• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Loan your car, Go to jail

AthenaAwakened said:
What is justice, Loren?
Click to expand...

Well, if I were a libertarian, I would say that justice is freedom, and freedom is allowing the state the freedom to do whatever it wants to people as long as the people in question are not rich nor large corporations. Because libertarianism means freedom.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
There have been multiple pieces of crap like this on the web recently. They're omitting a key fact: He knew they were going to use the car to commit a robbery with violence--the very violence that killed the victim. There's no miscarriage of justice here.
Click to expand...
Except he claims he didn't know.
 
How can this jury be so sure that without the car there would have been no murder? From what I read, the distance they drove the car was only 1 mile.

Has the jury ever heard of something called "walking"? I walk more than two miles almost every day. One mere mile of distance is not an insurmountable obstacle. Of course there are sources of transportation all over first world developed countries. Maybe they could have taken a bike. Maybe they could have called a taxi. Maybe they could even have taken the bus.

If the murderers in question had called a cab and told the cabbie that they were about to go "jack some punk scrubs" or something would the cabbie be the one facing a life sentence?

This is a ridiculous case.
 
zorq said:
How can this jury be so sure that without the car there would have been no murder? From what I read, the distance they drove the car was only 1 mile.

Has the jury ever heard of something called "walking"? I walk more than two miles almost every day. One mere mile of distance is not an insurmountable obstacle. Of course there are sources of transportation all over first world developed countries. Maybe they could have taken a bike. Maybe they could have called a taxi. Maybe they could even have taken the bus.

If the murderers in question had called a cab and told the cabbie that they were about to go "jack some punk scrubs" or something would the cabbie be the one facing a life sentence?

This is a ridiculous case.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. But this happened in Florida, where you can kill an unarmed stranger with impunity but go to prison for firing a warning shot in the presence of someone you know to be violent. Reasonable doesn't apply.
 
Arctish said:
I agree completely. But this happened in Florida, where you can kill an unarmed stranger with impunity
Click to expand...
Please. Z was found to have acted in self defense.

but go to prison for firing a warning shot in the presence of someone you know to be violent. Reasonable doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Please again. It wasn't a "warning shot", it was a shot at head-height in his direction and the direction of his two children. After she left to get her gun (saying "I have something for yo ass") and reentered in order to fire that shot. As far as violent, we know her to be violent as well - after being released on bail she went to his house and attacked him again. Sure, her sentence was excessive (like in this case) but her conviction for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was right on. One other thing that is like this case is that she was offered a plea deal but refused.
 
Derec said:
Please. Z was found to have acted in self defense.


Please again. It wasn't a "warning shot", it was a shot at head-height in his direction and the direction of his two children. After she left to get her gun (saying "I have something for yo ass") and reentered in order to fire that shot. As far as violent, we know her to be violent as well - after being released on bail she went to his house and attacked him again. Sure, her sentence was excessive (like in this case) but her conviction for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon was right on. One other thing that is like this case is that she was offered a plea deal but refused.
Click to expand...

Please yourself ;). I was speaking in broad terms. Florida law is fubar. It is both incredibly harsh and extremely lax on assault and homicide. It's utterly extremist on both ends of the scale.

This most recent example of legal lunacy is completely at odds with the notion a person is innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How can there not be reasonable doubt about his willing involvement when it is known he was drunk when he agreed to let his friend borrow the car and was home asleep when the crime occurred?
 
laughing dog said:
That means he didn't know that they were actually going to do it.
Click to expand...
He admitted he knew but that he didn't take it seriously. And that last part is his self-serving claim, which therefore can't be taken at face value.

Obviously, but irrelevant to your claim that he knew what was going to happen.
Click to expand...
Actually he knew the plan in quite a detail, including the knocking-out-the-daughter part.
 
Derec said:
He admitted he knew but that he didn't take it seriously. And that last part is his self-serving claim, which therefore can't be taken at face value.
Click to expand...
He says he didn't take it seriously. For all you can know, it is the truth. Do you have any actual disinterested evidence that disproves what he actually knew? Disinterested evidence excludes conclusions derived from bias or illogic.

Derec said:
Actually he knew the plan in quite a detail, including the knocking-out-the-daughter part.
Click to expand...
And you know this how?
 
Here is the problem I have with Ryan Holle's conviction:

The Felony Murder Rule is supposed to apply to people who are involved in the act of committing the felony that results in the death. In every other case I've ever heard about, even cases that people say the felony murder rule shouldn't be used, the convicted person was actively involved in the commission of a crime wherein the killing also happened.

The getaway driver in a Redmond bank robbery in which a teller was slain was convicted yesterday of first-degree murder...

Williams, of Bellevue, remained outside the bank and drove the motorcycle in which he and the gunman, Bryan D. Hartz, 21, fled from the bank.

