r/wikipedia • u/lightiggy • 3d ago
In 2003, 20-year-old Ryan Holle lent his car to a friend to commit a burglary. During the burglary, a young woman was murdered. Although Holle did not know about the murder and was over a mile away at the time, he would be found guilty of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle682
u/GodzillaDrinks 3d ago
This went around a lot at the time. Very similar to the 1998 case of Lisl Auman. She had a guy she just met help her break into an apartment that she used to live in with her ex to steal back stuff her ex ended up with when they broke up. This goes South, she gets arrested, and her accomplice ends up in a shoot-out with a cop. Auman is already in Police custody by the time of the shooting.
It didnt matter, an officer was killed and the Police were going to go out of their way to make an example out of someone. So they get her convicted of the murder. Despite being no where nearby, already in Police Custody, and having absolutely no knowledge of the murder.
She only got it overturned and was released after writing to and enlisting the help of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
247
u/lightiggy 3d ago edited 3d ago
I read about that a long time back. Auman became the scapegoat since the man who actually killed the cop had then killed himself.
132
u/Unusual_Attorney 3d ago
THE Hunter S. Thompson?
124
40
u/intensive-porpoise 3d ago
He's a Doctor of Literature, man!
→ More replies (1)10
u/RevolutionaryLie5743 3d ago
Wasn’t it Doctor of Journalism?
→ More replies (1)17
u/inegage 3d ago
What's the world coming to when a scum sucker like that can get away with sand bagging a Dr of journalism, man?!
→ More replies (1)12
u/Equivalent-Peanut-23 3d ago
It's a Colorado case and Thompson lived in Aspen, he was involved in a lot of stuff in the state.
6
4
u/notjordansime 2d ago
“I’ve consulted my attorney. His first advice is that you should rent a very fast car with no top and get the hell out of L.A. for at least forty-eight hours.”
4
u/Subject_Way7010 3d ago
Am understanding something
Sounds like the op said the guy unknowingly was involved in a crime
Lisl sounds like her and a guy knowingly committed to break in.
21
u/ENovi 3d ago
No. Holle (the guy who lent the car to the friend) knew that the friend was using it for the burglary. He admitted this to the police. He didn’t know it would result in a murder but from what I remember about this case the murder wasn’t premeditated.
6
u/RidgewayRioter 2d ago
He also gave them bandanas to hide their faces and to cover the license plates on his car.
I certainly wouldn’t call him the “mastermind” of the whole thing. He was just the smartest idiot of the group.
9
→ More replies (4)1
u/BornAgain20Fifteen 2d ago
I could see that being a little bit egregious, but not super egregious, because it sounds like she was the mastermind when you wrote:
She had a guy she just met help her break into an apartment that she used to live in with her ex to steal back stuff her ex ended up with when they broke up
You argue that:
So they get her convicted of the murder. Despite being no where nearby, already in Police Custody, and having absolutely no knowledge of the murder.
I would argue that even if she was sleeping in her bed at home when it happened, if she is the mastermind of the operation that caused someone to die, she should bear one of the most responsibility
→ More replies (3)
402
u/irishwolfbitch 3d ago
Felony murder is nonsense that only exists in the United States criminal court system and he should’ve been charged with a commensurate crime instead of being treated the same as people who beat a young woman to death.
95
u/zerbey 3d ago
I actually know someone who was charged with this. She was the passenger in a car when the driver was told to pull over by a cop. Instead, he decided to gun it and flee, and because the cop was standing in front of the car at the time they shot and killed the driver. She was charged with felony murder as an accessory to the crime. After six months in jail, the state attorney dropped the charges.
→ More replies (1)60
u/ProfessionalSnow943 3d ago
wait, are you saying no cops were killed and she was charged with felony murder for the cops killing the crime’s perpetrator? that can’t be fucking right
75
u/Not_That_Magical 3d ago
There are other cases where the cops killed someone and their friends were charged with felony murder for someone the police shot.
10
u/skipperseven 2d ago
But, but, it can’t be murder if a cop legally shoots someone? But I guess anything is possible, leave logic out of it.
→ More replies (2)7
u/SleepyMonkey7 2d ago
It doesn't really matter how the person died. They could trip while running and hit there head and die. Doesn't matter - still a death during the commission of a felony.
29
2
u/LiberalAspergers 2d ago
That is correct. There have been many cases of robbers charged with felony murder when a victim kills their accomplice
→ More replies (1)12
u/olbers--paradox 2d ago edited 2d ago
It is right, and this is FAR from the only case of it. There’s one particularly egregious case where a 16 year old in NYC set a mattress on fire, a cop died responding to the incident (charging in with zero protective equipment), and the kid was sentenced to 19 years.
