Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are the other Ford Brothers, other than Michael, charged for murder? If I understand this correctly, they were just standing by watching and filming.
Why are the other Ford Brothers, other than Michael, charged for murder? If I understand this correctly, they were just standing by watching and filming.
Most people do not understand the concept of accessory (and also conspiracy) to a crime. They were participants in parts of it, even if they did not hold the gun. So they can be charged with part of the prime offense.
Most people do not understand the concept of accessory (and also conspiracy) to a crime. They were participants in parts of it, even if they did not hold the gun. So they can be charged with part of the prime offense.
I am well aware of the law, more so than you. I need more facts to be able to agree with you.
Yes, reportedly, the brothers discussed the plan, drove together to the site, stayed and used a cell phone to take video of the scene - including of the fallen officer. Thats according to a Washington post article. So yes they conspired to murder.
I am well aware of the law, more so than you. I need more facts to be able to agree with you.
1) Did they drive him there?
2) Did they encourage him to shoot?
3) Did they help him get away?
Taking I have a legal background originally, I am not sure how it can be more so than me. The level of involvement does extend to how the act was perpetrated, ie the specific context of the event, they were involved with the crime in the very fact they agreed to film the crime would be enough to make them accessories to the crime since part of the intent of the crime was to record it. It is not that hard to establish involvement here on that level, it's accessories during the fact, and possibly conspiracy to commit the act. Taking this was likely discussed before the incident considering it's nature, with both brothers recording, it is not that shocking they were also charged.
They didn't need to drive him there to be an accessory, encourage him to shoot, or help him get away. They could have agreed to film the incident and that alone would have extended participation to them with regards to the crime itself, since part of the act of the crime was to record it.
This would need to establish intent, but it is not hard to see why they were charged. Recording the crime, in this case, was in fact part of the crime being perpetrated. It was within the scope of the overall crime. If it was a neutral bystander recording this would be different (no crime).
It's an odd case, but it's also not a stretch to see why they were arrested. The recording of the crime fell within it's scope.
Taking I have a legal background originally, I am not sure how it can be more so than me. The level of involvement does extend to how the act was perpetrated, ie the specific context of the event, they were involved with the crime in the very fact they agreed to film the crime would be enough to make them accessories to the crime since part of the intent of the crime was to record it. It is not that hard to establish involvement here on that level, it's accessories during the fact, and possibly conspiracy to commit the act. Taking this was likely discussed before the incident considering it's nature, with both brothers recording, it is not that shocking they were also charged.
They didn't need to drive him there to be an accessory, encourage him to shoot, or help him get away. They could have agreed to film the incident and that alone would have extended participation to them with regards to the crime itself, since part of the act of the crime was to record it.
This would need to establish intent, but it is not hard to see why they were charged. Recording the crime, in this case, was in fact part of the crime being perpetrated. It was within the scope of the overall crime. If it was a neutral bystander recording this would be different (no crime).
It's an odd case, but it's also not a stretch to see why they were arrested. The recording of the crime fell within it's scope.
That's what I am trying to find out, whether or not they acquired the knowledge of the time and location of said crime, and they decided to show up independently and film.
Oh, about "legal background," I easily passed the bar with one try. Did you?
Taking I have a legal background originally, I am not sure how it can be more so than me.
Are you sure now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
