Vicarious liability and such

[BettyO]

(07-20-2012 12:48 PM)Ed Steers Wrote:  One need only read Bingham's summation (in its entirety!!) and the case precedent law that he cites (from civil law by the way) to understand the conspiracy law at the time. It differed little from today's conspiracy law. These people were excellent jurists and knew the law inside out. Even the defense attorneys were handicapped. Bingham cites precedent all the way back to Justice John Marshall. The confusion many people have is in thinking the plot to capture is separate from the plot to kill. Did they really think they could carry a president of the United States over 150 miles through enemy occupied territory without someone getting killed. If the plot to capture did not anticipate killing why were the conspirators armed with guns? Same people involved, same target, same objective - to disrupt the military objective of the United States. Terry Nichols was 150 miles away when McVey set off the Oklahoma City bomb. Nichols claimed he didn't know McVey would kill people. Didn't wash. He was found guilty along with McVey. Vicarious liability applies.

Thanks, Ed for making this clear! You have verified the ramifications of Vicarious liability in terms which I (who is basically a legal idiot!) can readily understand. Thanks a bunch!