Loan your car, Go to jail

[Underseer]

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.

I know that as a libertarian, you have a burning need to reflexively defend any abuse of power by Big Government, but in this particular case the prosecution cannot prove that the person who loaned his car had any idea it was going to be used in the commission of a crime.

So if that is your excuse, then Big Government is not justified in throwing this man in jail for life, so you are going to have to find a different excuse. I mean, since libertarians are completely different from conservatives, obviously you have to find some kind of excuse for allowing Big Government to jail people for life over trivial offenses. I mean, what's the point of having a Big Government rule over us if they can't abuse their power over us? Your libertarian ideology demands that you search for a different excuse posthaste.

Otherwise, people might not understand the big ideological difference between libertarians and conservatives when it comes to the relation between Big Government and the citizenry.

Did I throw around the catch-phrase Big Government often enough? I could throw it around a few more times if it makes you feel better. I know that conservolibertarians find that phrase very comforting somehow, since it appears to be a common feature of conservolibertarian propaganda.

 

[zorq]

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.

The prosecution in this case told the jury "No car, no murder." The prosecution clearly lied as there are other forms of transportation readily available to thugs in the US.

The prosecution has clearly oversold the importance of the act of loaning a car in the commission of this crime. I find it extremely likely that even if the theives had decided that an automobile was necessary for the commission of this particular crime, that they would be willing to delay their plans by days or weeks until a vehicle became available to them and this individual car loaning was irrelevant to the commission of the crime.

The prosecution lied to the jury.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know that as a libertarian, you have a burning need to reflexively defend any abuse of power by Big Government, but in this particular case the prosecution cannot prove that the person who loaned his car had any idea it was going to be used in the commission of a crime.

The jury disagrees with you on this.

 

[Underseer]

The jury disagrees with you on this.

See the post directly above yours.

You don't have to justify anything to me. I know that as a libertarian, it is necessary for you to defend Big Government whenever things like this happen, as long as it doesn't happen to a rich person or a corporation. Then it would be an attack on all of our freedom.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

What crime did he commit?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What crime did he commit?

Murder. All members of a criminal conspiracy are guilty of the acts of any of them in the furtherance of the conspiracy. He knew they were going to use the car to commit a crime, he was part of the conspiracy.

 

[RavenSky]

Murder. All members of a criminal conspiracy are guilty of the acts of any of them in the furtherance of the conspiracy.

circular reasoning. He committed a crime therefore he committed a crime. try again. Exactly what action did he take that is a crime, in your opinion.

He knew they were going to use the car to commit a crime

questionable. As he testified, he assumed they were joking around

he was part of the conspiracy.

He was not charged with conspiracy, nor has anyone presented any evidence that he participated in a conspiracy.

And by using the word "conspiracy" you have helped to make my point. The law this man was charged and convicted under is completely separate from conspiracy laws. He was not charged nor convicted with conspiracy to commit a crime. Yet, the very definition of the "felony murder rule" requires him to have been an "accomplice" - someone who actively participated in the commission of a crime. He didn't actively participate in any crime. Lending your car to someone you've lent your car to may times before is not a criminal act.

 

[Earl IV]

Someone asks me to borrow my car to commit a felony, I'm going to have to pass on that one.

 

[Juma]

The law is simple--don't knowingly be a part of illegal activities.

That isnt how it works: it is more like this: dont help anyone if there is a remote chance that if he/she may do anything illegal..

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That isnt how it works: it is more like this: dont help anyone if there is a remote chance that if he/she may do anything illegal..

This post was read by somebody who then went on to steal a car. The police are now on their way to your house to arrest you for grand theft auto.

 

[arkirk]

Loaning you car is always a bad idea. Sometimes, if conditions are extremely serious, you may do it anyway for a friend in extreme need. I feel the guy was irresponsible with his property, lending it while drunk and to people who proved out to be bent on destructive behavior. Still, I feel he is neither guilty of murder nor an accomplice to murder. The responsibility for the murder lies with the murderers.

