Life in prison Without parole. For lending his car to a friend.

[Swede!]

The getaway driver would not know a murder was committed either, since he's just sitting in his car outside the house, so I dont see the big "difference"

hes There. Driving them away from a crime. Being there and Not being there is no difference to you?  

oh well, topic has been covered. Some people agree, some don't and some cant figure out how to read to save their lifes.

[bigbobs]

hes There. Driving them away from a crime. Being there and Not being there is no difference to you?  
oh well, topic has been covered. Some people agree, some don't and some cant figure out how to read to save their lifes.

Not really.  How do you really define "being there?"  The driver can claim he wasn't technically at the crime scene since he was outside of the house.  Even the guys inside the house can who did not commit the murder can claim they weren't "there" at the murder-scene, only committing a robbery.  And what about guys who order crimes to be committed by hiring criminals, and sit at home far away form the crime scene?  They aren't "there" during the crime either but they won't get any slack.

[oldtimer1]

How's this scenario one.  Two guys rob a bank with guns. They agree we won't kill anyone unless we are forced to.  One guy kills the teller. (In the US they are both guilty of murder)

 Scenario two: Two guys rob a bank. One goes in with a gun.  The get away guy doesn't have a weapon. The robber in the bank kills the teller. (In the US they are both guilty of murder)

Scenario three:  We are going to rob a drug dealer. Can we use your car to commit this crime because I can't commit this crime without it?  Sure go ahead. Hey, we killed the drug dealer.  (In the US depending on state and rightly so he's guilty of murder too)

[Dr Dutch]

 Scenario two: Two guys rob a bank. One goes in with a gun.  The get away guy doesn't have a weapon. The robber in the bank kills the teller. (In the US they are both guilty of murder)

These guys would actually get the same sentence in the US...?

[bigbobs]

How's this scenario one.  Two guys rob a bank with guns. They agree we won't kill anyone unless we are forced to.  One guy kills the teller. (In the US they are both guilty of murder)

 Scenario two: Two guys rob a bank. One goes in with a gun.  The get away guy doesn't have a weapon. The robber in the bank kills the teller. (In the US they are both guilty of murder)

Scenario three:  We are going to rob a drug dealer. Can we use your car to commit this crime because I can't commit this crime without it?  Sure go ahead. Hey, we killed the drug dealer.  (In the US depending on state and rightly so he's guilty of murder too)

But of course if person C orders or plans the robbery and intended to get a share of the proceeds he is innocent because "he was not there"  according to swede lol 

[bigbobs]

this guy would NOT have lent his car for free without being promised a portion of the robbery proceeds.

[tbombz]

he should be persecuted for breaking & entering and thats it.

[tonymctones]

big differnece in being There helping and being miles and miles away imo.

mobsters would agree with you...

fact is he knew they were going to rob the ppl, fact is when you rob ppl sometimes shit doesnt go as planned and ppl die...so knowing both of these he knew that by lending them his car somebody could end up hurt or even dead...

I agree its kinda shitty but he made his own bed, we all play by the same rules here.

I love your logic that it may have happened anyway so he should get a lesser sentence. I guess that makes his crime less offensive?

[Hugo Chavez]

Probably admitted to the cops he was aware the "friends" would rob the house after he gave them his car...  Which means he willingly participated in the disaster that followed. Dont be an immature childish moron, as if justice was going to sentence "an innocent man" for nothing. Especially in this day and age.
Arent prisons full of people who ended there "by mistake"  


Edit:

Oh look, when you read the ENTIRE article you can find this;


Looks like i was right!

Stupid m.o.ther.fu.ck.er. Why didnt you quote this part of the article?

Your fucking clueless beyond repair.

[Swede!]

I love your logic that it may have happened anyway so he should get a lesser sentence. I guess that makes his crime less offensive?

 

My comment was basing the punishment on the notion that "no car no crime" is stupid since the car didn't kill anyone. It was just transportation and Im sure they would have gotten there somehow anyway.
And lending your car to a friend isn't a crime.. apparently he Knew what was supposed to go on though. I guess that's a crime..

But I agree with canada.

[Swede!]

this guy would NOT have lent his car for free without being promised a portion of the robbery proceeds.

you have no clue about that do you?
They might have showed up and said we're going to take your car.. he might not have had a choice. Maybe scary friends, maybe he was a bitch. maybe not. we Don't Know. I dont you you don't.

[SLYY]

hes There. Driving them away from a crime. Being there and Not being there is no difference to you?  

There is no difference.

For felony murder, the felony must be an inherently dangerous one, such as burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.

So, why is being there or not being there make no difference?
The reason is, that the death that occurs during an inherently dangerous felony is a foreseeable outgrowth of the defendants' felonious actions.  You know that during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, a murder is foreseeable.  So, whether you drive the getaway car, conspire with others who actually commit the inherently dangerous felony, or act as an accomplice - you still assisted in the inherently dangerous felony.  The death was a foreseeable outgrowth of such assistance.  Your assistance was a part of the reason why the person died and it was foreseeable that such assistance could lead to such a murder.  To reiterate, there is no difference between being there or not being there because the focus is on whether or not you assisted in an inherently dangerous felony that resulted in a foreseeable murder.

The purpose of such a law?  TO STOP INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONIES from occurring.  I take it after reading such an article, American's (who did not already know the felony murder law) will think twice about assisting in any way to an inherently dangerous felony.  That my friend, would be a wonderful result.       

[Swede!]

There is no difference.

For felony murder, the felony must be an inherently dangerous one, such as burglary, arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.

So, why is being there or not being there make no difference?
The reason is, that the death that occurs during an inherently dangerous felony is a foreseeable outgrowth of the defendants' felonious actions.  You know that during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, a murder is foreseeable.  So, whether you drive the getaway car, conspire with others who actually commit the inherently dangerous felony, or act as an accomplice - you still assisted in the inherently dangerous felony.  The death was a foreseeable outgrowth of such assistance.  Your assistance was a part of the reason why the person died and it was foreseeable that such assistance could lead to such a murder.  To reiterate, there is no difference between being there or not being there because the focus is on whether or not you assisted in an inherently dangerous felony that resulted in a foreseeable murder.

The purpose of such a law?  TO STOP INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONIES from occurring.  I take it after reading such an article, American's (who did not already know the felony murder law) will think twice about assisting in any way to an inherently dangerous felony.  That my friend, would be a wonderful result.       

Finally a decent response. Agreed with the last part but still. No parole? not even after 15 years or something?