Unfortunately for the defendant, in his recorded testimony to the police, he stated he saw his buddy place the knife in his waist band.

Moral of the story: if you are going to a gas station to steal more beer for the second time that evening and your friend grabs a knife because you decide you want to also rob the register to pay off the guy delivering the cocaine in another hour; don’t refuse a lawyer and tell the police everything expecting them to let you off easy.

Like Eric_Stepans says, it’s a slippery slope here. The punishment should fit the crime, and this punishment certainly does not-it’s an overreaction of the highest degree.

Know why we have so many people in prison? Because a drunk guy who lends his car to his buddy is given life in prison for first-degree murder. Give me a break.

on a side note, the tone of the article seems to show that the New York Times feels similarly.

I’m sorry, but if “I was drunk” didn’t work that one time I messed around on my girlfriend, it sure as hell shouldn’t work here.

2. None of us likely know the whole story, but if the prosecutor’s argument is really that stupid, then the defense attourney and the jury need a little help. In no way was lending the car a proximate cause of either the robbery or the murder. I am really suspicious of how they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy knew a robbery was going to be committed.

3. This has nothing to do with gun control. Don’t feed the troll.

4. I have talked to many smart, informed people, and I can’t get any hints as to how our criminal justice system got in such a bad state. Obviously, the legislators have gone stupid, but it seems they have been reacting to a screwed up judiciary. What I can’t figure out is what went wrong first, or why.

5. Luckily, the story is not over. The guy can still get appeals, and the governer can commute his sentence. Likely, he will not rot in jail for his stupidity. Did I mention not to lend your car to an idiot?

Mr. Holle was convicted because the jury found that he knew a robbery (not a murder) was going to occur when he lent the car. therefore, he’s responsible not only for the robbery but for everything else that might occur during the robbery. the felony murder rule is ridiculous. i’m totally for full punishment against criminals (in fact, i think most get off too lightly), but the punishment must be based on the person’s own actions and not the actions of others.

there are two big problems for me here:

1) even if Mr. Holle did know a robbery was the plan, he did not know a murder was going to happen (no one did). convicting him of murder punishes for not only something he didn’t actually do, but for something he didn’t even know about. his guilt should be limited to what he knew (robbery).

2) the prosecutor argued no car, no crime; no car, no consequences; no car, no murder. but the robbery and murder occured only a mile and a half from the party where Holle lent the car. Had he not lent the car, the robbers could have gotten there another way. there’s no real causal connection between lending the car and the murder.

finally, the gun shop analogy is even more compelling when one considers that the car was not the weapon used to kill. the car could have been used for anything, and apparantly the most Holle could have known about it was that it was going to be used in a robbery. what if Holle had loaned the killer a sweater that he wore during the murder . . .

the fact that the felony murder rule is based on English common law and has been abolished by every other nation in the world should tell us something . . . it blatantly forfeits the freedom of individuals to be responsible for their own actions only and flirts with the line between expanded criminal responsibility and Eric_Stepan’s slippery slope.

From the TTAC post:

After Holle admitted to the police that he had foreknowledge of the burglary and possible murder, he was convicted of first-degree murder.

That’s the rub. But I agree with someone else that it would seem he’d have been brought up on accessory charges.

Some salient points:

—Mr. Holle had no prior criminal record

—Mr. Holle had loaned his car to the perpetrator many times before.

—Mr. Holle claims he didn’t know that any actual crime was going to occur. Perhaps the perpetrator said something like “Man, if that guy gives me any grief, I’m gonna kill him”. If so, was that a genuine threat or just meaningless boasting?

—Mr. Holle claims he was drunk at the time when he loaned his car to the perpetrator. In some criminal contexts, being drunk is considered being incapable of informed consent. Should that apply here?

Maybe it was as the prosecutor asserts, or maybe Mr. Rolle tossed the keys to the murderer grunting “yeah, sure, whatever” before he passed out in front of the TV.

Once we assert that a perfectly ordinary act (loaning a car to someone) is part of criminal conspiracy, we’re on a slippery slope towards making anything we do a criminal act.

John

If the gun store owner in question had foreknowledge of the crime, then it seems reasonable to assume he could be prosecuted.

Otherwise, I agree with the car dealer analogy…

I don’t think the gun store owner is the right analogy. They didn’t go after the Chevy dealer. The parallel would be a friend who, knowing what he was going to do with it, says, “Here, use my .45.”

I don’t get too sympathetic for murderers or their close associates; call me callous if you will.

I don’t like the felony murder law, and I’m glad we don’t have it here in Canada. Basically this fellow is being held to be as legally culpable as someone who methodically plans and executes a murder. (Isn’t 1st degree murder supposed to imply premeditation?)

At best, I could see 2nd degree or manslaughter, which at least would give him a chance to get out at some point.

John