I know someone who got 2 years recording a fight (to the death nearly) and distributing the video amongst others. Wasn’t directly involved but was there.
If they were convicted for something they did, I'm fine with that. Distributing the video. Being involved in planning the fight, if they were. Something they did.
If they were convicted for something they didn't do, I'm not fine with that.
It's that simple IMO.
A scenario for you, or anyone else:
Persons A, B and C plan to vandalise a building for some political reason.
A does the vandalising, B videos it, C remains in the car around the corner, out of sight of the surveillance camera on the front of the building. Engine running, ready to get them away quickly if needed. It's C's own car.
Person D comes along and decides to steal the car. D has no connection to the vandalism plan. No connection to A, B or C. D drags C out of the car and drives off with it. C hits their head badly when they fall and dies. Neither A nor B were in any way involved in the theft of the car or the death of C. They weren't even present. They didn't even know what had happened until later.
Do you consider A and B guilty of stealing C's car and murdering C despite the fact that they did neither thing and hadn't planned to do either thing and weren't present?
Do you consider C guilty of stealing their own car and murdering themself?
If not, why not? sine qua non and all that. Besides, they were bad'uns so it doesn't matter how they get convicted, just that they do. Ends justifies the means.