10-10-2015, 01:58 PM
(10-10-2015, 01:08 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:(10-10-2015, 10:05 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: To my knowledge, the mother of the Oregon massacre can not be prosecuted for the actions of her son even though we'll most likely find out that the guns he used were in fact purchased by her.
Why not start with "aiding and abetting"?
Quit pussy-footing around and start using the laws we have on the books.
Because, unless there is evidence to suggest that these three legal elements of aiding and abetting occurred, there is not likely probable cause to charge idiot mom with "aiding and abetting".
1. She had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by her son;
2. She had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense;
3. She assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substantive offense.
If there's probable cause to suggest that idiot mom did those things, then I agree she should be charged with "aiding and abetting" immediately.
If it turns out that idiot mom bought the guns for her troubled son because he couldn't legally do so (but there is no evidence indicating she knew of his plan to commit a crime), I think charging her using the straw purchasing law on the books would be appropriate and the likelihood of conviction would be high.