were going to commit a robbery. Sentencing him to life is unjust.

Here's a part you didn't include in your post ... "But Mr. Holle did testify that he had been told it might be necessary to "knock out" Jessica Snyder."

Snyder had attended the party at his house, then ended up with her head bashed in and, as advertised, her teeth knocked completely out of her head.

Had Holle not given his car to who he KNEW were violent criminals, who he KNEW were going to use that car in the commission of a violent felony crime, Jessica Snyder would still be alive.

Perhaps a life sentence is too much, but what kind of dummy gives his car, registered in his name, to someone so they can go out and commit violent crimes with it?
 
Back
Top