No woman no cry? Actually, as The New York Times reports, a lot of people were left in tears when Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend– who used it to drive himself and three men to a drug dealer's Florida home, where they murdered the dealer's 18-year-old daughter. After Holle admitted to the police that he had foreknowledge of the burglary and possible murder, he was convicted of first-degree murder. At his trial, prosecutor David Rimmer defended his application of felony murder rules with the rationale in the headline above. The Times highlights the debate over the legal principle, and the difference between American states that adhere to felony murder rules and other country's views on the legal consequences for criminal accomplices. Although the Times fails to mention the fact, one our law enforcement employed readers reckons the stricture helps police get "wheelmen" and "friends of a friend" to cough-up names in capital cases.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
This fella probably is shady if he’s lending his car to folks who he believes will rob and perhaps murder somebody and thus he probably belongs in a jump-suit, but a 1st degree murder conviction seems a bit rough. He came clean to investigators. Life without parole? Good thing for this guy that he wasn’t in Texas lending cars to murderers, and that’s not a jab at Texas.
Would we put the gun store owner in jail for life without parole where they bought the gun (if it wasn’t stolen)? Doubtful. Life seems extreme.
John
In hindsight, I’m sure the guy is wishing he took the deal (he was offered 10 years for those that haven’t read the source article).
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.
Punishment seems a little severe, but I have no problem with this guy getting some significant time. This isn’t like a gun store owner getting in trouble for selling a gun to someone who eventually commits a murder, this is like if someone went to a gun store owner and said, “I want to murder someone, can I use one of your guns?” and the owner saying, “Yes, please use my guns to murder someone, that fits within my moral standards. But give it back when you’re done. And also you can use my horrible subcompact to get there.”
I don’t get too sympathetic for murderers or their close associates; call me callous if you will.
I’m failing to see how anyone could feel bad for this guy. He knew the robbery/murder was going to happen. He did nothing to stop it. In fact, he gave them a car to go do it, so how should he get a lesser sentance? You are right, he is lucky he didn’t do it down here in Texas. You come here and kill someone, we are gonna kill you right back!
My bet is that this guy is a real bad actor. Probably has other criminal charges in his past. He should be put away for a long time IMO.
Would we put the gun store owner in jail for life without parole where they bought the gun (if it wasn’t stolen)? Doubtful. Life seems extreme.
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.”
Would we put the gun store owner in jail for life without parole where they bought the gun (if it wasn’t stolen)? Doubtful. Life seems extreme.
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…
Shouldn’t he have been charged as an accessory to murder (instead of murder itself) if he knew his vehicle was going to be used to commit a crime?
I encourage everyone to read the whole article. This is not nearly so cut-and-dried as others have assumed.
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.
—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?
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.
He should be doing jail time, but only for admitting publicly he owned a Metro.
Eric_Stepans is right . . . the details in the article make it clear that this murder was commited by three others who were attempting a robbery without the intention of killing anyone.
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.
1. If you get involved with idiots, you end up getting spanked over it. Don’t lend your car to an idiot.
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?
About the drunk argument…
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.
Landcrusher:
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.
I don’t know. This is Florida we’re talking about. The governor, DOC and justice system there aren’t known for compassion or leniency.
The man probably didn’t take the 10-year prison sentence deal because he thought the case would surely not succeed.
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.
When I sat on a jury, the judge described it like this: “If the defendant knew his buddy (whom he robbed the gas station with) grabbed a knife on the way to the gas station, he is guilty of armed robbery. If he did not know, he is only guilty of robbery.”
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.