but I don't think it gives private citizens the right to shite on the 4th amendment either.
but that varies by state. some states have "good samaritan" laws
but it seems they want anybody who was simply AT the party
An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. The assistance to the criminal may be of any type, including emotional or financial assistance as well as physical assistance or concealment.
The 4th amendment doesn't apply to private actors.
what is our redress against them, also?
(A) No person, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense, shall do any of the following:
(1) Solicit or procure another to commit the offense;
(2) Aid or abet another in committing the offense;
(3) Conspire with another to commit the offense in violation of section 2923.01 of the Revised Code;
(4) Cause an innocent or irresponsible person to commit the offense.
(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that no person with whom the accused was in complicity has been convicted as a principal offender.
(C) No person shall be convicted of complicity under this section unless an offense is actually committed, but a person may be convicted of complicity in an attempt to commit an offense in violation of section 2923.02 of the Revised Code.
(D) If an alleged accomplice of the defendant testifies against the defendant in a case in which the defendant is charged with complicity in the commission of or an attempt to commit an offense, an attempt to commit an offense, or an offense, the court, when it charges the jury, shall state substantially the following:
“The testimony of an accomplice does not become inadmissible because of his complicity, moral turpitude, or self-interest, but the admitted or claimed complicity of a witness may affect his credibility and make his testimony subject to grave suspicion, and require that it be weighed with great caution.
It is for you, as jurors, in the light of all the facts presented to you from the witness stand, to evaluate such testimony and to determine its quality and worth or its lack of quality and worth.”
(E) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under this section that, prior to the commission of or attempt to commit the offense, the actor terminated his complicity, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. A charge of complicity may be stated in terms of this section, or in terms of the principal offense.
Yeah, because that has something to do with this debate.
I also don't think it's that far-fetched to see a school cover something like this up.
so then we need the Ohio legal definition of "aid or abet"
As stated in the text and in this case, “mere presence” is not enough to satisfy the actus reus requirement.
In State v. Sims (10 Ohio App. 3d 56, 1983), the Ohio Court of Appeal for the Eighth District provided numerous definitions of “aid” and “abet.” The court stated that,
…one is not an aider or abettor unless he knowingly does something which assists or
tends in some way to affect the doing of the thing which the law forbids (p. 59).
a person is not an accessory before the fact, unless there is some sort of active
proceeding on his part; he must incite, or procure, or encourage the criminal act,
or assist or enable it to be done, or engage or counsel, or command the principal
to do it (p. 59).
The mens rea for the crime of complicity can be confusing and, as seen in Ohio law, there are no
levels of culpability mentioned. Generally, intent is inferred from the behavior of the players involved in the crime. In State v. Cartellone (3 Ohio App. 3d 145, 1981), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District indicated that intent can be discerned from both direct and circumstantial
…participation in criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship,
and conduct before and after the offense is committed…[it] may also be established
by overt acts of assistance such as driving a getaway car or serving as a lookout (p. 150).
Thus, courts will look at the actions of those involved in the crime to determine if intent is