This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Now, my question is: if someone subscribes to any of these stunt channels on youtube, are subscribers responsible for their illegal activities? Legally I have no idea. But ethically, maybe. — orcestra

No, of course not. No one is being forced to do stunts. It's their choice to do them.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The stunts being the illegal activities.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Correct. I have no complaint against you. The responsibility is with the person who chose to shoot me. My answer here should already be clear from what I wrote above.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My own view cannot be a surprise. If B offers himself for hire for illegal purposes, and A engages him for those purposes, that at least is the crime of conspiracy. And if the crime is committed, then A might well find himself charged along with B. I think this is the way it is and the way it should be. But you appear to hold a different view. Have I misunderstood? — tim wood

Right, my view is different than this. I'd have no crime of conspiracy if I were king.

Inferred, now explicit. Would you say anyone else could have a complaint: Or no one? — tim wood

I'm not sure what you're asking there. It seems basically you're asking if I agree that we should have conspiracy crimes. If so, see above.

I suppose that, legal considerations aside, we ought to define "responsibility." — tim wood

For what we've been talking about, what matters to me is whether someone is able (that is, whether they're physically able) to make a choice or not. If they are, they're responsible for the choices they make, and no one prior to that, with whatever influence on them, is responsible for the choice someone makes. As long as it's physically possible to make a different choice, only the person making the choice to perform action x is responsible for action x.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Actually the example mentioned by some people here isn't that facetious or hypothetical. The video of "Russian Roulette stunt - Derren Brown". is still on youtube. He is a British mind control stunt guy. On BBC live TV he got a guy to put a bullet in a gun with 6 chambers. Derren shot himself with the chambers that he sensed had no bullet. Before hand he says to the guy "you are not morally or legally responsible if I ^&&^ this up". Now, I am not sure if I agree with Darren on that. Is that different from how Brandon Lee died when a gun was meant to be empty in a stunt but it was by mistake loaded?

In many countries there is a legal principle known as "aiding and abetting", which holds those who assist in a crime as accountable.

So the driver of the getaway car is not guilty of robbing the bank, even though the driver was going to get a share of the loot?

So the driver of the getaway car is not guilty of robbing the bank, even though the driver was going to get a share of the loot? — Metaphysician Undercover

Right.