And Michael's still responsible for the killing, even if he had no knowledge of it beforehand? Really? Does that mean Tony Soprano was responsible for Ralphie's killing of his (Ralphie's) girlfriend, even though Tony not only didn't know about it until after it happened, but vehemently disapproved when he found out? Sorry, I don't buy that.
That analogy doesn't work, Vito. My contention was that Michael would have been
legally responsible, and I still say he would have been.
You may be right from a legal standpoint, but logically it still doesn't make sense to me--unless Michael said something like "Do whatever it takes, I don't care what" beforehand.
Legal reasoning and common sense reasoning often conflict. For example, Jerry Capeci notes that Carmine Persico was convicted in the "Commission" case of participating in the killing of Carmine Galante (as if Galante's death was some kind of big loss anyway!) even though he actually voted against executing Galante. I don't think that anyone in everyday life would consider someone who voted against killing a person responsible for that person's subsequent murder.
