this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
607 points (84.5% liked)
US Authoritarianism
714 readers
363 users here now
Hello, I am researching American crimes against humanity. . This space so far has been most strongly for memes, and that's fine.
There's other groups and you are welcome to add to them. USAuthoritarianism Linktree
See Also, my website. USAuthoritarianism.com be advised at time of writing it is basically just a donate link
Cool People: [email protected]
founded 6 months ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that's still mighty fucked up. So you're accomplice couldn't run as fast as you and you get charged with their death someone else caused? How are people ok with that?
And yes I totally understand that it was a justified shooting but charging someone with murder when they didn't murder someone one is insane as fuck.
The story says they got into a shootout, one of the thieves ducked under cover until it was over.
I think it would be different if it were an excessive use of force case.
It's pretty simple to understand: you were a participant in the underlying felony that lead to someone's death. Had that underlying event not happened, no death would have happened. Because you participated in the event, you share the legal responsibility.
It's the same general principle as RICO (racketeer influenced and corrupt organization) laws; when you participate in a criminal undertaking, you're responsible for the results of that activity. If you don't want to be responsible for the results, then you shouldn't participate in the crime.
...And if you do participate in the crime, take the goddamn plea deal instead of expecting that the jury is going to nullify the results, because jury nullification is both very rare, and leads to a lot of undesirable results.
Don't even have to be present. If you say and planned an armed robbery with a gang, then fell asleep and they went out and enacted the plan, and someone died (either a gang member, or a third party) as a result. You're liable if they can prove that involvement.
If I'm responsible for, or significantly involved in planning the robbery, but I'm not part of the execution of the robbery, then of course I should be charged. That's not significantly different from hiring a hitman to commit a murder for me.
That's what criminal conspiracy charges are all about.
It is simple to understand that that is the rule. Its also very simple to understand how absolutely fucked up that is.
Next time they shoot another innocent person and murder them at the wrong address is the person who's address they were supposed to be at going to be held responsible?
To add to this, say an addict buys drugs from a dude but that dude is a cartel member and murders a family after a few months. Addict didn't give him the gun, maybe addict didn't even know he was cartel but because of ol' Rico since you interacted with a criminal organization your hands have blood on them too?
If you want to take that to an illogical extreme, and say that any connection, regardless of how tenuous, should be charged, then sure. Except that's not the way that the laws are written.
This is a common argument in the general public and politically. If you buy cocaine, you're directly supporting the cartel activities in Colombia. You can't buy ethically-sourced cocaine. If you buy heroin, you were supporting insurgent groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan (or, were; now that the Taliban has political control of Afghanistan, they've sharply cut poppy cultivation, much to the detriment of the farmers).