2007 interview has nothing to do with a trial that occurred in 2004, obviously.

Why would you ever lend your car to anyone for anything even remotely "bad"?

EDIT: Maybe law just messing me up here and I'm abnormal but I'd snap say no to that.

pretty sure it does bruh

Pretty sure - actually certain - that you can't exonerate yourself with media comments about your guilt after you're found guilty, bruh.

You think the jury didn't hear that and decide it wasn't true?

EDIT: By the way, felony murder rule is part of penal law in 46 states and numerous countries.

The way it works is the jury had to believe he had fore-knowledge of the commission of a qualifiying felony (burglary is one of them). His (idiotic; never ever ever ever speak to police, ever, to reiterate an earlier point) statement to police indicated that he knew. Done.

Again, whats the bar here?

"can i borrow your car to go rape someone?"

no.

"can i borrow your car to guy buy some weed"?

sure.

sadly i may have to rethink this strategy because i share a country with apparent ******s.

the kid should not be doing life in prison, sorry. 10 years appears moronic also, although a defense attorney should have advised his client that he was being tried in Northern Florida FFS and he should have taken it. Had it been in a more non ****** section of the country, gambool.

were you never a teenager thru 24 year old?

christ, the amount of stupid stuff i did during those years is off the charts.

In real life the legal bar is a qualifying felony, all of which are violent felonies.

If you lend it to buy weed and your bro shoots someone, not gonna apply. If you lend it so your bro can rape someone, it will.

So there's your "line."

yeah basically this.

dudes lucky hes not black though, been electrocuted by now.

Yes, and even then I didn't facilitate someone else doing dumb **** when I couldn't even be there, that's just . . . stupid.

Felony murder only applies to certain enumerated felonies. I'm almost certain it has to be armed robbery, not just robbery, for the doctrine to apply.

Again, in short, don't talk to police.

i mean honestly does him knowing what the guy is using the car for even matter from a legal standpoint? What if he said he was going to Taco Bell and went and raped the lenders mother? Should Jimbo be convicted of being an accomplice in that situation? I know you're a lawyer but these things are interesting.

Depends on state, but doubt it's limited to armed robbery anyway.

ALI lists: robbery, rape, forcible sexual assault, murder, arson, felonious escape, carjacking

U.S.C. includes: terrorism, kidnapping

Think there are more in other states. Anything inherently violent seems to be likely to be on the list.

The argument for why it matters is:

If he knew, he had knowledge of the intent of the parties to participate in violent crime. The result was terrible, but not an unforseeable result of violent crime.

In terms of deterrence, if he knew it matters because we want to deter people from participating willingly in the violent crimes committed by criminals. In this instance, lending his car for the purpose of burglary is indistinguishable, legally, from lending a bag of fertilizer for the building of a bomb. He had foresight re: the violent purpose, and is held responsible in order to deter cooperation with "plots" to commit violent crime.

The argument for why he shouldn't be punished if he didn't know (and this law would not punish him if the jury believed he didn't know) is:

If he had no foresight about the violent crime, there would be no reason for him to fear the result of participation.

In terms of deterrence, there'd be nothing to deter - we have no interest in deterring cooperation among human beings (unless it's to deter nefarious cooperation).

what if you loaned a friend a kitchen knife that he in turn goes and stabs somebody with it while you thought he needed it to cut up some vegetables? So basically im saying would hernandez have had to know his "associates" intent to get in trouble?

The counter-argument is that the punishment is out of proportion to his participation, but the law you guys don't like is designed to extend felony liability because of the knowing participation. He's not being punished for lending the car. That's just the factual predicate qualifying him for punishment for participation in felony murder. He's being punished, legally, for felony murder.

Yes, this rule requires knowledge. Here he apparently told police / implied to police that he knew they were going to rob someone.

Doesn't matter if he actually didn't, that evidence comes in and the jury bought it.

EDIT: The vegetables example is a good one. In that instance you are not going to face charges unless there was some really good reason to think you didn't really beleive he was gonna cut vegetables. Such as he said to you "Imma kill this dude but first I need to whip up a quick jambalaya."

I mean, I guess the other option would be a law saying "where you are found guilty of contributing knowingly in a violent felony, but are not present for the commission of such violent felony and lack first-hand knowledge regarding the actual commission of such violent felony, under no circumstances will your punishment exceed X% of the prescribed punishment for such violent felony."

But then what you're saying is:

We're not cool with you contributing to some dude getting whacked, but since you didn't, you know, really do the deed, we're gonna let 100-X% of the punishment slide.

It's not a very effective deterrent and sort of approves of "nefarious cooperation," which is my own stupid term that I made up 2 posts ago to try to conceptualize this.

EDIT: This would be self-defeating re: trying to fight organized crime. O noez, they got the boss for "nefarious cooperation," he'll be out in 5 years.

Anyway all of the foregoing is to say "ruh roh" re: AHern.

I doubt anyone other than die hard panther fans had heard of carruth. The murder happened during camp and he was unlikely to make the team...

No, he was a first round draft pick and murder happened in November.

Did some research and i stand corrected...

Seems ridiculous to me. I know there are lots of laws about like if you create a dangerous situation you can get convicted from the fallout, which I find wrong. It's like if you rob a place and someone pulls a gun to shoot you and they hit and kill a bystander, you can get charged for murder, the idea is that if you hadn't robbed the place they would still be alive, and that's true, but I think that the whole domino effect thing is not a good basis for convictions.

https://twitter.com/TedDanielFOX25 Reading this guys tweets it really doesnt look good

Rut row.

"LAW SOURCE: 4 men together in vehicle. Only 3 return to Aaron Hernandez's home. Odin Lloyd NOT one of them."

https://twitter.com/TedDanielFOX25/s...38976439148544

Not to politard, but Canada's system makes way more sense. You need the crime to be committed (actus reus) and you need to have mens rea, where the accused must have the intent to commit murder or knowledge of someone's intent while helping them. Without intent you can be charged with manslaughter and then the sentencing is totally up to the judge. With intent you can get 1st degree or 2nd degree murder.