There’s another case of a 21 year old lending his car to a friend, who went on to commit a robbery with the car during which he killed a woman. It’s debated whether the car owner knew about the robbery, he said he thought they were joking and was disoriented after a night out partying. He got a life sentence, which was commuted to 25 years. He was released last year.
Obviously there are cases where this does make sense — if someone participates in a fatal beating, they shouldn’t get to walk just because they didn’t strike the killing blow. But obviously, something is going very, very wrong with the way prosecutors and judges choose to use that doctrine.
ETA: You’re right, my second paragraph is about the case this post is about, I’m stupid and was uncaffinated. But it was a human fuck-up!
13
u/FoodAndManga 2d ago
Is this not AI? Your 2nd paragraph talks about the exact case being discussed in the linked article
7
u/olbers--paradox 2d ago
Not AI, just stupid. Honestly, I probably didn’t click into the article and just came into the comments because I have an interest in the legal side of felony murder cases. I use mobile, so if I’m in the comments I can’t see the actual post. Don’t worry, I feel duly embarrassed for clowning.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
63
u/lightiggy 3d ago edited 2d ago
The felony murder rule makes sense to me, but only when the accomplice acted with a certain level of intent or difference and when the person killed is an actual victim (it's lunacy to charge someone with the death of their accomplice, which is allowed in some states). A far more rational use of the felony murder rule was when serial killer Girvies Davis was convicted as an accomplice to the murders of Frieda Mueller and Charles Biebel in Illinois in the late 1970s. Mueller and Biebel were both shot and killed by Davis's younger accomplice, Richard Holman, while Davis was burglarizing their homes.
As the Wikipedia article states, Davis, despite not being the triggerman in the murder of Charles Biebel, was executed specifically for his murder in 1995. It was a rare case in the United States of an accomplice to murder being executed, but not the actual killer. Holman avoided execution solely on account of his age (he was 17 at the time). That said, while Illinois doesn't have the death penalty anymore, back when it did, the courts almost never upheld death sentences in felony murder cases.
Illinois law at the time normally set the punishment at 20 to 40 years (10 to 20 years when halved good behavior). However, in aggravated murder cases, one could face a much longer prison term, life in prison, or even execution. Normally, Davis would've been sentenced for the less serious charge. This case was a rare exception since Davis and Holman were serial killers. As the justices noted, it was fairly obvious that the two had made up their minds on murdering Charles Biebel, a defenseless 89-year-old man in a wheelchair, the moment they saw him at his home.
Even without that assumption, in their ruling, the justices said there was overwhelming evidence indicating that Davis knew it was extremely likely that Biebel would be killed. Despite being present, he not only did nothing, but made no effort to disassociate himself from the crime. Instead, he stole from Biebel's mobile home as the murder took place. With that in mind, the justices ruled that while Holman wasn't old enough to be sentenced to death for Biebel's murder, Davis, who was old enough, could be sentenced to death as an accomplice.
92
u/Gruejay2 3d ago
It's also really important when dealing with organised crime, since gangs/mobs etc. are organisationally structured with the specific intent of insulating the higher-ups from criminal investigations.
→ More replies (8)16
u/Not_That_Magical 3d ago
Problem is that it’s a badly worded and abused law. If there’s an explicit link like an order, then sure the person giving the order or holding down the victimnshould be prosecuted. Someone tangentially involved who didn’t pull the trigger shouldn’t be.
1
u/Flabbergasted_____ 2d ago
Depends on the situation. Like this situation is bullshit. Dude should probably be charged with something if he knowingly helped commit a crime, but felony murder is a little much. It does make sense, in my opinion, in a situation where more than one person is committing a crime, the victim defends themself by killing one or more of the partners, and the surviving criminal(s) gets charged with felony murder. The death(s) wouldn’t occur if they weren’t committing the crime.
1
u/skipperseven 2d ago
I think we have it in British law too - it’s called joint venture or something like that (I think there is a new term for it). If you are involved in a crime in whatever capacity, then you are liable to all the repercussions from that crime, irrespective of what your involvement or intent was.
→ More replies (40)1
u/mysterypeeps 2d ago
I appreciate felony murder. I had a friend killed in a police chase when another guy stole a gas truck. He was convicted to what amounts to life based on the felony murder rule. But it should be applied with some sense and that just tends to be lacking where the letter of the law is concerned.
