Not in the least. You apparently have some knowledge of the law, and I request an informed opinion, not a brush-off.
WERE I on the jury (which I won’t be, because I am not in TX) I would advocate for jury nullification for any accused Person I deemed unjustly charged. Some were riding to Waco with lesser affiliation with gangs than others. Such as the Weavers, and I did thank don-o for posting their personal story. For an example.
However, why would not a juror be persuaded, that a Person who rode with the Cossacks or Bandidos, sworn by their allegiance to the Club to ride for any reason, NOT be deemed to be “in agreement” with the leaders who ordered them to ride?? Even not knowing what the reason to ride was, because there is no doubt they were “in agreement” with their leaders that they would would ride no matter what the reason was, even if they did not know the reason ahead of time. The point is, their loyalty to the club precludes them caring about the reason why, theirs just to do or die.
Which orders, they followed.
Tell me how you would persuade the Jury otherwise, please. I WANT to know the actual valid application of the law.
I really truly want to know this in legal terms. IF you will ride at the behest of someone who knew more than you did about a likely show-down, that DID result in a shoot-out leading to the deaths of NINE and injury to 18, and you did not know that would happen, but you would ride No Matter What, what exactly is that culpability, in legal terms?
YES, Just Asking, and I am allowed to ask!
And if they who merely rode with Clubs, in “agreement” with the leaders of the Clubs, without knowing why, and they are innocent, then WHY are you not attacking the Statute? instead of other FReepers, for Crying Out Loud? (as Rush would say).
Based on the arguments presented thus far, why should a Juror NOT accept that, “agreeing” to ride, at the behest of the club’s leaders, in an unusual “show of force” does NOT constitute agreement with whatever conspiracy or crimes the leaders knew about? OK THAT ALSO has to be proved.
But just how is a juror to let a guy off a conspiracy charge, if he is sworn to do whatever he is told to do? And does so. And crimes are committed.
AND then, why don’t you try to change the statute?
Please, let me know how you would convince the Jury based upon the Law. And Please, let me know if and how the statute itself should be changed. I am not opposed to that.
In order for an agreement or conspiracy to be a crime in its own right, the agreement or conspiracy has to be to commit a criminal act.
Being ignorant of conspiracy of others, and you doing nothing illegal (not in on the conspiracy or others, not committing a crime that stands without conspiracy), results in no crime.
At least that's the way it works in (legal) principle. Not saying it doesn't get to a jury. Zimmerman was tried for defending himself. But the sort of case you describe should result in no trial, not even incarceration, and that based on investigation, not arrest on probable cause.
-- WHY are you not attacking the Statute? --
Because I don't have an issue with the statute.
-- But just how is a juror to let a guy off a conspiracy charge, if he is sworn to do whatever he is told to do? --
Hopefully the remarks above, which restates how plain conspiracy works, answers that question.
Now, seriously, I am weary of you. You are welcome for the response, no need to thank me, and I do feel that your expression of gratitude is or would be sincere.