ICE told to get the eff out

[ellal]

Yeah, nothing original. You’re still a wet liberal, question swerving, unwanted migrant and you always will be.

Surely you're old enough to understand it doesn't pay to get upset and troll every time you get bested...

After all it happens all the time, so you should have got used to it by now

 

[MNW67]

I wonder if as a general rule we can agree to post the question asked, with the AI response? It’s so easy get confirmation bias with a question and poor quality sources. That way, anyone can test the sources independently.

As I’ve already said, the issue facing Becca Good is one of joint enterprise, “impeding a federal officer”, but they could stretch this to some sort of reckless endangerment. Personally I think it will go nowhere and is a way to focus blame on her and remind observers they were not innocent observers attacked without cause.

This is what I asked Google:

'is the law of joint enterprise better developed in the uk or the us'

AI Overview

The law of joint enterprise is more
conceptually developed and refined by the Supreme Court in the UK, particularly since the landmark R v Jogee [2016] ruling, which corrected decades of misinterpretation. In contrast, the US approach, while often broader and stricter, is heavily fragmented across states and federal jurisdictions, primarily utilizing doctrines like accomplice liability, conspiracy, and felony murder.

Key Comparisons in Development:

• UK (Refined Common Law): Following R v Jogee, the UK Supreme Court established that a secondary party must have the intent to assist or encourage a crime, rather than mere foresight of what the principal might do. This corrected a "wrong turn" taken 30 years prior. While this is a more legally precise standard, in practice, the application remains highly criticized for continued, disproportionate use against young Black men.
• US (Broad & Punitive): The US frequently uses joint enterprise concepts to heavily penalize gang-related crimes, often capturing individuals who did not personally commit the murder (e.g., being in a car during a drive-by shooting). US accomplice liability can hold individuals liable for foreseeable crimes committed by a partner, similar to the pre-2016 UK standard.
• Issues in Development: Both systems face severe criticism regarding fairness. The UK Supreme Court ruling in 2016 has had, according to some studies, "no discernible impact" on reducing the number of convictions or correcting racial disparities in multi-defendant homicide cases.
• Scope: The US approach (such as felony murder rules) can often be more punitive, allowing for murder convictions even when there was no intent to kill, provided a felony was being committed.

Conclusion on Development:
The UK has a better-developed, more precise, and recently corrected legal doctrine (aiming for intent over foresight), whereas the US has a more widely applied and punitive practical application (using broad conspiracy and felony murder doctrines).

 

[MNW67]

I wonder if as a general rule we can agree to post the question asked, with the AI response? It’s so easy get confirmation bias with a question and poor quality sources. That way, anyone can test the sources independently.

As I’ve already said, the issue facing Becca Good is one of joint enterprise, “impeding a federal officer”, but they could stretch this to some sort of reckless endangerment. Personally I think it will go nowhere and is a way to focus blame on her and remind observers they were not innocent observers attacked without cause.

Taking it a bit further, I asked:

'does abetting a crime require intention or recklessness US'

AI Overview

In the United States, aiding and abetting a crime generally requires
specific intent—meaning the accused acted with the purpose of facilitating the commission of the crime. While recklessness might suffice for certain lower-level, specific statutes or in other jurisdictions, federal law requires that the defendant purposefully associated with the criminal venture and sought by their actions to make it succeed.

Here is a breakdown of the mental state required:

• Specific Intent/Purposefulness: The defendant must knowingly and intentionally aid, counsel, command, or encourage the principal offender. They must share the criminal intent of the principal and have a "purposive attitude" to help the crime succeed.
• Knowledge: The defendant must have knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose.
• "Wilful Blindness" is Sufficient: If a person deliberately avoids learning the truth, "willful blindness" can be treated as knowledge.
• Recklessness is Generally Not Enough: Simply acting recklessly or being negligent in a way that happens to help a criminal is typically not enough for an aiding and abetting conviction, which requires a more active, intentional, and purposeful participation.

Key Elements of Aiding and Abetting in the U.S.

To secure a conviction, the government must prove:

1. Intent: The accused had the specific intent to facilitate the crime.
2. Participation: The accused assisted or participated in the crime in some meaningful way.
3. Principal Crime: Someone else actually committed the underlying offense.

Important Distinction

• Aiding and Abetting: Requires intent and brings the same penalties as the principal crime.
• Accessory After the Fact: A separate charge for helping someone after the crime has already been committed to avoid apprehension.

 

[MNW67]

As a starting point for the discussion, this is a similar conversation on Reddit:

' "Drive, baby, drive" qualifies as a conspiracy to induce/encourage her partner to disobey the lawful order to exit the car given by the officer.'

The reply:

'You need these elements to prove conspiracy:

1. There has to be an agreement between members of the conspiracy (shared planning).
2. The agreement has to be understood to be the commission of a crime.
3. The person has to take an action in furtherance of the conspiracy (the agreement is not by itself an action in furtherance).
4. At least one person in the conspiracy has to have committed the crime.

Just saying "do X" isn't conspiracy because it would be unlikely to be considered an agreement in the first place (and here you're relying on the driver driving as implied agreement, and so you'd have to prove they wouldn't have driven but for that encouragement), and even if it were, it's not an action in furtherance.

You could argue it's aiding and abetting, but you'd have to prove that the passenger's intent was for the driver to commit a crime rather than just be a reflexive statement made in panic, and you'd have to prove that the driver decided to act because of that encouragement. There's no way you'd get a conviction here.'