GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #1

[Donjeta]

What I get from that is the shooter's girlfriend could be charged for accessory after the fact if she knew that he had killed someone and aided in his escape attempt.

I don't see where this law states that it's criminal to be friends with a kid who made a threat and got shot. Is it even possible to give a dead offender any aid to help him escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment? Deceased people escape all but otherworldly punishment anyway.

 

[mobeydick]

What I get from that is the shooter's girlfriend could be charged for accessory after the fact if she knew that he had killed someone and aided in his escape attempt.

I don't see where this law states that it's criminal to be friends with a kid who made a threat and got shot. Is it even possible to give a dead offender any aid to help him escape detection, arrest, trial or punishment? Deceased people escape all but otherworldly punishment anyway.

What you should get from that is if the driver of the teens car stole a pack of gum (minor offense) and while doing it he threatened to kill the clerk, the clerk in retrurn killed the driver, the rest of the people riding with the driver would be charged with his murder/homicide! It's happened many times.

If it can be proven that one of the teens threatened the shooter they all could be charged. I'm sure they have been told this! If you are involved in a crime no matter how small and someone gets killed you can be charged for that persons death.

 

[Donjeta]

Lots of ifs there.
The person who actually shot and killed a teenager is totally blameless but the friends of the victim are guilty because they might have been in a car with a person who might have stolen a pack of gum and threatened a clerk who killed him in return (only none of that did happen, as far as we know).

I do not think that having been in a car with someone who has committed a crime automatically means that you're an accessory. If it does in Florida it's a total miscarriage of justice. People you are in a car with may end up committing crimes that you have no control over whatsoever. How on earth is anyone going to make sure no one in their vicinity ever threatens anybody else? Those statutes seem to require that you render aid to the offender, not just physical proximity.

I also don't see a statute that would allow for anyone to be charged for a crime simply because they were in a car with a shooting victim.

I think the statute you want is the felony murder rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Florida)

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule_(Florida)

In the state of Florida, the common law felony murder rule has been codified in Florida Revised Statutes § 782.04
The predicate felonies that will support a charge of first degree murder under the statute are:[2][3]

Drug trafficking
Arson
Sexual battery
Robbery or home invasion robbery
Burglary
Kidnapping
Escape
Aggravated abuse of a child, elderly person, or disabled adult
Aircraft piracy
Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb
Carjacking
Aggravated stalking
Murder
Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person
Felonious acts of terrorism or in furtherance of an act of terrorism
Distribution of some controlled substances like cocaine and opium

Second degree murder

The statute also punishes as second degree murder the killing of another human being during the commission of a felony that is imminently dangerous to human life. Also, if the defendant was involved in the commission of a predicate felony, but the homicide was perpetrated by another co-felon, the defendant can be charged with second degree murder.[4]

Sitting in a car playing loud music is not listed as such a felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(r) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(s) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 

[rossva]

BBM.

Aren't you doing the exact same thing?

45 is not old, and he was not threatened with death. NO WAY NO HOW.
You are embellishing the facts and it does not make it so.
NO shot gun, how did you get so 150% that there was one?
WHERE IS IT? You are 150% then show us the shot gun.

 

[flourish]

What you should get from that is if the driver of the teens car stole a pack of gum (minor offense) and while doing it he threatened to kill the clerk, the clerk in retrurn killed the driver, the rest of the people riding with the driver would be charged with his murder/homicide! It's happened many times.

If it can be proven that one of the teens threatened the shooter they all could be charged. I'm sure they have been told this! If you are involved in a crime no matter how small and someone gets killed you can be charged for that persons death.

Speculation is a fine tool. However, it's most helpful when there's some sort of evidentiary basis for that speculation. Are there any known facts whatsoever to indicate that any of the teenagers involved in this incident had engaged in any illegal behavior? We've got the alleged shotgun, but stealing a pack of gum and/or threatening to kill the clerk? That's ageist stereotyping again, and seems to be part of some deep-seated need to ensure the teenagers look suspicious here without any sort of factual basis.


You know, if we asked an ancient alien theorist, they would likely say that the crux of this whole thing was ancient aliens! There's a difference between reasonable speculation and the repetitive insistence on outlandish theories, all of which disparage the deceased. That just doesn't seem to be genuinely in the spirit of discussing all aspects of what might have happened, or there would be more evidence of a willingness to look at the known facts and acknowledge the possibility that the shooter could very well be in the wrong here.

