And, if for some reason this long thread hasn't put you off completely and you want to go down a rabbit hole with the philosophy of action and game theory that is behind all this, it kind of kicks off here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
J6 is a vivid, recent example of the kinds of collective crimes where standing in reserve is especially relevant. Terrorism and felony murder are others, which we discuss. We have a follow-up we are workshopping about the leaders of such collective crimes and the First Amendment. 6/n
So Henne! His presence, and crucially that all the other #Chiefs knows he’s there, changes their gameplan. (Pretty sure Big Red would change protection schemes). The reciprocal nature of joint intention is what makes Henne different from, a Tom Brady (ready and willing?) in the stands. 5/n
We lay out the conditions a little more rigorously in the paper, as you might expect, but that's the heart of it. 4/n
We develop a mens rea of complicity, defined by joint intention. If ready and willing to participate the moment it becomes necessary *and* the other participants know and are influenced by that, then we call them “standing in reserve” and argue they should count as accomplices. 3/n
We talk about the proper scope of accomplices in “collective crimes” – those that involve a lot of people in a variety of ways. Hard cases are ones where the accomplice doesn't participate, often b/c doing so would be superfluous, so they look like they're doing ... nothing. 2/n
New social, new paper! (Apologies to those of you with feet in multiple spaces).
New paper with Dimitri Landa (NYUpolitics). “Standing in Reserve: A New Model of Hard Cases of Complicity." Alternate title: “Why Chad Henne Deserves a Super Bowl Ring.”
arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/u...
