A Twist in the Tale: Misleading Law Enforcement in the Viral Video That Sent Police Down a Rabbit Hole

TikTok, the well-known short-form video platform, is known for its entertaining dance challenges, funny pranks, and food recipes. Yet, more people turn the media into a platform to publicize legal issues, mainly through viral videos. One of these users is Ugo Lord, a lawyer with 6.7 million followers. Recently, he discussed a viral video that involved sending the police down a rabbit hole.

The video begins with a red car speeding rapidly while a police car is in close chase. When the red car takes the lead over the police car, some pedestrians appear. They indicate the opposite of the red car’s route, yelling, “This way! This way!” to the police officers.

Misleading The Police Is A Crime?

The deliberate misdirection asks, “Did these bystanders commit a crime?” Ugo Lord, known for his legal dissections of TikTok incidents, provides an analysis rooted in California law.

Ugo Lord offers his insightful analysis of the viral video featuring bystanders redirecting police during a pursuit. Regarding US law, Lord focuses on the fact that citizens are not required to help law enforcement. Nevertheless, he warns against activities that mislead the officers because they are a form of aiding and abetting.

“What you cannot do is get involved by leading officers in the wrong direction. That is called aiding and abetting,” he adds.

Lord argues that leading officers on the wrong track could be treated as an active form of participation in a crime. Thus, such bystanders turn into accomplices. They could also be charged with the same offenses as the one they assisted in escaping arrest.

“It is a silly way to get you into trouble when this was none of your business to begin with.”

It should be noted that this reckless step is not only stupid but also puts the innocent bystanders in undue legal peril.

Lord stresses the possible consequences to make the audience realize that they should be careful with what they do and not deal with issues that do not concern them. Based on his argument, aiding the criminal and being an accomplice in committing the crime is illegal, hence the importance of desisting from being involved in “sending police down a rabbit hole.”

Legal Implications Of Aiding And Abetting

The legal concepts of “aiding” and “abetting” are central to this scenario. Both are types of co-conspirator liability and have the same consequences as the primary offense. Aiding is helping someone commit a crime while abetting involves encouraging or inciting a criminal act. Both elements don’t need to be present. One can be charged if one participates in or assists in a crime.

Under California Penal Code 31 PC, facilitating or assisting in a criminal act is considered a crime, punishable by the same penalties as if the person had committed the crime directly. There’s no requirement for a formal agreement to the crime beforehand – involvement in the act suffices for liability. The minor role also results in a conviction if there is some form of involvement. However, just being aware of it or being at the crime scene is not enough.

The code also explains that any person inciting or counseling someone, notably those below 14 or mentally incapacitated, to commit a crime shall be held accountable. This also applies when it is done intentionally to intoxicate a person for him to provoke a criminal activity or when someone is compelled to commit a crime through threats or coercion.

Elements Of Aiding And Abetting

Four significant elements determine the crimes of aiding and abetting, according to the Justice Department:

• The accused had specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime.
• The accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense.
• The accused assisted or participated in the crime.
• Someone committed the underlying offense.

By incorporating these components into the TikTok video, it is evident that the actions of the bystanders can be perceived as facilitating the escape of the police, thereby making them accomplices. On the other hand, the actual liability would be determined according to the specific circumstances and what the bystanders intended to do.

Conclusion

Although the film presents a captivating spectacle, it also functions as a cautionary lesson about the possible legal repercussions of our decisions, even the impulsive ones.

Attorney Ugo Lord states legal knowledge can be obtained from anywhere and everywhere, including a viral TikTok video.