Williams told the court that he didn't know his companion was carrying a .revolver or that Hartz planned to shoot anyone.
Click to expand...
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900210&slug=1055255

The alleged shooter was ID'd as Gerald Gurule, now 32. He was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted first-degree murder and three counts of felony menacing. Also implicated was [Jennifer] Lewis, accused of the same beefs plus six accessory-to-a-crime counts...
Click to expand...
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2014/02/jennifer_lewis_murder_timothy_minnick_grizzly_rose.php

Brandon Wade Hein (born February 17, 1977) was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for his involvement in the 1995 stabbing murder of 16 year-old Jimmy Farris, the son of an LAPD police officer. Hein and two other youths who were present when the murder took place, as well as the actual killer, were convicted under the felony murder rule because the murder was committed during the course of a felony – the attempted robbery of marijuana kept for sale by Farris's friend, Michael McLoren. Under the felony murder rule, any participant in a felony is criminally responsible for any death that occurs during its commission. In 2009, Hein's life sentence was commuted to 29 years to life... Jason Holland testified he was drunk and lagging behind the others and did not see how the argument between his brother Micah and McLoren started. As he entered, the two dropped their heads and started fighting. Brandon Hein, 18, jumped into the fight, as did Jason, who says he was trying to get the bigger McLoren off his brother Micah's back. Jason opened a folding pocketknife and "pricked" McLoren twice in the back to get him off his brother, then stabbed him in the chest. When Farris entered the fort to help McLoren, Jason stabbed him twice and Hein punched him in the head and face. McLoren survived his wounds but Farris died in the emergency room.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Hein

Agree or disagree with the Felony Murder Rule itself, but I don't see how anyone can claim that Ryan Holle was actually involved in any sort of felony in this case.
 
RavenSky said:
Agree or disagree with the Felony Murder Rule itself, but I don't see how anyone can claim that Ryan Holle was actually involved in any sort of felony in this case.
Click to expand...

As I said in my first post, felony murder is too broadly defined (esp. in Florida) and should require direct involvement (and should not be 1st degree murder). However, if he knowingly gave them the car to commit a robbery I do not see how he is not involved in the felony.
 
laughing dog said:
He says he didn't take it seriously. For all you can know, it is the truth. Do you have any actual disinterested evidence that disproves what he actually knew? Disinterested evidence excludes conclusions derived from bias or illogic.
Click to expand...
He admitted to the knowledge. We need some reason to think that he likely thought they were joking, and I have not seen it.

And you know this how?
Click to expand...
By reading.
 
zorq said:
Of course there are sources of transportation all over first world developed countries. Maybe they could have taken a bike. Maybe they could have called a taxi. Maybe they could even have taken the bus.
Click to expand...
If someone gives others a gun in order for them to go rob someone it is no defense to say that they could have procured a weapon elsewhere easily.

Again, I do not think this guy should be locked up for life. But neither is he an innocent bystander.
 
Derec said:
As I said in my first post, felony murder is too broadly defined (esp. in Florida) and should require direct involvement (and should not be 1st degree murder). However, if he knowingly gave them the car to commit a robbery I do not see how he is not involved in the felony.
Click to expand...

Not even then, in my opinion. What crime did HE commit? Did he drive the vehicle as a get-away vehicle? Did he break and enter the house? Every example I provided included people who were actively committing some aspect of the crime - just not the actual murder. Loaning your car to someone is not a crime in and of itself.

Moreover, nothing you or anyone else has posted indicates that he "knowingly gave them the car to commit a robbery". The way you have phrased it implies he was actively involved in the planning and execution of the robbery, whereas what evidence we have indicates that he overheard a bunch of drunken chatter and disregarded it.
 
So in the US man serves the law, not the law, man. The purpose or spirit of the law is irrelevant.

How are citizens expected to respect the law when it's application is so capricious, senseless, and unjust?
 
Derec said:
He admitted he knew but that he didn't take it seriously. And that last part is his self-serving claim, which therefore can't be taken at face value.


Actually he knew the plan in quite a detail, including the knocking-out-the-daughter part.
Click to expand...

Do you KNOW this or are you just picking up on Loren's assertions, making un-supported statements about things you don't really know? I feel the guy was hanging with some rather nasty people and perhaps should have known better than loan his car to them, but if he actually went to sleep, perhaps he was the victim of diminished capacity and not really privy to the intent of these people. I feel they have a fool in jail, but not necessarily a person who deserves to be there.

We have the same type of laws in California. For a supposedly blue state we have a lot of draconian laws and a large prison population.
 
Derec said:
He admitted to the knowledge. We need some reason to think that he likely thought they were joking, and I have not seen it.
Click to expand...
He says he thought they were joking (it is in the OP article). You may disbelieve him, but there is no way for you to know that he is lying.

Derec said:
By reading.
Click to expand...
There is abundant evidence that is false.
 
seyorni said:
So in the US man serves the law, not the law, man. The purpose or spirit of the law is irrelevant.

How are citizens expected to respect the law when it's application is so capricious, senseless, and unjust?
Click to expand...

The law is simple--don't knowingly be a part of illegal activities. While I think the penalty is a bit high that's a very different matter of whether he did the crime or not--and it certainly looks to me like he did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom