 | A fact from Ryan Holle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 19,278 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on December 8, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
External link
editLeaving myself a note -- some details of the prosecution of the case are given here [1] -- Kendrick7talk 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good overview of events here -- Kendrick7talk 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, expansion from those sources complete -- Kendrick7talk 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Appeal?
editIt seems unjust; giving someone a car to perform a burglary is not the same as giving someone a car to perform a murder. Was there no appeal? Toby Douglass (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
response, I just came across this - it is the same. The idea is that if you give the car to commit a crime, you share equal responsibility for what happened. The fact you aren't very good at predicting, everyone is held to know crimes have bad outcomes. Once he knew he was contributing to the burglary, he owned a part of any murder that happened. Source: My law school professors and the Felony Murder rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.40.104 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is sick.--SidiLemine 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The only salient question is whether he did know the car was going to be used in that crime. If so, then game over, he's gotten what he deserves. Jatkins679 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
How can you give consent to someone to use your car while drunk but not to have sex while drunk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.84.112 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- There does appear to be some sort of appeal going on, per this PDF document[2] but there's no information in it beyond that. -- Kendrick7talk 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Notable?
editI read the New York Times article maybe a week ago, and I assume this article doesn't significantly predate that (very little other information)? Is this really a notable person/event? It's perhaps an example of the effects of the felony murder rule, but this guy's not Mumia Abu-Jamal. 71.194.163.223 (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Some guy commited a crime and got life imprisonment... where's the notability? Maybe if this were the first time it was used or causing a big uproar in the country or somebody was taking it to the Supreme Court... but right now it's just some guy who got life imprisonment. Doesn't seem notable to me. -CumbiaDude (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you retarded. Lending your car to someone is a crime? Thank the loving lord of tits that I don't live in America. This page is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in the history of the world. Jesus Christ. And look at the people saying "is this even notable". Meaning what, this kind of thing happens all the time. I like how in your "Constitution" which supposedly guarantees your freedoms there's a clause against "cruel and unusual punishment" but your prosecutors see nothing wrong with putting someone in prison for LIFE because they lent their car to someone. It's ridiculous. It's the worst thing I've ever heard. Worse than the Holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.108.189 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
173.53.40.104 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)So the response above is pretty stupid. Lending your car to someone isn't a crime. Lending a car to someone to commit a crime IS a crime. It's rather ironic to accuse people of being retarded when you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
- The United States of America: Land of the Free, where they lock people in cages. 207.237.211.236 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
This is definitely a notable case, it is often used as an argument against the felony murder rule. Though the facts are not necessarily unique, it is the farthest that the rule has been taken to date. Zendu (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Controversy?
editShouldn't there have been some controversy over this sentencing? Was that notable? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a new application of the felony murder concept, as the accused was not a participant in the underlying crime.
- Some say he was, given that he gave the car and allegedly knew that there was going to be a felony involved. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- He apparently knew a *robbery* was going to take place, and so had agreed to that. Certainly he is guilty in that regard. However, he apparently had no knowledge or expectation a murder would have occurred, so he cannot be said to have agreed to that. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some say he was, given that he gave the car and allegedly knew that there was going to be a felony involved. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- He says he didn't know.76.17.147.234 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Father's opinion relevant?
edit"As the prosecutor David Rimmer explained: "No car, no murder."[1] The victim's father, Terry Snyder, concurred: "It never would have happened unless Ryan Holle had lent the car. It was as good as if he was there.""
I'd like to reply to this father: "no weapon, no murder". Following this twisted logic of that horrific "felony rule", the prosecutor should have also gotten after the manufacturer of the weapon. How about that?
76.26.248.103 (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ScaredToLiveInFlorida
I don't think the victim's father is a particularly reliable source for the assertion.. and really the same argument could be made for the prosecutor. Furthermore this is not a matter-of-fact and should be presented as an opinion or argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.221.211 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No father, no daughter, no murder, damnit. Throw the parents in jail for giving birth to the daughter and throw the daughter in for being born in the first place. Makes sense, no?
Wait... 203.125.71.54 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV
editThe current article lead assumes the case of the prosecution, and needs to be fixed. -- Kendrick7talk 02:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have to go by what's in reliable independent sources. He was convicted of something. If you have a reliable source disputing the conviction or his testimony feel free to include it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree and find no bias. I removed the tag. MartinezMD (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Holle lost bid for clemency in December.
editSee http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/man-serving-life-for-giving-his-car-to-killers-will-remain-in-prison-for/2209688 for info. If somebody wants they can create prose for the article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)