Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Banana View Post
Translation....we can make it a crime if we want to depending on who you vote for.
No... more like... you need to prove motive in a lot of cases.

The example in the article is the common one about a robbery and the getaway driver being charged with felony murder even though they did not have a gun and weren't in the store at the time. They are complicit accomplices in that it was reasonably likely to assume that engaging in such an activity as armed robbery would result in the loss of life. Ergo claiming that you were not complicit in that act is not holding up in court.


In the BLM protests and in the capitol protest, you have to prove that the people who committed the actions that resulted in the loss of life had a reasonable expectation to assume that their actions, or the actions of their accomplices (not a clear line in this case) would result in loss of life.


It's the same rule in both cases, and my point was that it was probably correctly applied more often than not during the BLM protests, and I expect a similar outcome from this protest. The notion that anyone in the video I saw was trying to kill the cop is dubious at best. The person who was manhandling that cop's gas mask and yanking the cop's head around is maybe one we could mark as committing actions that any reasonable person could expect to cause harm to that cop. You can't go yanking someone head back and forth and not expect some injury, potentially severe injury... but that's still not a murder charge, IMO.

How the lawyers interpret that act, and how "complicit" that makes the people near that act were, and for how wide a radius that complicitness extends is all speculation right now.