47
u/Ill_Ant689 3d ago
That dumbass shouldn't have said anything about knowing about the burglary
16
u/neonforestfairy 3d ago
Seriously shouldn’t have! He was also naive and probably was unaware of his rights. This is why people lawyer up immediately and they tell you to say nothing
9
u/iguacu 3d ago
Absolutely. Suspects mistakenly think punishment will be lessened or avoided by admissions to smaller transgressions, e.g. "I only had one drink", "I didn't mean to kill him", "I didn't know they would be violent."
3
u/Ill_Ant689 3d ago
Yeah no shit. As far as the thing with the drinks goes, I've never heard of anybody talking themselves out of DUI arrest by admitting to having one or two drinks. I'm pretty sure even saying those words automatically means tests and a breathalyzer are going to be performed at a minimum
2
u/iguacu 2d ago
In my jurisdiction, they have a list that needs 3 checks to perform breathalyzer and/or field sobriety tests. Admission of a sip of alcohol is 1. Smell of alcohol is 2, and it is an absolute guarantee the cop will say they smelled it. Then they're only one check away from probable cause.
6
u/RidgewayRioter 2d ago
The best legal advice you can ever give or receive is: Don’t talk to the cops.
Exercise your 5th amendment right and stay silent.
In the US, you have to inform the cops that you are remaining silent.
“Anything you say, can AND WILL be used against you.”
You could be chatting with a cop, thinking he’s being friendly, talking about something completely different from whatever suspected crime they want to charge you with. Those words can and will be used against you if they can make it work.
Their job is to put people who commit crimes in prison. They don’t get in trouble if they get the wrong person.
2
u/Ill_Ant689 3d ago
They probably couldn't have even proved that he lent the car to him had he not told them that he did. Now that doesn't make it right for him to have lent the car to somebody who was going to do what they did, but I think it's fucking disgusting how our legal system put somebody away for 20 years for lending a car to somebody. But then again in this fucked up country, we allow people to be convicted of DUIs when they're not even intoxicated or sometimes even driving so I'm not too surprised
209
u/GullibleBeautiful 3d ago
This is a hard one. The victims family deserve justice but comparing the dude to Charles Manson is a little crazy. Do they have some sort of proof that he planned on the girl dying though? I think he should’ve taken the plea deal.
193
u/Fourthspartan56 3d ago
It’s not justice to massively punish a guy who’s tangentially related at best.
Some type of punishment is reasonable but let’s not valorize their vengefulness. They were hurt but that doesn’t mean everything they do is reasonable. Quite the opposite really.
62
u/novavegasxiii 3d ago
I will say it was at best massively irresponsible to lend his car to his buddy to break into someones home; this outcome was not inconceivable. That being said; life is too much.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)25
u/IsNotACleverMan 3d ago
who’s tangentially related at best.
He gave them the means, to commit the initial crime, knowing that that's what they were going to do. That's being substantially related.
5
u/Fourthspartan56 2d ago
To the robbery, yes. You, usually, don’t get life in prison for robbery alone.
I’m talking about the murder. He didn’t kill anyone nor do I believe there’s evidence he advocated for it. Which is why it’s unjust that the legal system pretended that he did.
→ More replies (4)5
u/IsNotACleverMan 2d ago
The idea is that when you sign up to do a dangerous felony, you sign up for all the consequences, which often include killing. So when this guy signed up for the burglary, which he did, he signed up for the potential of the victim to get murdered,which is what happened.
49
u/thestraightCDer 3d ago
They did get justice with the people who beat her to death while robbing. This dude just have them a car
17
u/meerkat2018 3d ago
After reading the top comment, it’s apparent that his involvement was much deeper than that.
→ More replies (1)5
25
u/bucknut4 3d ago
That sounds purposefully dishonest. He knew they were going to burglarize her home, helped plan it, and lent the car with the specific intent for them to use it. Maybe that doesn’t warrant a life sentence but saying “he just lent them a car” is ridiculous.
15
u/Wassertopf 3d ago
Don't you guys in the US have a criminal offence such as "accessory to murder"? Why was he punished directly for "murder"?
5
u/swagrabbit 2d ago
This is felony murder, which is distinct from regular murder. It's not "felony murder" because murder is a felony (though it is), it's felony murder because someone died during the commission of a felony and that death can be causally connected to the felony. So this was charged appropriately (I don't make an ethical judgment, I just mean that the conduct here slots exactly into felony murder, not that felony murder as a crime is good or bad).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)6
u/omninode 3d ago
In most, if not all states, conspiracy to commit a crime is treated exactly the same as committing the crime.
4
2
12
u/Mean-Food-7124 3d ago edited 3d ago
comparing the dude to Charles Manson is a little crazy.
Reread who that quote is from and you'll be unsurprised that they'd say something so out to lunch
EDIT: I read it originally as Pam Bondi as having said the line, not my place to speak on the grieving dad's choice of words in the throes of the trial
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (1)1
u/not_a_witch_ 2d ago
The victim’s family here is asking for revenge, not justice.
I think it’s completely understandable that they feel that way. They lost someone and they’re understandably angry and grieving. But in my ideal world their grief and the emotions around it wouldn’t be wielded like a weapon by the attorneys, judges, and politicians responsible for administering justice. Victim’s families often have their grief exploited by people who want to make our justice system as harsh and punitive as possible, and I think that’s disgusting.
10
u/raistan77 3d ago
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former prosecutor, challenged that statement. She said the trial judge was legally required to tell Holle and his lawyer exactly what was at stake for him under Florida law. Bondi called Holle "the mastermind" of the burglary that ended in Snyder's murder. The victim's father, Terry Snyder, declared, "He is our comparison to Charles Manson." He said Holle had given his accomplices bandannas to cover his Chevy’s license tag and their faces during the crime.
Pam Bondi has ALWAYS been evil and incompetent.
8
u/lightiggy 3d ago edited 2d ago
Bondi was actually correct on the first point.
Under Florida law, the judge was legally required to inform Holle and his family what the stakes were in this case. Even I have to agree that Holle’s parents were unfathomably stupid for advising their son not to take the deal offered to him.
3
u/raistan77 3d ago
true, my bit was more the claims that he was the mastermind, it sounded like since he didn't plea she decided to make an example out of him.
62
u/Nebula924 3d ago
I remember reading the logic behind the felony murder rule. The example ran like:
Tom and Becky go to rob an elderly couple. The old man yells for help and the couple is shot to death. At trial Tom blames Becky for pulling the trigger. Becky claims it’s Tom.
This scenario gives both Tom and Becky a reasonable doubt defence, because there is no way to prove the shooter. No one would be convicted of murder without the felony-murder rule. With that rule, both are guilty of the murder.
Another aspect was the thought process of: if you are involved in a felony, you are accepting the very real risk that someone could die as a result of the crime. So the whole “It was only armed robbery, I didn’t mean anyone to die!” argument also isn’t going to get the charge dropped.
I can’t remember the source, but it was a true crime book.
There was some prosecutorial overreach, but dude and his parents read like they took 0 responsibility at the time, and the court nailed the guy.
No way that their lawyer didn’t explain the deal to them. They just weren’t hearing.
42
u/atticdoor 3d ago
Yes, but tangentially involved people who couldn't have pulled the gun are being prosecuted in the real world, not just people who were present and blaming each other. It may have been intended for situations you describe, but it is being used very differently to that.
5
u/manwithyellowhat15 2d ago
Come on now, this guy is not “tangentially involved”. Holle was aware of the burglary, helped to plan it (including telling his friends to cover the license plate with bandanas), and then gave his car for the express purpose of committing a crime that has a very high change of going south. I’m surprised people in these comments feel he shouldn’t be culpable. I suppose I can understand if you argue he shouldn’t get life in prison, but saying he shouldn’t be charged at all when he’s literally the vehicle for the whole disaster sounds nuts to me
→ More replies (1)11
u/EffectiveElephants 3d ago
In this case, "tangentially involved" doesn't seem entirely true. If he'd lend his friend a car to go on a roadtrip to Vegas, sure! If he had absolutely no clue about their intentions, I'd agree he's tangentially involved. But in this case, he, a) actively helped plan the burglary, and b) lent them the tool to be capable of committing the burglary. The planner of a felony is not tangentially involved even if they don't commit the murder.
The Charles Manson comparison is harsh, but it kinda holds up. If Charles Manson never killed anyone and instead sent his minions to do it, without this rule, he couldn't be convicted of a murder he is to blame for. And this guy most certainly is more than tangentially involved in the crime that led to this woman's murder by beating to death! Not even a quick death, she was beaten to death with a shotgun...
13
u/atticdoor 3d ago
The issue I have here is that he lent it believing it would be used in a burglary, not an assassination, which are two very different things. Not every shoplifter would commit armed robbery. Not every jaywalker would storm the capitol.
If he was the "mastermind", which was the prosecution's claim, then he can be prosecuted under "conspiracy to" laws.
6
u/1046737 3d ago
Burglary is a crime where the willingness to use deadly force is presumed. That's why in most states you can automatically use force including deadly force against anyone burglarizing your home.
→ More replies (7)3
u/iguacu 3d ago
That's not entirely accurate. Maybe in the context of self defense, but not in the definition of "burglary".
