Lend a friend your car, then serve life in prison? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/us/04felony.html?ei=5124&en=e433cbf166ceabf9&ex=1354510800&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1196863422-Xz23EtcdGBFAaX2OiMXoFw)

CRAWFORDVILLE, Fla. — Early in the morning of March 10, 2003, after a raucous party that lasted into the small hours, a groggy and hungover 20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend. That decision, prosecutors later said, was tantamount to murder.

This is absolutely ridiculous! He lets his friends use his car, his friends kill someone, and HE is responsible for murder??

That sux.

It DID say he confessed to knowing about what the other kids were going to do... but their intent wasn't to murder, it just happened, at least that's what it looks like on the report. So he WAS an accomplice, but I don't think he should be charged with murder, only burglary.

It DID say he confessed to knowing about what the other kids were going to do... but their intent wasn't to murder, it just happened, at least that's what it looks like on the report. So he WAS an accomplice, but I don't think he should be charged with murder, only burglary.
So if my friend tells me that he's going to go do heroin, and I am unsuccessful at stopping him, would I be responsible if he overdosed and died?? Hopefully that's not where this is leading. This is insane; you can't be held responsible for the actions of others.

No no noooo.... you didn't help him. The analogy doesn't fit (cue sedan), it would be more like giving him a car to go get heroin, when you know damn well thats what he/she is going to go do.

No no noooo.... you didn't help him. The analogy doesn't fit (cue sedan), it would be more like giving him a car to go get heroin, when you know damn well thats what he/she is going to go do.
So in other words, thoughtcrime?

they charged him with First Degree Murder? He wasn't even with the men who did the killing,how can they have gotten him on First Degree let alone be able to have charged him with it? :confused:

An example of uncivilized mob rule.Even if dude knew,in
premeditated terms,what the actual intent of the those borrowing
the car,it still doesn't come close to in the heat of a crime.
Aiding & abetting would be the proper verdict.But there's still
the matter of premeditation.

The prosecutor offered him a plea deal...10 years. He rejected it.

If you know someone is going to go commit a crime, isnt it your responsibilityas a citizen first, and a friend second, to do everything you can to stop it?

At the very least, you should not provide this person with the transportation to effect their crimes. It's tough that he hung out with trash like that, but thems the breaks.

The prosecutor offered him a plea deal...10 years. He rejected it.
He wasn't guilty of anything. I would have rejected the plea deal too.

The prosecutor offered him a plea deal...10 years. He rejected it.
I probably would have too, since I would have figured that a jury would see how amazingly ridiculous the whole thing was!

If you know someone is going to go commit a crime, isnt it your responsibilityas a citizen first, and a friend second, to do everything you can to stop it?

At the very least, you should not provide this person with the transportation to effect their crimes. It's tough that he hung out with trash like that, but thems the breaks.
Do you actually think that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for that? If so, you are absolutely insane. I could see convicting him for a lesser charge. That would absolutely be warranted.

Do you actually think that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for that? If so, you are absolutely insane. I could see convicting him for a lesser charge. That would absolutely be warranted.
No, it wouldn't. If my friends told me they were going to go steal a safe, I'd laugh and tell them to have fun, thinking it was a joke. He committed no crime. He deserves no charge, no punishment, and no criminal record.

No, it wouldn't. If my friends told me they were going to go steal a safe, I'd laugh and tell them to have fun, thinking it was a joke. He committed no crime. He deserves no charge, no punishment, and no criminal record.
Well he did lend them his car, for the purpose of going to steal the safe. If he were smart, he wouldn't have let them use it. If your friend asked you to borrow your crowbar and said they were going to go bash someone over the head with it, would you give it to them?

Well he did lend them his car, for the purpose of going to steal the safe. If he were smart, he wouldn't have let them use it. If your friend asked you to borrow your crowbar and said they were going to go bash someone over the head with it, would you give it to them?
As I said, I would assume that to be a joke. I would probably laugh and say something like, "Okay, now what do you really need it for?"

He wasn't guilty of anything. I would have rejected the plea deal too.

Providing a means of transportation is not much different than hiring
a driver for a bank job.
You are familiar with Bank job scenario's,I take it.?

