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

RStringfield said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Only in AMerica.
 
blackascoal said:
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?
Click to expand...


Surely he was guilty of something. Not of murder. This rule just isn't fair at all. You can't be held responsible for something you didn't know would happen, didn't intend to happen, and would've stopped had you been there.
 
Watermark said:
Surely he was guilty of something. Not of murder. This rule just isn't fair at all. You can't be held responsible for something you didn't know would happen, didn't intend to happen, and would've stopped had you been there.
Click to expand...

You most certainly can and should be held responsible for giving someone your car so they can go and bash someone's head in. He knew that .. and he should have known that bashing someone's head in could lead to them being killed.

There is no evidence that "he would have stopped it." Where did you get that from?
 
Watermark said:
Naw, then you'll be "soft on crime". No one cares about unfairness, let's just imprison all the minor criminals in America and let the big ones run amock.
Click to expand...

Our prisons are filled with prisoners there for victimless crimes.

This crime was far from victimless.
 
blackascoal said:
You most certainly can and should be held responsible for giving someone your car so they can go and bash someone's head in. He knew that .. and he should have known that bashing someone's head in could lead to them being killed.

There is no evidence that "he would have stopped it." Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...

The rule is not fair. It's as plain and simple as that.
 
The fucking Jena 6 deliberately almost killed a guy and you complain about that, Black. There's a definite fucking victim there. Shall I show you the photos?
 
Watermark said:
The fucking Jena 6 deliberately almost killed a guy and you complain about that, Black. There's a definite fucking victim there. Shall I show you the photos?
Click to expand...

I've never said no one should do any time for that crime, but the the law should be applied EQUALLY. That is the argument in Jena 6 .. which is not the argument here.
 
I just think there's a big difference between "Intent", and an unfortunate possibility coming true. That's the difference between attempted murder and assault... murder and manslaughter...
 
As for what RS is going on about... I'm not sure... there are far greater injustices out there going on. I don't see what any of it has to do with banning cars.
 
blackascoal said:
No, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the point of the thread which appears to claim that banning cars because they kill is the same argument as banning guns because they kiill.
Click to expand...


It was tongue in cheek, based on the prosecutors flawed argument.
 
He... apparently didn't know a robbery was even going to take place. Even if he did, IMHO, murder wasn't his intent, and he shouldn't be prosecuted by a law that was written for people who had intent. Maybe something more simialar to manslaughter.
 
blackascoal said:
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?
Click to expand...


He also said he did not believe that the talk was serious. He was drunk. Charging him with murder is ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top