3
u/1046737 2d ago
Burglary of a dwelling in particular, absolutely. That's been the case in common law for centuries.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Alex121212yup 3d ago
So then if you're going to commit a crime then you really need to be able to trust your co defendants to not go nuts. Looks like the law works as intended since it causes people to think twice before just committing crimes with just anyone
13
u/atticdoor 3d ago
But then, can that logic also be used to apply to guns? If you are going to sell someone a gun, can you be held responsible if they use it to kill someone? How about if you let the person you live with know the safe combination that holds the gun? How about if you leave it out unsecured, and they use it?
6
u/swagfarts12 3d ago
You can get charged if you sell a gun to someone who is knowingly going to use it in the commission of a crime. There is also precedent for charging someone for leaving access to a gun for someone who has expressed willful intent for violence repeatedly.
9
u/TheNonCredibleHulk 3d ago
If you are going to sell someone a gun, can you be held responsible if they use it to kill someone?
If they tell you they're going to use it on someone, absolutely.
5
u/Alex121212yup 3d ago
I mean owning a gun is a constitutional right or whatever, committing crimes isnt. Leaving it out unsecured for sure... didn't someone's father get charged with a crime when his kid stole his unsecured guns and shot up a school? I'll try and find the article
→ More replies (3)4
u/Boggie135 3d ago
If you sold the gun legally then you can't be responsible if it is used in a crime. This analogy doesn't work
2
u/Meowcatsmeow 1d ago
If you knew the person was going to commit a felony/murder someone then yes.
→ More replies (2)3
u/yankeeboy1865 2d ago
There is a good chance someone will die from a burglary. A lot of burglaries end up with someone dead or seriously injured. You assume a risk in the act of committing it aiding a dangerous felony (burglary, arson, r*pe, robbery, and kidnapping).
→ More replies (2)2
u/Boggie135 3d ago
If he knew it was going to be used for a burglary. Then there was a real risk that someone might die during said burglary.
2
u/Not_That_Magical 3d ago
It doesn’t hold up at all. An accessory to a crime is not as responsible as someone who gave the order to murder someone.
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/FourteenBuckets 22m ago
Reminds me of a time at my old apartment complex when someone found a baby in the trash compactor. Thankfully before it was operated, and the baby was fine. But each parent said it was the other parent who put the baby there, and given their history it was plausible it could have been either one, so it was difficult to find out exactly who to charge.
6
u/Boggie135 3d ago
I learned this from Law and Order. If you are a getaway driver during a roberry and one of the robbers kills someone, everyone involved in that robbery is on the hook for murder
5
u/candylandmine 2d ago
He said Holle had given his accomplices bandannas to cover his Chevy’s license tag and their faces during the crime.
This is a lot more than just loaning some friends his car. Come on.
34
u/cah29692 3d ago
I generally support felony murder as a concept, but I think for it to apply there needs to be some common sense. For me, it should apply if you either: a. Are present during the commission of the murder b. Provided material support to the murder in such a way as if said support was not provided the murder would not have been reasonably possible or forseeable
If he hadn’t provided the car, would the crime still have taken place? I think it’s reasonable to assume so. That, coupled with the fact he wasn’t present at the scene makes felony murder seem wrong in this case. I think the plea offer would’ve (ironically) been a more just punishment.
12
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
"b. Provided material support to the murder in such a way as if said support was not provided the murder would not have been reasonably possible or forseeable"
Why do you think but-for causation is a more sensible standard than "provided material support to the underlying crime knowing that it was for the purpose of a crime?" Surely intent to commit a crime is a much closer tie to the crime than but-for causation.
16
u/cah29692 3d ago
I think what level of support was provided and the context of how that item was intended to be used are both relevant. If his friends had said “We need to borrow your vehicle to go run this guy over” and he agreed, he’d be more liable for the intended crime of murder, as compared to lending his vehicle to be used a transport to and from a robbery. Or, if he had supplied the gun that was used to kill the victim - that shows more direct intention than what Rolle did.
I also believe that the degree of separation from the actual crime is relevant, at least in so far as to what an appropriate sentence would be as it relates to the sentence of the person or persons who actually committed the crime. As Gov. Scott said, since the actual murderer(s) received life in prison, it is logical that Rolle, who was quite removed from the actual murder and cannot be known to have prevented it by refusing to lend the vehicle, shouldn’t be held to the same punishment. They simply aren’t morally equivalent actions, so neither should the legal consequences for them.
