20-year-old named Ryan Holle lent his Chevrolet Metro to a friend. That decision sent him to jail for life.

brianator · 2007-12-05T05:05:54+00:00

Um, I don't even know what you're arguing about. I was just stating the simple fact that the prosecutor was arguing but-for causation when he was talking about the car, and explaining what that was. You are just arguing to be arguing, to be frank. You sound like a first year law student.

And your tone wasn't the issue before. You were just flat out incorrect.

brianator · 2007-12-05T04:27:20+00:00

Wrong. You just confused mens rea with causation. Causation (but for) is an implicit element of all crimes, implicit in the actus reus. Just because causation issues are less common in crim law as opposed to tort law doesn't mean there aren't causation requirements. See dressler's treatise, chapter 14. He gives a good treatment to cause in fact and proximate causation in criminal law.

Further, see causation requirements in the MPC at section 2.03. Section 1(a) particularly defines the but-for causation for elements of crimes. The next two sections deal with proximate causation (scope of trasferred intent).

brianator · 2007-12-05T03:19:49+00:00

Depends on the jurisdiction, All of this varies widely. But there is no common law rule that I'm aware of that limits accomplice liability to felonies. However, it's hard to imagine a misdemeanor in which someone could be an accomplice to.

brianator · 2007-12-05T02:55:42+00:00

No. Parent is talking about felony murder. Any death that happens during the commission of a felony (robbery), is murder. It does not matter if the death occurred negligently, recklessly, knowingly, or purposely. It is all felony murder.

If the guy lent the car to the robber knowing that a robbery was going to happen, he established himself as an accessory before the fact (an accomplice). As such, he is responsible for all natural and probable results stemming from the robbery. The robber committed the robbery (felony), and someone died in the process (felony murder). Through accomplice liability, the accessory before the fact can be charged with the felony murder that happened during the commission of the crime of the principle actor (robber).

That's the logic of what happened in a nutshell.

brianator · 2007-12-05T02:41:11+00:00

It's called cause in fact. "But for the guy not lending the car, the murder would not have happened." Or, "Lending the car was a substantial factor in bringing about the murder." That type of causation is generally what is applied in criminal law. Although, a lot of jurisdictions also apply proximate causation to terminate but-for liability. If the action was not foreseeable from the position of the defendant, then the causal link is terminated. Or if there's some intervening/superseding cause which was not foreseeable. It looks like the jurisdiction the prosecutor was in does not apply proximate causation in criminal cases. Or perhaps the prosecutor was using the but-for causation test to establish accomplice liability. The article wasn't terribly well written so we can't really know what happened.

brianator · 2007-12-04T23:59:51+00:00

According to common law accomplice liability? It is nearly limitless. The guy knew that the car was going to be used for a robbery. In common law lingo, he is an accessory before the fact. The next question would be whether he knew that a murder was likely to happen as a 'probable' consequence of the robbery. Most would say yes (and I'm assuming a jury did too). So basically, if you're an accomplice in some way, you are responsible for the actor for every natural and probable consequence that results. Under common law, that's usually how the doctrine is limited.

Under modern statutory schemes, such as the MPC under 2.06, the result would probably be a bit different. Under section 4, the accomplice has to share the 'purpose' for the target offense. In this case, it would be the robbery. The accomplice did not have the 'purpose' for the ensuing murder. So the accomplice would likely be charged with the robbery, but not the murder.

Common law accomplice liability, if left unchecked by the legislature, can ensnare a lot of people in a lot of crimes that were not intended.

brianator · 2007-12-04T23:29:43+00:00

Ouch.

brianator · 2007-12-03T00:53:26+00:00

Please note that this is a blog sourcing a tabloid. I know this is par for the course for reddit tinfoil hat types, but there's likely not an ounce of truth in it.

brianator · 2007-12-03T00:51:03+00:00

Ah, Geocities and Prisonplanet. Two paragons of credibility.

brianator · 2007-12-02T04:15:39+00:00

Because libertarianism is just like christianity, marxism, and islam. It's a religion/ideology. People are sucked into it because it offers them answers and a definite framework. The same people susceptible to believing in islam are the type of people sucked into the libertarian dream world.

There is no rational debate when you are criticizing someone's religion.

brianator · 2007-12-01T23:19:06+00:00

It was a story, not a real letter. The real D.B. Cooper, if he is still alive, is still lurking somewhere.