I probably would have too, since I would have figured that a jury would see how amazingly ridiculous the whole thing was!

The problem he encountered was that while the jury may not have believed he was as culpable as the rest...it was either find him guilty of murder or let him walk. They obviously didn't think he should just walk. I am surprised he's not eligible for parole.

Providing a means of transportation is not much different than hiring
a driver for a bank job.
You are familiar with Bank job scenario's,I take it.?
I tend to believe him when he says that he had no idea they were actually going to steal a safe.

he obviously trusted his friends enough to think they weren't going to do anything more than score some drugs.
Should he have been charged with anything? I don't think so and definately not Murder 1,he wasn't at the scene of the murder and had no role in it actually. If he's guilty of anything it's trusting his friends and having them screw up.

I tend to believe him when he says that he had no idea they were actually going to steal a safe.

However you DO BELIEVE him when he implied that a Crime would
be committed.? The act of Pot trading er somethin...righto.?
In other words,he dint lend the car for thems ta buy some
bread and milk at a convenient store.

Borg, what you think of your friends and what is going on here have nothing to do with each other.

For all we know, this guy was going to get a cut of the money. He DID lend them the car to do the crime in. He admitted to knowing about the burglary... so he should be charged with that... burglary. The murder is, as dark said, insane. He should definitely not be left off the hook though.

For all we know, this guy was going to get a cut of the money.
"For all we knows" aren't admissible in court. Can you prove it?

However you DO BELIEVE him when he implied that a Crime would
be committed.? The act of Pot trading er somethin...righto.?
In other words,he dint lend the car for thems ta buy some
bread and milk at a convenient store.


the guy admitted he knew his friends were going to buy pot,but not that they were going to murder someone. Theres a big difference between getting slapped for maybe possession to nailing someone for Murder 1 when he wasn't anywhere near the murder

Do you actually think that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for that? If so, you are absolutely insane. I could see convicting him for a lesser charge. That would absolutely be warranted.
No, but then again, I didnt make the rules. I think if he knew they were going to commit a crime, he is culpable for that crime and should be convicted. Like I said, its just his dumb luck that he surrounded himself with trash, and it came back to bite him.

"For all we knows" aren't admissible in court. Can you prove it?
Does he have to hear at allforums? Last I checked this is a place for opinions, not a court of law.

He's also correct. Since none of us here are privvy to all the facts of this case, we have to form imcomplete opinions of what actually happened. For all we know, he did have prior knowledge and was complicit in this crime. The justice system sure feels that way. .

I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are in a better position to decide than a jury which has heard all of the facts.

The prosecutor offered him a plea deal...10 years. He rejected it.

I believe the article said a plea deal "that could have lead to 10 years in prison." So, 10 years was the worst case scenario under the plea deal. That statement would accurately describe deferred adjudication in Texas, which would be the lightest sentence for a first time felon - what I would offer as the prosecutor.

This guy supplied the car for the crime, that makes him culpable. It's just as if he supplied safe-cracking equipment. Now, granted, he had to have intent...he had to know what they were using the car for. The state would have to prove he knew it wasn't a joke. Apparently, the state was able to do that. And if they can do that, he deserves punishment.

I agree that life without parole sounds fishy for a first time offender, but a jury gets to know a lot more about the case than what we can know from an obviously slanted article.

I believe the article said a plea deal "that could have lead to 10 years in prison." So, 10 years was the worst case scenario under the plea deal. That statement would accurately describe deferred adjudication in Texas, which would be the lightest sentence for a first time felon - what I would offer as the prosecutor.

This guy supplied the car for the crime, that makes him culpable. It's just as if he supplied safe-cracking equipment. Now, granted, he had to have intent...he had to know what they were using the car for. The state would have to prove he knew it wasn't a joke. Apparently, the state was able to do that. And if they can do that, he deserves punishment.

I agree that life without parole sounds fishy for a first time offender, but a jury gets to know a lot more about the case than what we can know from an obviously slanted article.

Couldn't agree more, Leper. Seems to be trend among some people here who believe that a person who breaks the law has at least as many RIGHTS as everyone else has. Hard to figure out why they don't understand that if you break the law, you give up some of your RIGHTS and put yourself at the mercy of the judicial system.

Yeah, all sentences are not fair. And yeah, sometimes cops get carried away and go after someone with a taser who refuses to obey their orders. Stuff like that only happens when a person makes the decision to break the law. Sorry, but I have very little compassion for criminals who get treated badly by the 'system.' There's a very easy way to avoid that... don't break the law. If your buddies say, "Hey bro, let us use your car to go commit a crime," just say NO and you'll never have to worry about receiving too harsh a sentence.

Like the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Seems pretty simple to me.

;)
SMW

"For all we knows" aren't admissible in court. Can you prove it?

You should be asking yourself that question... you gave us this grand scenario about how you would have taken the request of "can we borrow your car to steal a safe" by your friends as some kind of joke.. can you prove that's how it went down? I just offered another option.. there are endless reasons and ways on how it went down.. and we don't know.. but your speculation of how it went down based on how you and your friends are is... no offense... rather dimwitted.

the guy admitted he knew his friends were going to buy pot,but not that they were going to murder someone. Theres a big difference between getting slapped for maybe possession to nailing someone for Murder 1 when he wasn't anywhere near the murder
You're absolutely right. If he knew they were going to steal something (which I believe he did), I could see him being charged as an accomplice to burglary or something.

I can't believe the opinions of all you people! If my friends are going to do something bad, I can't believe that it's unacceptable for me to just remove myself from the situation - suddenly it's my responsibility to stop them, or else I'm blamed for their actions too.

Seems to be trend among some people here who believe that a person who breaks the law has at least as many RIGHTS as everyone else has. Hard to figure out why they don't understand that if you break the law, you give up some of your RIGHTS and put yourself at the mercy of the judicial system.

First of all, he DIDN'T break the law! All he did was lend the car to some friends of his, who said they were going to steal a safe (and it said in the article that he didn't believe they were serious, so Borg wasn't just pulling that out of thin air Decka).

And BTW, people accused of a crime DO have rights - that's why we have the 5th and 6th amendments (for those accused of a crime and those on trial). :)

you gave us this grand scenario about how you would have taken the request of "can we borrow your car to steal a safe" by your friends as some kind of joke.. can you prove that's how it went down?
Here is what the article says, quoting the guy:
In a spare office at the prison here, he said that he had not taken the talk of a burglary seriously.

“I honestly thought they were going to get food,” he said of the men who used his car, all of whom had attended the nightlong party at Mr. Holle’s house, as had Jessica Snyder.

“When they actually mentioned what was going on, I thought it was a joke,” Mr. Holle added, referring to the plan to steal the Snyders’ safe. “I thought they were just playing around. I was just very naďve. Plus from being drinking that night, I just didn’t understand what was going on.”

On another note, the article also said that statements he made to police (presumably the statements that he had been told what they were going to do) were the "key to the case". This just proves to me that you should not talk to cops, no matter what. If my friends are suspected of a crime in the future, I think I'm gonna keep quiet so I don't get blamed too.

I can't believe the opinions of all you people! If my friends are going to do something bad, I can't believe that it's unacceptable for me to just remove myself from the situation - suddenly it's my responsibility to stop them, or else I'm blamed for their actions too.

This mischaracterizes the issue. The issue arises when you help your friend do something bad (in this case, by lending him the equipment necessary to do a bad thing) then you share in the responsibility. The issue is further clouded by the idea of felony murder - that anyone involved in the commission of a felony is responsible for the death of a victim during the course of that felony.


First of all, he DIDN'T break the law! All he did was lend the car to some friends of his, who said they were going to steal a safe (and it said in the article that he didn't believe they were serious, so Borg wasn't just pulling that out of thin air Decka).

Well, when you assist someone commit a crime, you break the law. And if the defense attorney could have made a single jury member believe that it was possible that he thought his friends were joking, then he would not be serving any time....it appears that the "I thought they were joking" defense did not fly when all of the evidence was presented....I would guess they have the kid on video tape stating something like "Yeah, I knew they were going to rob the joint." (And probably in a remorseless manner considering the fact that he got the worst sentence possible)

This just proves to me that you should not talk to cops, no matter what. If my friends are suspected of a crime in the future, I think I'm gonna keep quiet so I don't get blamed too.