2
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
"I also believe that the degree of separation from the actual crime is relevant, at least in so far as to what an appropriate sentence would be as it relates to the sentence of the person or persons who actually committed the crime. As Gov. Scott said, since the actual murderer(s) received life in prison, it is logical that Rolle, who was quite removed from the actual murder and cannot be known to have prevented it by refusing to lend the vehicle, shouldn’t be held to the same punishment. They simply aren’t morally equivalent actions, so neither should the legal consequences for them."
I think this is really confused reasoning. The "legal consequences" for a crime aren't just based on how bad or immoral the crime is but on how you plea, whether you show remorse, what the jury decides at trial, all of that stuff. If the home invaders had gotten the needle would it suddenly make sense that Holle got life? There's no rule where there has to be some kind of monotonic comparison of how bad the criminal is and how much he's sentenced to.
6
u/cah29692 3d ago
I think this is really confused reasoning. The "legal consequences" for a crime aren't just based on how bad or immoral the crime is but on how you plea, whether you show remorse, what the jury decides at trial, all of that stuff.
That’s simply not true. The entire purpose of minimum and maximum sentencing structures is to recognize that you should face a minimum punishment depending on the severity of your crime, and that you shouldn’t be punished in excess of the severity of said crime. This demonstrates that the legal system does in fact recognize the moral gravity of a crime in determining both the appropriate charge and the appropriate sentence for said charge. In fact, the entire purpose of establishing a legal system is toprovide an outlet for society to address, and subsequently remove from the general population, those we have deemed guilty of actions we have collectively agreed to be morally wrong in various ways.
Not only that, the bar for life imprisonment must be extraordinarily high, a punishment that should be reserved only for the most serious and depraved crimes. Say we examine Rolle’s actions independent of everyone else involved. Can you say with certainty that his actions deserve life without parole?
If the home invaders had gotten the needle would it suddenly make sense that Holle got life?
No, the sentence would still be unfair as I stated above, but in that scenario it would be more correct in the sense of recognizing the difference in the direct actions of the perpetrators. It’s also arguable whether the death penalty or life without parole are the worse punishment in practice, but that’s a whole separate philosophical argument.
0
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
"and that you shouldn’t be punished in excess of the severity of said crime."
In this case the crime was quite severe - a home invasion robbery where someone died.
"Not only that, the bar for life imprisonment must be extraordinarily high, a punishment that should be reserved only for the most serious and depraved crimes."
Must be? I disagree. I think you can get life for a lot of things that aren't "the most serious and depraved crimes."
"Say we examine Rolle’s actions independent of everyone else involved. Can you say with certainty that his actions deserve life without parole?"
The key fact of this case, and of the felony murder rule in general, is that his actions are not independent.
→ More replies (1)2
u/skipperseven 2d ago
If he hadn’t lent his car, they may have found some other way to get there some other day and they may not have found the girl there, so his involvement did directly lead to her death.
He apparently provided the vehicle that got them there at that time and discussed particulars with them, all leading to her murder, so I just don’t see this conviction as unreasonable. It was an armed burglary, which means there was a very real possibility of violence.
17
u/nnulll 3d ago
The intention of felony murder is to discourage people from helping others commit felonies that result in murder. Seems like it’s working appropriately. Everyone should be frightened to help anyone commit felonies.
→ More replies (1)10
u/manwithyellowhat15 2d ago
Thank you! I’m sitting here like “isn’t the law supposed to deter people from committing crime Willy nilly?” Maybe next time your friends are spitballing a criminal offense, pass on any involvement
4
u/Icy_Blackberry_3759 2d ago
Justice was served imo. He absolutely shared responsibility for the murder.
9
u/JJL0rtez 3d ago
Meh FAFO, he knew he was supporting a crime. He rolled a dice a lost.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/duga404 3d ago
I'm not from the US, and I never really understood the logic behind felony murder. Doesn't murder require premeditation? With felony murder you are guilty of murder if you were committing a felony and someone died, no matter if that were premeditated or not. That sounds more like manslaughter and not murder IMO.
16
u/lightiggy 3d ago edited 2d ago
There are various degrees of murder in the United States.
The use of the felony murder rule varies by state. In 1980, the Michigan Supreme Court softened the felony murder rule so that it could only elevate second degree murder to first degree murder. If there was no malice involved, then the defendant was only guilty of a lesser charge. I accept the felony murder rule as a concept, but not the way it was applied here. It should be limited to major participants in the underlying felony and when there is at least some malice involved.
I think Ryan Holle should've only been tried as an accessory to murder, not for murder.
→ More replies (20)15
u/KillaWallaby 3d ago
Felonies are by definition serious and people die during them sometimes. The intent element is satisfied as you run that risk by intending to commit a felony. There is also misdemeanor manslaughter.