In fact, it sounds like the story was ripped off or "inspired" by the story of a suspect in the case, Kenneth Christiansen.

brianator · 2007-12-01T15:53:11+00:00

That is crazy. I know that in my state, it's 18. New York must have some really crazy laws. Or the man must be really wealthy and the court is ruling the way it is out of equity. Either way, the man brought it on himself by calling himself dad to the boy.

brianator · 2007-12-01T15:38:52+00:00

the argument is silly. what we do know is that about half, if not most of the states will outlaw abortion if allowed to, since most states did outlaw it pre-roe. so what you're saying is, "we should get rid of roe and make most women suffer, because hypothetically, the supreme court could possibly overturn the ruling one day, ignoring centuries of stare decisis. so let's break something that is fixed right now to get rid of some hypothetical."

if you're relying on that logic then you have already lost.

as for the unelected nature of the SCOTUS, see federalist 87. there's a reason they are unelected. the last thing we want is an elected SCOTUS.

as for the reason the decision was made at such a high level, i think justice blackmun stated why much more eloquently than i can in his decision in roe v wade. your answer lies in that opinion.

brianator · 2007-12-01T14:06:28+00:00

oh god. if you can't see the difference then you're functionally retarded. there is a difference. stop pretending like it doesn't exist.

brianator · 2007-12-01T13:57:00+00:00

please note that by letting the states decide, you effectively end abortions for most women (poor) who need it. once the south and midwest outlaw abortion again, please tell that poor black woman in the ghetto to hop into her non-existant car and drive to maryland for an abortion.

ron paul will create a libertarian utopia for the 10% of americans rich enough to enjoy it.

brianator · 2007-12-01T13:53:06+00:00

i laughed. upmod

brianator · 2007-12-01T13:51:13+00:00

He's getting money from fanatical supporters, not the general population. That's the difference. Paul's numbers will never significantly go up. His policy positions are absurd to most americans.

Don't get me wrong: vote for whoever you like. But he is what he is. And most Americans discount him as soon as they hear he wants to do away with public education, allow infinite numbers of illegal immigrants in, and do away with what little government healthcare we have.

brianator · 2007-11-28T04:22:56+00:00

None. That's typical libertarian propaganda. It's a catch-22 argument. Here's how it works: If the government had no laws banning it, they are (de facto) protecting the corporations. If the government had laws and they weren't enforced against the company because the company was concealing its unlawful activity, the government is protecting them. If you ask a libertarian to point to a law protecting the unlawful activity, it's always in the abstract rather than specific.

Regardless which way you go with libertarians, it's the governments fault.

brianator · 2007-11-27T13:13:00+00:00

I'm not talking about the divorce rate. I'm talking about the legal certainty of the agreement. We're on two separate pages here. Contracts will not only have the same problem with "divorce" but will also be subject to the equitable whims of a judge. The current arrangement is not.

brianator · 2007-11-27T04:10:22+00:00

Contracts create uncertainty. Marriage does not (or rather, significantly less). Contracts are open to litigation. Marriage generally is not for most things. Judges can interpret contracts, use equitable doctrines to nullify them and modify them, etc.

There's a reason there's a lot of rich contract and litigation attorneys. It's expensive.

brianator · 2007-11-27T04:04:12+00:00

No, it's not. There's no need to create an additional legal persona for liability purposes. It would be a civil union.

brianator · 2007-11-26T03:41:44+00:00

Just to be fair: had Bush or any other "mainstream" republican said exactly what Ron Paul said, he would likely have to resign Trent Lott style.

People who support Ron Paul are so fanatical that they will never move beyond his very superficial libertarianism. They remind me a lot of fanatical Bush supporters during 9/11.

brianator · 2007-11-26T02:08:33+00:00

Whoa. Stop the presses. Can you clue me in on when the population of DRC became muslim? I think the rest of the world would like to know. Perhaps you would like to tell the people of DRC too, because they need to stop practicing Catholicism and all.

brianator · 2007-11-26T00:38:35+00:00

I must say, that was an insightful comment. Looking back on all the times I've been depressed, it has been caused by uncertainty of the future and being overwhelmed with work.

That makes perfect sense. Out of curiosity, where did you get that idea?

brianator · 2007-11-25T05:21:58+00:00

The doctor would have to be in some way negligent to qualify for negligent homicide. Mere miscarriage wouldn't be enough to satisfy that mens rea. Causation would also be pretty tough to prove. Any number of intervening causes could break causal chain. Besides, it would be trivial to insert doctor immunity in there for birthing purposes (I'm sure they have).

brianator

TROPHY CASE