“She was at the very least, an accessory to the crime or crimes.”
Why would that be? At this point, it hasn’t even been proven that a crime took place. If as the TV station reported that the shooter was standing between the open door and the drivers side seat when the driver put the car in drive, then he was in no danger of getting run over. And it hasn’t been established by either article that anything was shoplifted from Walmart.
Yet you have her as an accessory. I’m not supporting shoplifting. But I’m also not excusing the more serious situation where a person fires a gun into a car full of people, when clearly some of the people in the car are innocent. That in it’s self, is criminal.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is really a ridiculous question. Why are you a criminal apologist?
Yet you have her as an accessory
At the very least. She had been ordered by the courts to stay out of Walmart because of a previous conviction for stealing. Why do you defend scofflaws and criminal behavior? You are excusing women who plainly endangered innocent children.