Ryan Holle lend a car to his friends.

What about if instead of lending a car he lend socks or combs that are latter used in a crime.

So a robber uses the socks and rob someone. Or a robber uses the comb to well, comb his hair, and rob someone.

I pick socks and comb because it seems that those items are replaceable. If Ryan didn't lend the socks, the robbers would simply buy a sock.

But then I thought, if Ryan didn't lend his car, then the robbers can simply use taxi.

So yea. That's the question. If Ryan had lent his socks, for example, would he be in jail now?

  • If he knew that the individuals were going to use his socks to gag and strangle somebody to death, the outcome would be the same... It isn't that he borrowed it to somebody, it is that he borrowed it to somebody knowing it would be used to commit a crime. – Ron Beyer Nov 9 '18 at 13:15
  • The robber would use the socks on his food like normal and comb his hair like normal. No strangling gaging anything. – Sharen Eayrs Nov 9 '18 at 13:29
  • 1
    Why would you use socks on your food? I think socks are for your feet. – Brandin Nov 9 '18 at 13:39
  • sorry. I mean foot or feet yes. – Sharen Eayrs Nov 9 '18 at 13:43

If he had the specific intent to facilitate the robbery by lending a comb or socks, he would still have been an accessory and therefore face the same punishment.

| improve this answer | |
  • So the issue is intent and knowledge. If he knew they will use it to rob people and he lend them anyway, then he's an accessory. – Sharen Eayrs Nov 9 '18 at 13:26
  • Even if all the robbers did is combing his hair and wearing socks. If you knew someone would rob someone you must not lend anything. – Sharen Eayrs Nov 9 '18 at 13:28
  • In the Ryan Holle case apparently Mr. Holle knew that the car was going to be used to commit a crime, so he probably failed to convince the jury that he was innocent. If he had only lent a sock to someone, and that someone later somehow used that sock to murder someone, it would probably be easier to convince a reasonable person that you didn't lend the sock for the pupose of committing a crime or murder. – Brandin Nov 9 '18 at 13:49
  • I made another question about it. Usually, if I lend a car knowing that the car will be used for robbery, I would expect a cut. Why would I take such risk and get nothing. My guess is he doesn't know but a jury think otherwise. – Sharen Eayrs Nov 9 '18 at 13:59

Florida has what is called the "Felony Murder Rule" which is outlined in Florida State Statute 782.04.

This is applied two ways, either the offender kills somebody in the commission of a dangerous crime (like armed robbery) (whether or not the intent was to kill somebody), or as in the case here, where the offender is a participant in a felony where death results, regardless of that person being present at the time of the crime.

Here Ryan Holle was prosecuted under this rule based on his knowledge of the robbery and providing an instrument in the robbery (the vehicle) and knowing that a robbery was going to take place. In Florida, this means that because he knew of the robbery, and provided the vehicle used to get to that robbery, that he was an accomplice to the crime and stood the same charge/conviction as the people actually present.

Holle's sentence was commuted to 25 years by Florida Governor Rick Scott. He was originally offered a plea bargain of just 10 years but refused, and was subsequently sentenced to life.

It would not have been the same if Holle had lent his roommate socks or a comb because they didn't use them to commit the crime. Florida does not impose upon its citizens the duty to report a possible crime, so just knowing about the crime is not enough. Holle aided in the crime by knowing what the car was going to be used for and letting them take it anyway.

Florida looks at it this way: Holle lending the car to the roommate to commit the crime is the same as if Holle had given his roommate a gun knowing that the gun was going to be used in a robbery. The robbery resulted in the death of an individual so the person providing the means to commit that crime is just as guilty as the person who committed it.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.