Well, yeah, as a rule of thumb, it's a bad idea for a suspect to talk to the police if they don't want to be convicted of a crime.

I hear what you're saying, DF.. but this line pretty much sums up the reason the guy found himself in this situation.

"I was just very naïve. Plus from being drinking that night, I just didn’t understand what was going on."

Nobody said law-breakers don't have ANY rights, but they don't have the same rights law-abiding citizens have. For example, if you obey the laws, you'll never once have to worry about whether or not you got a fair sentence when you go to trial... because you won't be going to trial.

;)
SMW

I would guess they have the kid on video tape stating something like "Yeah, I knew they were going to rob the joint." (And probably in a remorseless manner considering the fact that he got the worst sentence possible)
Like I said, that just teaches me and other young people not to say shit to the cops. If I knew a crime was being committed, and the cops come after me to ask what happened, I'll just take the fifth and shut my mouth.

Well, yeah, as a rule of thumb, it's a bad idea for a suspect to talk to the police if they don't want to be convicted of a crime.
Well even if I'm a witness and not a suspect, can I still just not say anything? This guy wouldn't be in jail right now if he'd kept his mouth shut... But are you allowed to not answer questions if you're not actually a suspect?

Well even if I'm a witness and not a suspect, can I still just not say anything? This guy wouldn't be in jail right now if he'd kept his mouth shut... But are you allowed to not answer questions if you're not actually a suspect?

If you're just a witness and definitely not a suspect, that's an entirely different scenario....then I would feel free to talk to the police. Then again, being a witness can come with its own set of inconveniences...

And yes, a suspect can say "I don't want to talk to you" if the police question him....that's the "right to remain silent"...part of the "right against self-incrimination." Of course, that doesn't stop the police from forming beliefs based on your refusal to cooperate, but the fact that you don't talk to the police is not admissable evidence in the case against you.

There's a famous Supreme Court quote that goes something like "Any defense attorney worth a salt will tell his client not to talk to the police"...I think that's from Miranda v. Arizona (the case that spawned the reading of "Miranda" rights) but I could be wrong.

Interesting, Leper. But if the police believe you may be withholding information about a crime, wouldn't the district attorney more than likely subpoena you to testify about what you know?

Interesting, Leper. But if the police believe you may be withholding information about a crime, wouldn't the district attorney more than likely subpoena you to testify about what you know?
Judging by the millions of episodes of Law & Order that I've watched, yes... :p

Interesting, Leper. But if the police believe you may be withholding information about a crime, wouldn't the district attorney more than likely subpoena you to testify about what you know?

If your testimony can incriminate you, then even a subpeona doesn't overcome your right to "plead the fifth." By saying that, you're invoking the fifth amendment right to not incriminate yourself. Of course, when you do that, you're basically acknowledging that you did something incriminating:)

If you're just a witness however, you will be forced to testify....famous case in recent memory is that news reporter who refused to reveal his source regarding the leak of a CIA agent's identity. By refusing to testify, he was found to be in contempt and was held in jail until he was willing to testify.

Well even if I'm a witness and not a suspect, can I still just not say anything? This guy wouldn't be in jail right now if he'd kept his mouth shut... But are you allowed to not answer questions if you're not actually a suspect?
Theoretically, if the police started asking you questions, as a witness, that they know you know the answers to, and you refuse to answer, you could get nailed for obstruction of justice. (More likely, you'll just be subpoenaed.) If you're a suspect, say nothing. If you're a witness, answer their questions.

Theoretically, if the police started asking you questions, as a witness, that they know you know the answers to, and you refuse to answer, you could get nailed for obstruction of justice. (More likely, you'll just be subpoenaed.) If you're a suspect, say nothing. If you're a witness, answer their questions.
But was this guy a suspect? Did he know he was a suspect, if so? Do the cops tell you whether you're a suspect or a witness? I think they just say "We want to ask you some questions."

Here's an analogy that I think is better:

Let's say that my friend asks me to buy him a bottle of iced tea (a glass bottle). I buy it, and he makes what I think is a joke about taking the bottle and going and smashing someone over the head with it repeatedly. Obviously I don't believe him, but he insists and eventually I conclude that he might be serious. He then leaves, and actually kills someone by bludgeoning them with the glass bottle, while I'm off going about my business elsewhere.