If he were drunk and loaned his car to another drunk who went out and ran somebody down with it, he would be a party to that, but the crime would be irresponsibility in lending his car to a drunk driver. I feel he has that type of culpability in this matter, but not necessarily in the crime of murder. If they found evidence such as charts, maps, and written plans for the commission of the crime at his house, that would be different. Instead they found a sleeping drunk. I don't feel he should go without some sort of reprimand and perhaps even a period behind bars, but not the same as that of the killers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

circular reasoning. He committed a crime therefore he committed a crime. try again. Exactly what action did he take that is a crime, in your opinion.

He agreed to do an action as part of a crime.

questionable. As he testified, he assumed they were joking around

The jury didn't believe him.

He was not charged with conspiracy, nor has anyone presented any evidence that he participated in a conspiracy.

And by using the word "conspiracy" you have helped to make my point. The law this man was charged and convicted under is completely separate from conspiracy laws. He was not charged nor convicted with conspiracy to commit a crime. Yet, the very definition of the "felony murder rule" requires him to have been an "accomplice" - someone who actively participated in the commission of a crime. He didn't actively participate in any crime. Lending your car to someone you've lent your car to may times before is not a criminal act.

He actively participated--he knowingly provided the means.

After all, a getaway driver likely doesn't actually commit a crime directly.

 

[laughing dog]

He agreed to do an action as part of a crime.



The jury didn't believe him.



He actively participated--he knowingly provided the means.

No, he did not. He says he was drunk and he thought they were joking around. The fact that the jury did not believe him is not material to the argument on whether or not he knowingly participated. It is material to the fact he was convicted.

 

[RavenSky]

He agreed to do an action as part of a crime. The jury didn't believe him. He actively participated--he knowingly provided the means. After all, a getaway driver likely doesn't actually commit a crime directly.

You have again ignored my question, and again ignored my point.

You do not have any evidence that this man "actively participated" or "knowingly provided" anything. Moreover, since the jury did not convict him of conspiracy, it appears the prosecutor didn't either.

The question this case raises is whether it is right to convict a man who is NOT an active participant (or co-conspiracist) in a crime should be charged with any crime, much less murder.

Most countries and a few states have enough of a moral issue with charging a person with murder even when they are clearly and obviously guilty of the connected robbery - what on earth makes you so adamant that a man who was NOT shown to have been guilty of the robbery should spend the rest of his life in prison for a murder he didn't commit?

 

[aeebee50]

Bummer. I am glad the person who stole my Armada did not get arrested. If they had got caught doing something illegal, I could be in Jail now. Bummer.

 

[Derec]

Bummer. I am glad the person who stole my Armada did not get arrested. If they had got caught doing something illegal, I could be in Jail now. Bummer.

Nothing in the FL law or this case suggests that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, he did not. He says he was drunk and he thought they were joking around. The fact that the jury did not believe him is not material to the argument on whether or not he knowingly participated. It is material to the fact he was convicted.

So you don't care about whether a jury didn't believe him, his saying that he thought they were joking is enough?

Is "I thought her no was just being playful" also an ironclad defense against a rape charge?

- - - Updated - - -

You have again ignored my question, and again ignored my point.

You do not have any evidence that this man "actively participated" or "knowingly provided" anything. Moreover, since the jury did not convict him of conspiracy, it appears the prosecutor didn't either.

The question this case raises is whether it is right to convict a man who is NOT an active participant (or co-conspiracist) in a crime should be charged with any crime, much less murder.

Most countries and a few states have enough of a moral issue with charging a person with murder even when they are clearly and obviously guilty of the connected robbery - what on earth makes you so adamant that a man who was NOT shown to have been guilty of the robbery should spend the rest of his life in prison for a murder he didn't commit?

Do most places not have aiding-and-abetting type charges?

