Nevada ranching family claims victory as government releases cattle

[Xithras]

82. Your argument falls flat for one simple reason.

"Aiding and abetting", under U.S. law, requires that those charged perform acts that directly support the commission of the crime.

There is no crime in this scenario. United States v. Bundy was a civil matter, and not a criminal one. He committed a civil offense by not paying the fees.The protesters did not aid him in not paying the fees. You might argue that he violated an injunction, which may be a criminal act depending on how it was worded...but again, the protesters action did not aid that violation because they did not place the violating cattle on the land.

Without a criminal act, you cannot have a principal criminal. Without a principal criminal, you cannot have aiders and abettors. You can only be considered an aider and abettor if your actions specifically enable a criminal act to occur.

Committing civil disobedience against their removal is an entirely different legal issue than the original placement of the cattle on the land.

And, considering that bin Laden KILLED PEOPLE, while these people simply performed a bit of nonviolent civil disobedience, I'm a bit stunned that you'd even compare the two.