Top Law Schools

Can anyone explain this to me, maybe with a hypo attached, pretending I'm like your idiot 5 year old brother? Thanks guys.

Edit: I guess the part where I'm getting caught up on is how much knowledge one needs for each. I think...

I didn't mean to call your 5 year old brother and idiot. That was unintended.

.

I thought crimes in furtherance were merely a sub-set of proximate cause.

Proximate cause can be
-in furtherance
-reasonably foreseeable
-natural and probable
-natural and continuous

therefore under my analysis, Pinkerton doctrine would be 3 step
1) conspiracy?
2) subsequent crime?
3) proximately caused by conspiracy?

Nutshell - the scope of the agreement (which makes it a conspiracy in the first place) defines the scope of personal liability for the conduct of the co-conspirators, if their conduct is within 1) the scope of said agreement, 2) foreseeable that conduct would occur based on agreement, or the 3) natural and probable consequence of the agreement.

The above 7-11 example works well. The scope of the agreement was the robbery of the bank, so anything subsequent that isn't a natural/probable/foreseeable result of a bank robbery wouldn't be conduct of a co-conspirator for which John is liable.

Thanks guys. I want to put rings on your fingers and call you all Saturn.