Of course he wasn't convicted of that in this case because it's trumped by the felony murder charge. That doesn't mean he's not guilty of the offense.

- - - Updated - - -

Bummer. I am glad the person who stole my Armada did not get arrested. If they had got caught doing something illegal, I could be in Jail now. Bummer.

We are talking about someone who *KNOWINGLY* aided a felony that resulted in death, not the innocent victim of a crime.

 

[laughing dog]

So you don't care about whether a jury didn't believe him, his saying that he thought they were joking is enough?

That is non-responsive to my observation. First, despite your claims, you have presented no evidence that the jury did not believe him. Perhaps he was convicted for other reasons. Second, how do you KNOW (or how did the jury KNOW) that the defendant was lying and that he did know what was going to happen. I think it is difficult to KNOW what others are actually thinking. His actions are consistent with his claims. His actions are consistent with full knowledge. I don't see what evidence could clearly distinguish that he knew. Given that the man did not actively participate in any normal sense of the world, and the uncertainty about his state of knowledge, I find his conviction strange and unfortunate.

Is "I thought her no was just being playful" also an ironclad defense against a rape charge?

I fail to see how this is even remotely analogous. In your hypothetical, the perpetrator physically engages in an observable act of sex and he admits his victim said no. In the actual case, the convicted man claims he was drunk and he thought they were joking. He gives them the keys and goes to sleep. He does not physically engage in crime. There is no analogy between the two.


[

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is non-responsive to my observation. First, despite your claims, you have presented no evidence that the jury did not believe him. Perhaps he was convicted for other reasons. Second, how do you KNOW (or how did the jury KNOW) that the defendant was lying and that he did know what was going to happen. I think it is difficult to KNOW what others are actually thinking. His actions are consistent with his claims. His actions are consistent with full knowledge. I don't see what evidence could clearly distinguish that he knew. Given that the man did not actively participate in any normal sense of the world, and the uncertainty about his state of knowledge, I find his conviction strange and unfortunate.

If the jury believed him they would not have convicted him on the felony murder charge. Ergo, the jury did not believe him. Since I have seen no suggestion of an incompetent defense it seems the jury must have been sure he was lying about thinking they were joking.

Is "I thought her no was just being playful" also an ironclad defense against a rape charge?

I fail to see how this is even remotely analogous. In your hypothetical, the perpetrator physically engages in an observable act of sex and he admits his victim said no. In the actual case, the convicted man claims he was drunk and he thought they were joking. He gives them the keys and goes to sleep. He does not physically engage in crime. There is no analogy between the two. [/QUOTE]

The evidence says he knew they were telling the truth. You're saying his claim that he thought they were just joking should trump this. I simply cast the same logic into another case where the act is either legal or criminal based on what the person believed.

If "I thought they were joking" is a defense against providing resources for a crime then "I thought she was joking" is a defense against rape. (And note that there have been cases where the guy honestly believed he had consent--and it's worked as a defense.)

 

[RavenSky]

You have again ignored my question, and again ignored my point.

You do not have any evidence that this man "actively participated" or "knowingly provided" anything. Moreover, since the jury did not convict him of conspiracy, it appears the prosecutor didn't either.

The question this case raises is whether it is right to convict a man who is NOT an active participant (or co-conspiracist) in a crime should be charged with any crime, much less murder.

Most countries and a few states have enough of a moral issue with charging a person with murder even when they are clearly and obviously guilty of the connected robbery - what on earth makes you so adamant that a man who was NOT shown to have been guilty of the robbery should spend the rest of his life in prison for a murder he didn't commit?

Do most places not have aiding-and-abetting type charges?

yes, that is exactly my point. Why wasn't he charged or convicted of "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting"? Because he wasn't doing those things.

Of course he wasn't convicted of that in this case because it's trumped by the felony murder charge. That doesn't mean he's not guilty of the offense.

That is utter nonsense, not how criminal law works, and you know it