This seems like exactly the same sort of scenario as the one in question, right? So I could be held equally responsible for the murder and given the same penalty. Don't you guys think that's ridiculous?

Theoretically, if the police started asking you questions, as a witness, that they know you know the answers to, and you refuse to answer, you could get nailed for obstruction of justice.
Not if those answers could incriminate me, I hope!

Not if those answers could incriminate me, I hope!
Well no, and that's why it's kind of sticky. The Fifth Amendment gives us the "right to remain silent", but that right only exists if you're being investigated for or accused of a crime. You can be compelled by the state to speak if you were uninvolved in the crime.

Well no, and that's why it's kind of sticky. The Fifth Amendment gives us the "right to remain silent", but that right only exists if you're being investigated for or accused of a crime. You can be compelled by the state to speak if you were uninvolved in the crime.

Another tactic the state can use is to grant you immunity to whatever crime you committed so that you can't plead the fifth. But that's a tactic I've only heard of in organized crime cases....grant the middleman immunity so he can testify against the bigwig about all of the crimes they committed together.

But was this guy a suspect? Did he know he was a suspect, if so? Do the cops tell you whether you're a suspect or a witness? I think they just say "We want to ask you some questions."

Well, you can always refuse to talk to the police, barring a subpeona. But those are good questions...if they read him the Miranda rights beforehand, then the police are in the clear. If not, then his statements to the police wouldn't be admissable against him because they're presumed to be involuntary. It can get more complicated depending on the facts.




Let's say that my friend asks me to buy him a bottle of iced tea (a glass bottle). I buy it, and he makes what I think is a joke about taking the bottle and going and smashing someone over the head with it repeatedly. Obviously I don't believe him, but he insists and eventually I conclude that he might be serious. He then leaves, and actually kills someone by bludgeoning them with the glass bottle, while I'm off going about my business elsewhere.

Well, the key difference here is intent. If you gave him the bottle not knowing he was going to attack someone with it, then you don't have the required intent. If you knew (or should have known) he was going to attack someone, then you are an accomplice. Granted, your intent in this scenario is pretty much impossible to prove unless you make an admission about it, or maybe there's a witness there who heard the whole exchange...still not great evidence.



This seems like exactly the same sort of scenario as the one in question, right? So I could be held equally responsible for the murder and given the same penalty. Don't you guys think that's ridiculous?

I'm fairly certain we have an incomplete version of facts in this case. How did the state prove his culpability? That's why I suspect they have him making some admissions on some sort of recording device.

But was this guy a suspect? Did he know he was a suspect, if so? Do the cops tell you whether you're a suspect or a witness? I think they just say "We want to ask you some questions."

Here's an analogy that I think is better:

Let's say that my friend asks me to buy him a bottle of iced tea (a glass bottle). I buy it, and he makes what I think is a joke about taking the bottle and going and smashing someone over the head with it repeatedly. Obviously I don't believe him, but he insists and eventually I conclude that he might be serious. He then leaves, and actually kills someone by bludgeoning them with the glass bottle, while I'm off going about my business elsewhere.

This seems like exactly the same sort of scenario as the one in question, right? So I could be held equally responsible for the murder and given the same penalty. Don't you guys think that's ridiculous?

Main difference here is.. the bottle isn't registered in YOUR name. You have to be much more careful giving someone permission to use your car than you do about worrying what someone does with your trash.

Theoretically, if the police started asking you questions, as a witness, that they know you know the answers to, and you refuse to answer, you could get nailed for obstruction of justice.

Not true. If the police start talking to you, you can say "I don't want to talk to you" and start walking away. If they tell you to stop, ask if you're under arrest. If they say yes, then say you want to exercise your right to remain silent. Police can't force you to talk. Not legally, anyhow.

