Again, where is the overarching felonious conspiracy? A gunfight broke out for still-unclear reasons; that the group was meeting there is not sensible/legal grounds for accusing members present of actually committing assaults (which must be discerned vs self-defense) which they did not actually commit. Simply being a member at a meeting, during which a fight (of unknown cause) breaks out, is insufficient for “law of parties” to apply.
Further complicating this thread: the lead post conflates those present at the Twin Peaks shootout with a fight at Logan’s Roadhouse on November 2, 2013, using Law Of Parties to indict those not present at Logan’s for the stabbings at Logan’s because they were present at Twin Peaks - a non-sequitur.
Reyna grabbed a tiger by the tail and seven months in, cannot figure out how to let it go.
The OP notes a failed application of law of parties to the Logan's incident as a parallel to the potential application of law of parties to the Twin Peaks incident.
There were two stabbings at Logan's. The accusations against Lewis were that he actually stabbed Satterwhite, and that he was guilty of stabbing Corley under the law of parties. The charge of stabbing Corley was tossed by the judge, because "that the state had failed to present any evidence of Lewis actually directing or encouraging the stabbing." The charge that Lewis stabbed Satterwhite was given to the jury. FWIW, the jury acquitted Lewis on that charge.
The parallel in Twin Peaks is that in order to obtain a guilty verdict under law of the parties, the state will have to produce evidence that an accused directed or encouraged violence.
“Again, where is the overarching felonious conspiracy? “
Bandidos conspired to extort money and cooperation of the other clubs.
Cossacks conspired to disrupt with violence if necessary the Bandidos intrusion into their ‘territory’.