Ancient aliens, gum-stealing untrustworthy teenagers, endless shootouts in Jacksonville... :waiting:

 

[daisy7]

The fact someone was killed make this a felony.
(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(b) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed the offense of child abuse, neglect of a child, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child under 18 years of age, or murder of a child under 18 years of age, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact unless the court finds that the person is a victim of domestic violence.

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

(2)(a) If the felony offense committed is a capital felony, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) If the felony offense committed is a life felony or a felony of the first degree, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(c) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the second degree or a felony of the third degree ranked in level 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(d) If the felony offense committed is a felony of the third degree ranked in level 1 or level 2 under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023, the offense of accessory after the fact is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in s. 921.0022, for purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, the offense of accessory after the fact is ranked two levels below the ranking under s. 921.0022 or s. 921.0023 of the felony offense committed.

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/florida/statutes/florida_statutes_777-03

Thanks for providing that statute about being an accessory. But, there is nothing in the FL statutes that says that a person who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder, much less felony murder. So, I don't understand why anyone would expect that the friends would be charged as accessories?

Here's the link to the full chapter on Homicide from the statutes. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html

Please direct me to the section that says someone who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder or manslaugter -- maybe I missed it?

 

[tlcya]

BBM I would answer that, but I like this forum too much. :fence:

I agree and I believe I know as well. it makes me feel ashamed and feeling shame by association makes me feel angry and it is why I choose to unsubscribe from this thread for a good long while.

I love seafood but cannot stomache bait.

 

[CatMama3]

I so admire the patience and careful responses of "songline", "Donjeta", "flourish", "tlcox", "daisy7", "writer7", et al. My apologies to anyone I didn't list. You guys just:rocker:

I would have been banished days ago. :banghead::banghead:

 

[Steely Dan]

17yo believe 45 is old considering it's nearly three times longer then they were ever thought about. I'm a 49 white male and know that is well past middle aged of 39. I don't think I look like it though.

I don't think if would have mattered how old someone who asked the "teenagers" to turn the music down I think Bobbybadass would have come out of those teens.

Actually the shooter looks old for 45 he looks every bit of 55. I look a lot younger then he does.

Last year about this time of year I was in an altercation with a what looked to be a 22-25yo white male he was about 4" taller then me out weighed me by about 50#s also. I'm 6'2" He had 2 black eyes and busted nose when I was done with him. <mod snip> wanted some also, both of them decided the they messed with the wrong old man, He said he was going to beat my old .

BBM

Wow, that's so cool tough guy. You sure showed them. You do know that the majority of people over 21, don't use physical fighting as a way to solve problems? Right? In fact the older someone gets the less likely they are to physically fight. A 49 year old man physically fighting someone is a very, very, low number of people. You have a lot of maturing to do, IMO.

I will say I now understand why you were shot at 50 times and why you are defending Mr. Dunn.

Not nearly as much as somebody who faces a murder charge. JMO.

What she said.

Sarcasm on:

That's it!! I demand all music be banned from ever being played in any public place! All department stores, all gas stations, all elevators, should respect my right to peace and quiet because it is all about ME and only ME!! No more children singing Christmas carols in the malls!! No more outside concerts (I might hear it while driving by) held by High School bands to raise money to go to New York City. No more cheerleaders blasting their music during their car washes to pay for their training camps! On... and on... and on...

Sarcasm off.

ETA: I was one of those High School Cheerleaders who participated in these car washes (where music was played loudly) and we never had any complaints. May I add that the popular songs at the time were rap songs such as "Daisy Dukes" and "Tootsie Roll." Needless to say, we raised enough money to pay for all of us to attend training camp at the University of Miami.

:goodpost:

I do not agree with you (what else is new) LOL

Glad you don&#8217;t hang out there... I was there 3 times driving through, stopped for gas, and had no interest in the area. If you were shot there 50 times, maybe there are other areas to get supplies, your life is worth more than saving a dollar, there must be other places to get it for a good price.


BBM: Almost every poster here has not blamed the shooter because a 17 year old black boy is dead.
THAT IS NOT THE REASON AT ALL. :nono:

WE ALL did not hear about a 911 call or that he returned to meet with the cops
(assuming he was afraid to wait right there).
NOP the guy ran and never called LE. he was 45 and the most mature of the entire clan there,
yes he should have known better, handled it better and not run.

ALSO if he did not like the music he was not the boss of this public parking lot.

If there is not enough information about the case? How is it you can only stand up for the shooter?

:goodpost:

I blame the shooter based on the fact that he has been arrested, charged and is being held without bond on murder and attempted murder charges. I trust that Law Enforcement had/has enough evidence (that we do not have) and that these charges are justified.

I also base my opinion, at this time, on the fact that none of the teens have been arrested or charged with any crime related to anything that happened at the gas station that night.

Another reason, 1) He fled the scene of the shooting. I can understand flee'ing to a safer location and then calling 911, but it has been pointed out that Mr. Dunn waited for his girlfriend to come out of the store before leaving the scene. I believe this action (waiting) shows that Mr. Dunn was not fearful and he was completely content with what he had just done. Saying he didn't know he killed someone (or seriously injured someone) is B/S because the act of waiting shows he knew whatever threat he is claiming happened was diminished after he unloaded the gun into that vehicle.

2) After learning about the death of Jordan, he fled again. He had plans with his son that day (which never happened) so intially, he had no plans on returning home so soon. Which, imo, shows his intent to flee.

I do not believe he had any intentions of turning himself in. I believe the only reason he was arrested, charged and is now being held without bond is because a witness wrote down his license plate tag.

None of my opinions on this case includes age, social status, or race. Just straight-up facts based on the limited information we have in this case to date. I will admit we have limited information and my opinion is subject to change as more evidence is released. But for right now, I believe Mr. Dunn is 100% responsible for what happened that night.

:goodpost:

I'm going to assume that the police handled these kids the same way they handle people in situations like this. That is to take each one separately and ask them what happened. The police have ways of telling if the story was contrived by all of them, or if what they're saying makes sense.

Atually if it could be proven any one if the teens made a theath of death they all could be charged with murder. They have just as much at stake.

You cannot be arrested for what a friend says using free speech. Maybe you mean that all are charged when a murder is committed in the act of a felony.

What's the statute?

Suppose it could be proven that the teen that died made a death threat. I really don't understand how his friends could be charged with murder just for being friends with him.

No, they could be, if the magical gun that only Mr. Dunn could see went off and killed Mr. Dunn, then they could be. However, it seems this magical gun is like a unicorn. You have to believe hard enough in order to see it.

 

[LolaMoon08]

What I get from that is the shooter's girlfriend could be charged for accessory after the fact if she knew that he had killed someone and aided in his escape attempt. .

Snipped I would not be surprised to find out that Mr. Dunn's girlfriend was facing charges in the days after the shooting. Speculation of course, but I would not be surprised if she has accepted immunity from prosecution for her cooperation/testimony.

MOO

 

[mobeydick]

Thanks for providing that statute about being an accessory. But, there is nothing in the FL statutes that says that a person who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder, much less felony murder. So, I don't understand why anyone would expect that the friends would be charged as accessories?

Here's the link to the full chapter on Homicide from the statutes. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html

Please direct me to the section that says someone who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder or manslaugter -- maybe I missed it?

Look up Floridia Felony Murder Rule. Get back to me!

Ryan Holle was 20 when charged under the felony murder rule. In 2003, Holle lent his car to his roommates. He was hungover from a prior evening of drinking and partying when the roommates informed him they were going to rob a man of his marijuana. During the robbery the men murdered an 18 year old girl. Though Holle was about a mile and a half from the scene of the crime and had no prior knowledge of a murder, he was convicted under the felony murder rule and sentenced to life without parole.

 

[mobeydick]

Thanks for providing that statute about being an accessory. But, there is nothing in the FL statutes that says that a person who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder, much less felony murder. So, I don't understand why anyone would expect that the friends would be charged as accessories?

Here's the link to the full chapter on Homicide from the statutes. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html

Please direct me to the section that says someone who "threatens" to kill someone has committed murder or manslaugter -- maybe I missed it?

A very good read!

http://justiceisourpassion.blogspot.com/2011/02/floridas-felony-murder-rule-sweeps-with.html


Friday, February 25, 2011
"Florida's Felony Murder Rule Sweeps With A Broad Brush", by David A. Brener, Esq.
Florida's felony - murder rule, incorporated into its murder statute, section 782.04, makes it first degree murder when the death of a non-participant occurs during the commission, attempt to commit, or escape from the commission of various enumerated felonies. These crimes include the most frequently committed felonies, such as robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping, arson, and others. As a consequence, someone who agrees to participate in one of these felonies is deemed responsible under the law if a homicide occurs during the course of the crime. This is true even if the person did not pull the trigger or commit the killing, and even if the homicide was unintended, an accident, or actually committed by a third party, like, for example a police officer, security guard, or homeowner. If the person who is killed is the victim of the underlying crime, an innocent bystander, or anyone other than one of the perpetrators, the crime is first degree murder. If the person who dies is a co-perpetrator, then the proper charge, under Florida law, is felony second degree murder. If a non-enumerated felony is being committted when the killing occurs, like for example grand theft, then the proper charge, under the law, is felony third degree murder.
First degree murder is punishable by only two possible sentences: life in prison without parole, and the death penalty. Second degree felony murder is punishable by up to life in prison, with approximately twenty years as the low end of the sentencing range, without any additional charges. Third degree murder charges are rare, and usually are seen as a jury compromise verdict to lesser included charges of felony first degree murder.
Florida's felony murder rule applies to not only the killer, but the killer's co-participants in the underlying felony. That is the purpose of this law - to hold people responsible for a homicide which they did not commit because they took the risk associated with committing the underlying crime. The fact that a person did not intend for the homicide to occur, and did not know that someone, be it co-perpetrator or police officer, was going to kill, is no defense. This results in an extremely harsh application of the law, and one that really does not treat people who kill differently than those who do not. It is for this reason that the country which invented felony murder, England, has abolished it, and why a number of states, unlike Florida, have severely limited its application.
One recognized legal defense to felony murder in Florida is the independent act doctrine. Florida recognizes a defense to felony murder if the homicide was not committed by the defendant, the defendant did not intend for the homicide to occur, and the killing was not part of the plan and not a reasonably forseeable consequence of the plan to commit the underlying felony. This last part - about what is reasonably foreseeable - is where the problem lies, and where the litigation has centered. Some authorities suggest that when the defendant is aware that firearms are involved in the underlying felony, then the independent act defense is unavailable, even if the defendant did not carry. Thus, the getaway driver and the guy who planned the robbery but stayed home, can be charged and convicted of murder even though violence was not supposed to occur. Similarly, a defendant in a high speed chase cannot claim, when a police officer dies, that it was the independent act of the officer of pursuing the defendant at high speed which was the legal cause of the death. The courts have generally taken the view that to permit a defendant in a robbery homicide to defend based on the fact that the co-defendant killed the store clerk with a firearm which the defendant knew the co-defendant was carrying, or to defend because the store clerk killed the co-defendant when confronted by armed perpetrators, would eviscerate the felony murder rule.
To the contrary, leaving it to a jury to decide, and giving the legal instructions on independent act and allowing the jury to apply the law to the facts, would allow some relief, in exceptional cases, from this draconian law. Until this harsh law is repealed, this is the least we should do.

by: David A. Brener, Esq.
Brener and DeMine, P.A.
12381 South Cleveland Avenue
Suite 201
Fort Myers, Fl. 33907
239-332-1100
www.murderlawyerflorida.com
www.justiceisourpassion.com

 

[flourish]

Those examples all seem to involve a third party who knew about/were complicit in one of the mentioned felonious activities, then were charged when a different person in their party killed someone during the commission of the original felony act.

I was hoping you would point out the specific area(s) of the law that relates to this crime. If I am reading that all correctly, and I'm sure you will tell me I'm not, then the teens would have to have been knowingly committing a robbery or other mentioned felony in order to be considered complicit if one of them had been the killer.

But Mr. Dunn is the killer.

And there is no known (by us) evidence that indicates the teens were doing anything illegal---not even stealing a pack of gum :what:

So I have to go back to where this sounds like something that could possibly relate to Mr. Dunn's gf, but not the teens.

Eta: the kid who loaned his car to the people planning to go steal a guy's stash loaned it KNOWING they were planning on committing robbery, so he was already complicit in that felony, hence the charges on the killing which occurred during said planned robbery.

 

[Donjeta]

I think this is going a little too far to try to blame the victim. Sure, people who commit robberies are charged if people are killed in the process but as far as I know, sitting in a car listening to loud music is not a felony in Florida.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the teens were at the store planning to do anything illegal.

 

[mobeydick]

I think this is going a little too far to try to blame the victim. Sure, people who commit robberies are charged if people are killed in the process but as far as I know, sitting in a car listening to loud music is not a felony in Florida.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the teens were at the store planning to do anything illegal.

Threatening someone with death then representing the means to carry out that threat as the shooter claims is a felony! Like I said, they have every reason to lie as does the shooter. I sure wish there was audio and video recrding of the events that evening! I bet the police do also.

 

[Donjeta]

Threatening someone with death then representing the means to carry out that threat as the shooter claims is a felony! Like I said, they have every reason to lie as does the shooter. I sure wish there was audio and video recrding of the events that evening! I bet the police do also.

So do you think they had gone to the store planning to commit the crime of threatening someone that night?

I am not a lawyer but I just don't see this law in any way applicable here.

Florida's felony - murder rule, incorporated into its murder statute, section 782.04, makes it first degree murder when the death of a non-participant occurs during the commission, attempt to commit, or escape from the commission of various enumerated felonies. These crimes include the most frequently committed felonies, such as robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping, arson, and others. As a consequence, someone who agrees to participate in one of these felonies is deemed responsible under the law if a homicide occurs during the course of the crime. If the person who dies is a co-perpetrator, then the proper charge, under Florida law, is felony second degree murder. If a non-enumerated felony is being committted when the killing occurs, like for example grand theft, then the proper charge, under the law, is felony third degree murder.

BBM.
To make this law applicable and charge the surviving teens for the hypothetical death threats that the deceased teen might have made you would have to show that the others had agreed to commit this crime. It would be kind of hard imo seeing as how they didn't even know that Mr. Dunn would be there. You'd have to be a willing participant in a felony to be charged under this one and I doubt courts would define sitting in a car with someone who makes death threats as being a participant if you didn't say anything. Being friends with somebody who commits a crime is not a felony.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Eta: the kid who loaned his car to the people planning to go steal a guy's stash loaned it KNOWING they were planning on committing robbery, so he was already complicit in that felony, hence the charges on the killing which occurred during said planned robbery.

Snipped

This right here. The man charged in this case not only knew about the robbery, but provided a means for them to, 1) carry the robbery out and 2) get away. Making him involved in the crime even from far away.

Let's even use the "stealing a pack of gum" from a store on behalf of the teen who entered the store floorlaugh. How much could a pack be? $1.49 or $2.99 for those designer tubs? That is not felony robbery. It is not even felony theft. Driving off with $100.00 worth of gas isn't even a felony. Anything over $300.00 carries a felony charge. From personal experience (working at a friends privately owned gas station), police could care less about a gas drive off. They won't even pursue it outside of taking a report for the store's records/insurance.

I am not downplaying stealing a pack of gum as it is a crime (that no one in this case has been charged with :floorlaugh, but the most I could see happening to a teen who stole a pack of gum and police did make it to the scene before he/she could flee, would be a trespassing warrant.

MOO

 

[gxm]

Threatening someone with death then representing the means to carry out that threat as the shooter claims is a felony! Like I said, they have every reason to lie as does the shooter. I sure wish there was audio and video recrding of the events that evening! I bet the police do also.

To date there is no credible evidence that Jordan threatened Dunn or displayed a means of doing Dunn harm. He was still inside the car when he was shot, so he could not have physically confronted Dunn unless Dunn was in the car with him! Apparently, words were exchanged and Dunn is the person who initiated that exchange by complaining about the music. The only person, IMO, who could be charged as an accessory is Dunn's girlfriend since she left the crime scene and then hid out with him. No one in the car that Dunn shot up could be charged as an accessory as they are the victims&#8212;and they did not shoot anyone dead, nor did they flee the crime scene.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I agree and I believe I know as well. it makes me feel ashamed and feeling shame by association makes me feel angry and it is why I choose to unsubscribe from this thread for a good long while.

I love seafood but cannot stomache bait.

I completely understand, as I've had to break off some cases for periods of time (Caylee's forum after "the verdict") in order to collect my sanity. Your valued posts will be missed, but I do understand. XOXOXOXO

MOO

 

[daisy7]

Look up Floridia Felony Murder Rule. Get back to me!

Ryan Holle was 20 when charged under the felony murder rule. In 2003, Holle lent his car to his roommates. He was hungover from a prior evening of drinking and partying when the roommates informed him they were going to rob a man of his marijuana. During the robbery the men murdered an 18 year old girl. Though Holle was about a mile and a half from the scene of the crime and had no prior knowledge of a murder, he was convicted under the felony murder rule and sentenced to life without parole.

I appreciate your response. That case you listed would fall under FL's accessory murder law as listed in the statutes that I posted above, IMO.

However, you posted the below:

Atually if it could be proven any one if the teens made a theath of death they all could be charged with murder. They have just as much at stake.

Respectfully, BBM. Please direct me to the statute that states a THREAT about murder/death results in a murder charge. TIA!