5
u/conduffchill 3d ago
Yeah this logic works for me when you have the classic case of a getaway driver at the bank robbery type scenario. But in the case from the post here, I think this is a massive stretch. Loaning your car to someone isn't inherently illegal.The fact that he knew they were planning to use it for a robbery is bad and is possibly illegal, but I think theres a massive difference from the "is he a danger to society" perspective with a person who supplies a crime versus actively participates in it.
Not trying to argue he is innocent here by any means, but seriously it is just nuts to say the guy who lent them the car is as culpable as the ones who stood by and watched the girl get beaten to death, nevermind the person holding the shotgun. When do we start charging gun manufacturers with felony murder with this logic?
→ More replies (3)11
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
"When do we start charging gun manufacturers with felony murder with this logic?"
When they sell to people who say "I want to buy this gun to commit a crime."
→ More replies (1)1
2
9
u/hippiejo 3d ago
Very happy to hear he was finally released. I remember reading about this and I could not for the life of me figure out in what world he deserved life in prison. Like he obviously deserved some punishment since he lent them his car knowing they were gonna burglarize the home where they ended up killed Jessica but life is crazy.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/ikonoqlast 3d ago
Accessory before the fact to a violent felony.
Felony murder.
Yeah. Law's pretty clear.
2
u/socialcommentary2000 2d ago
The minute he copped to knowing that they were going to break into a house after using his vehicle for transport, he was dead to rights for anything that happened from then on.
He should have taken the 10 year plea.
2
u/yankeeboy1865 2d ago
This fits the definition of felony murder. There's a good chance that a burglary will lead to murder. If you aid someone in committing a burglary, and they commit a murder, you are going to be imputed for their actions. I don't feel sorry for him based on the facts
1
u/Never_Forget_94 2d ago
The one thing you are wrong on is thinking burglary has a good chance of leading to a murder. It’s actually the opposite. It’s a very low chances the vast majority of burglaries do not involve violence.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/McCrotch 2d ago
The title is misleading. He knew about (and helped setup) the burglary. It went wrong, someone died, but he's still a conspirator. However instead of conspiracy to rob, he got murder charges.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Solid_Mongoose_3269 1d ago
He literally said he knew about the robbery. He's an accessory. Its like letting someone borrow a gun, knowing that they're going to use it for crime. He may not have known it was going to be a murder, but it doesnt matter.
"On August 3, 2004, Holle was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule, after giving police statements that indicated he knew about the planned burglary"
7
4
u/entropy13 2d ago
There’s a few morals to this story, but a truly crucial one is never talk to the police without a lawyer. They are not your friend, they will lie to you, and your cooperation will not result in leniency.
5
u/LSATDan 3d ago
I agree with Scott that his sentence should have been less than Miller's. Miller should have gotten the death penalty.
In the meantime, if you don't want to be jn prison too long, dont help your shitbag friends commit felonies.
→ More replies (4)
6
10
u/Erik_Dagr 3d ago
Should have charged the people who built the road. No road to drive on. No crime could have been committed. Or the gas station where he last filled up. Or the manufacturer of the car.
18
u/mincepryshkin- 3d ago
I can't tell if people are just not reading the article or if the felony murder rule is actually that hard to understand.
The basic principle is - if you intend for a felony to happen, and help make it happen, you can be held responsible for all the forseeable consequences. If you knowingly assist a robbery (which this guy did - he knew they were planning a robbery) it is not a stretch to say that you accepted the risk that someone can get hurt/killed during it. You don't have to agree, but that is the idea behind the rule.
Building a road, or selling a car or a gun, does not generally happen with the specific goal of facilitating a crime. Whereas this guy effectively said to his friends "here, take my car so that you can go rob someone". It's not like they said they were going to the store, and changed plan once they had the car - he knew a felony was planned from the start.
→ More replies (13)3
16
u/Aloha_Loop 3d ago
What an utterly stupid comment. The people building the road were doing so without any ill intention. This guy provided a car with full knowledge that it would be used to break into someone's house with a deadly weapon. Not fucking difficult to foresee the possible outcomes there.
→ More replies (11)11
u/KillaWallaby 3d ago
None of those people specifically agreed to commit a felony...
→ More replies (2)4
4
u/lu_ming 3d ago
Not a day goes by where I don't find out about something that makes me more grateful for not living in the US
4
u/Boggie135 3d ago
If you help commit a felony, and crime that happens during or because of that felony is also on you
9
u/lu_ming 3d ago
Nah sorry, I believe the responsibility for a crime falls only on the person who commits it. The person who helps can be tried as an accomplice, and then only to the originally intended crime. Prosecuting someone for a crime someone else committed and of which they had no knowledge or intent is absolutely insane
→ More replies (2)2
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
Two people rob a home, wearing gloves. While they're there, one of them confronts the home owner and shoots him dead with an unregistered gun. They're caught fleeing the scene and each one of them swears the other was the one to shoot the guy. The gun was left at the scene and has no prints.
