Loan your car, Go to jail

[NobleSavage]

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.

[/QUOTE=Loren Pechtel;7293]
If I were on the Jury I would have raised holy hell. This guy does not deserve a 30 yr. prison sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

If the jury believed him they would not have convicted him on the felony murder charge.

You don't know that.

Ergo, the jury did not believe him.

That follows from your unsubstantiated assumption.

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.

Probably true, but then again it is irrelevant to the actual fact that he either knew or that he didn't.

The evidence says he knew they were telling the truth. [/quote/ No, the evidence does not show that. You are bootstrapping from the jury's conviction.

You're saying his claim that he thought they were just joking should trump this.

No, I am saying that it is very hard to know what is in someone's mind.

I simply cast the same logic into another case where the act is either legal or criminal based on what the person believed.

No, you didn't apply the same logic, You constructed a poor model. Here is a better model. Suppose I say "I've come to the conclusion from all of your posts, that you know people are truly guilty when a jury convicts them", and I trot out 100s of examples from your posting history to support that claim. And 11 other posters chime in and agree, so that 12 people look at the evidence and they all agree that "LP knows people are truly guilty when a jury convicts them". According to your argument, those 12 people accurately know what is in your mind about this topic.

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.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

You're never charged with two versions of the same charge for the same event. The jury may be offered first degree murder/second degree murder/manslaughter but you would never be convicted of more than one of these for killing one person.

In this case the charges have different names but it's still the same idea--felony murder is a severe form of aiding and abetting.

- - - Updated - - -

If I were on the Jury I would have raised holy hell. This guy does not deserve a 30 yr. prison sentence.

I do agree the sentence is harsh but he was offered a reasonable plea deal and didn't take it.

 

[NobleSavage]

I do agree the sentence is harsh but he was offered a reasonable plea deal and didn't take it.

10 Years as a reasonable plea deal, fuck that. I would have fought for innocence too. I think the only think he lacked was a competent defense attorney.

 

[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

You're never charged with two versions of the same charge for the same event. The jury may be offered first degree murder/second degree murder/manslaughter but you would never be convicted of more than one of these for killing one person.

In this case the charges have different names but it's still the same idea--felony murder is a severe form of aiding and abetting.

You are wrong. This isn't like "lesser included charges". It is a completely separate charge. "Aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy" would have been as to the B&E and robbery. If they couldn't even show that he was a co-conspirator as to the robbery itself, then they shouldn't have been allowed to charge him with the murder.

Are you claiming that someone cannot be charged and convicted of robbery AND murder, because that is essentially what you are saying here.

 

[trunks2k]

A couple things.

Yes, the guy said he didn't believe them. We would expect him to say that because if he said he believed them, he'd be in deep trouble. It's up to the prosecution to present enough evidence to the jury such that the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the robbery was going to take place, despite him saying he didn't believe them. I don't know what additional evidence was presented at trial, so maybe the prosecution didn't present anything that would convince me, but they seem to have convinced a jury. Again, doesn't mean I'd find the evidence to be enough, but you can't just say "He said he didn't think they were serious, ergo, he didn't know what they were going to do".

Now I don't think he should have gotten the sentence that he got. There's a few different levels of offense here. If the culprits had said "hey, lend us a car so we can go rob and kill someone" and he believed them then, yeah, the sentence he got would be appropriate. If the culprits had said "Lend us a car so we can go rob someone" and he believed them, but they ended up killing someone unintentionally, then I'd say his sentence should be fairly harsh, but not what he got. If the culprits had said the latter, but he thought they were joking, then I'd agree that a light sentence may be appropriate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A couple things.

Yes, the guy said he didn't believe them. We would expect him to say that because if he said he believed them, he'd be in deep trouble. It's up to the prosecution to present enough evidence to the jury such that the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the robbery was going to take place, despite him saying he didn't believe them. I don't know what additional evidence was presented at trial, so maybe the prosecution didn't present anything that would convince me, but they seem to have convinced a jury. Again, doesn't mean I'd find the evidence to be enough, but you can't just say "He said he didn't think they were serious, ergo, he didn't know what they were going to do".

Yeah. The jury was convinced, I think there must have been reasonable evidence that he was lying.

Now I don't think he should have gotten the sentence that he got. There's a few different levels of offense here. If the culprits had said "hey, lend us a car so we can go rob and kill someone" and he believed them then, yeah, the sentence he got would be appropriate. If the culprits had said "Lend us a car so we can go rob someone" and he believed them, but they ended up killing someone unintentionally, then I'd say his sentence should be fairly harsh, but not what he got. If the culprits had said the latter, but he thought they were joking, then I'd agree that a light sentence may be appropriate.

Except he knew the robbery plan involved violence--exactly the violence that killed the victim. It's not like the movies, whacking someone over the head to knock them unconscious is a risky proposition.