Nobody said law-breakers don't have ANY rights, but they don't have the same rights law-abiding citizens have.Actually, until a law-breaker is convicted they have exactly the same rights as law-abiding citizens.For example, if you obey the laws, you'll never once have to worry about whether or not you got a fair sentence when you go to trial... because you won't be going to trial.Your example doesn't address the question of rights; rather, it describes a situation where rights aren't needed. And believe it or not, sometimes innocent people are charged with crimes -- that's one of the reasons we have rights in the first place.

I'm fairly certain we have an incomplete version of facts in this case. How did the state prove his culpability? That's why I suspect they have him making some admissions on some sort of recording device.
Hmm, you're probably right. He should've been smarter then!

Not true. If the police start talking to you, you can say "I don't want to talk to you" and start walking away. If they tell you to stop, ask if you're under arrest. If they say yes, then say you want to exercise your right to remain silent. Police can't force you to talk. Not legally, anyhow.
Good to know. I think most people feel that you HAVE to talk to police and obey them no matter what.

And believe it or not, sometimes innocent people are charged with crimes -- that's one of the reasons we have rights in the first place.
You're absolutely right. I bet lots of trials end with a verdict of not guilty!

Hmm, you're probably right. He should've been smarter then!

Yeah, that's why most convicts have low IQs.


Good to know. I think most people feel that you HAVE to talk to police and obey them no matter what.

Yeah, police get a lot of arrests based on the fear of not cooperating. For example, police often ask, "can we search your car" and some people say "yes" because they're afraid of saying "no." Or maybe you're just pulled over for a speeding ticket, the police like to ask,"Do you know what I've pulled you over for?" If you say "speeding," that's practically an admission and you could find that exchange quoted if you fight the speeding ticket in court.

Of course, If you think the police will let you go and t-ey may find something whether you cooperate or not, it may be strategically wise to talk to them...as I'm sure you know, police tend to be harder on people who don't cooperate if they can make something stick.

Actually, until a law-breaker is convicted they have exactly the same rights as law-abiding citizens.

Your example doesn't address the question of rights; rather, it describes a situation where rights aren't needed. And believe it or not, sometimes innocent people are charged with crimes -- that's one of the reasons we have rights in the first place.

That's not true, Sedan. Once you're placed under arrest, whether or not you're actually guility of anything... you instantly lose some of your rights. Like the right to freedom (try walking away) and the right to bear arms (try picking up a gun... even if it's legally registered to you), and so on.

Not sure what you mean by describing a situation where rights aren't needed?

But I agree with one thing... there are times when innocent people are charged with crimes. Just like there are times when guilty people get away with crimes. Nobody said it was a perfect system... the best in the world, perhaps... but far from perfect.

;)
SMW

Just got this via email and thought it made an interesting statement about our 'flawed' justice system. Incidents like this one have alot to do with why some law-breakers are treated rather harshly by law enforcement.

As reported in the Orlando Sentinel, some dirt bag who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up 'executing' the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A statewide manhunt ensued. The low-life was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit the guy 68 times. Now here's the kicker: LOVE THIS!!!! Naturally, the media asked why they shot him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, told the Orlando Sentinel ... 'That's all the bullets we had.'

Another tactic the state can use is to grant you immunity to whatever crime you committed so that you can't plead the fifth. But that's a tactic I've only heard of in organized crime cases....grant the middleman immunity so he can testify against the bigwig about all of the crimes they committed together.

Well I don't like it,because that's what Federal U.S. Attorney Rudy
Giuliani set in place for Salvatore " Sammy the Bull " Gravano,in order
to nail "The Teflon Don." .. John Gotti.
Giuliani became famous for his " Perp walks " and " Case of Cases "
which basically shut down the Mafia in New York.

That's not true, Sedan. Once you're placed under arrest, whether or not you're actually guility of anything... you instantly lose some of your rights. Like the right to freedom (try walking away) and the right to bear arms (try picking up a gun... even if it's legally registered to you), and so on.No one has a 'right' to resist arrest, and barring a court order even a murder suspect retains the right to bear arms until convicted. No one loses any rights because they've been arrested. If anything, their rights under the Miranda ruling are more pronounced. And pulling a gun on a cop is generally a bad idea whether you're under arrest or not.

No one has a 'right' to resist arrest,

And pulling a gun on a cop is generally a bad idea whether you're under arrest or not.
I've a feeling the distinctions will elude her.