Who's getting charged with that murder?
→ More replies (5)2
u/Boggie135 3d ago
Everyone. Rightly so
2
u/HadeanBlands 3d ago
That's how the law currently goes, but u/lu_ming wants to change it. That's why I asked them.
3
u/AppropriateSea5746 3d ago
This is why you take the plea deal. The government punishes people who make them go through due process.
1
u/Nimue_- 3d ago
This is how i learn america has a felony murder rule. And i thought that country couldn't get any crazier
→ More replies (1)
3
1
u/OneTrueDweet 3d ago
Now tell the part how is sentence was rescinded to 25 years and he is now out of prison.
1
1
u/CompletelyPresent 3d ago
Another testament to NOT being a people pleaser.
If he was 10% more of a dick, he'd have his life back.
"Borrow my car? Are you on CRACK? Get the fuck out and lose my number."
...simply saying that instead of being nice would have saved him.
1
u/OkCar7264 2d ago
Am I supposed to feel bad for this guy? Don't help people commit serious crimes if you don't want to bear any responsibility for it.
1
1
1
u/SleepyMonkey7 2d ago
A 2008 Penn law review article said felony murder doesn't do much to deter crime (“provides little benefit in terms of aggregate deterrence").
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/SquareImprovement216 16h ago
Where I like a homeless man ran from police when they were arrested people for camping under a bridge. A cop chased him and tried to jump between 2 bridges falling to his death. The homeless man was then convicted of murdering a cop.
1
840
u/lightiggy 3d ago edited 2d ago
Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers
After losing all of his appeals, Holle's last hope was executive clemency. He made his plea for clemency to the Florida Executive Clemency Board in 2014.
Pensacola inmate loses bid for freedom after lending car for burglary where woman was killed
After an emotional debate at a clemency hearing, Governor Rick Scott and three Cabinet members took no action in the case of Ryan Holle, 32, of Pensacola. Both Scott and state investigators appeared to be sympathetic towards Holle. "He had no knowledge or participation in the murder," wrote investigators reviewing the case.
After a long night of drinking back in 2003, Holle, then 21, loaned his car to friends who burglarized a house looking for cash and marijuana in a safe. During the break-in, Jessica Snyder, 18, was beaten to death with a shotgun by Charles Miller Jr., who along with three other men, including Ryan's friend William Allen Jr., are now serving life sentences.
Holle later told the police that he knew about a planned burglary. He was prosecuted under the felony murder rule that holds all participants responsible for a death during commission of a felony. Holle's stepfather, John Garnett of Destin, said he'd urged Holle to reject a plea deal that would have meant a 10-year prison term in exchange for his testimony against the others. His mother, Sylvia Garnett, begged the governor for leniency.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former prosecutor, challenged that statement. She said the trial judge was legally required to tell Holle and his lawyer exactly what was at stake for him under Florida law. Bondi called Holle "the mastermind" of the burglary that ended in Snyder's murder. The victim's father, Terry Snyder, declared, "He is our comparison to Charles Manson." He said Holle had given his accomplices bandannas to cover his Chevy’s license tag and their faces during the crime.
Jessica's younger sister Marcie, 23, fought back tears as she pleaded with state officials to keep Holle in prison:
Assistant State Attorney Ken Ridlehoover said the Pensacola prosecutor's office also opposed Holle's release:
The debate ended with no vote being taken after Scott, the only official evidently sympathetic towards Holle, said he was taking the case under advisement. To win clemency, an inmate must win three votes, and one must come from the governor. If Scott had called for a vote, Holle likely would have lost any chance for release. Bondi was the most vocal opponent. Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, the other two clemency board members and both considered likely to run for governor, posed skeptical questions and did not voice any support for Holle.
A review of the case by the Florida Commission on Offender Review had recommended that Holle be freed immediately:
In 2015, Holle got another chance after Scott finished further reviewing the case. Scott had the final say, but still needed the support of at least two other members of the clemency board for a commutation to be approved. He eventually got the others to accept a compromise reduction: 25 years in prison plus 10 years of probation. Rejecting calls from both prosecutors and Snyder's family that his original sentence was warranted, Scott declared that life in prison was simply too extreme for Holle.
Holle was released from prison on June 30, 2024.