Fair enough. We should all recognize if he were in a state with stricter gun laws, he would be potentially held culpable as an accessory to the crime. It's like if we go to a store and your driving, but I go in, rob the place and kill someone without you knowing any of it was going to occur. In most situations, my actions would lead to you being potentially charged as an accessory. Either way, this is a tragedy regarding the loss of life and lives irreparably changed.
I know I am beating a dead horse here. So I will make one more rebuttal to a claim and then move on to the things we agree on.
Stricter gun laws would have not played a role in him being charged. Assuming his statements are factual. By his account, he never touched the gun, let alone used it. Miles, who was the legal owner of the gun, stashed it in Miller's backseat. In order for Miller to be culpable as an accessory, he would have to have had knowledge of Miles' intent for asking him to bring him the gun back, which would be by simply driving back to pick Miles up as intended anyways.
In your hypothetical, I would never in any case be charged as an accessory to the crime without me knowing what your intent was. If you went in, robbed the store and murdered someone, then came back out and told me, or I had a reasonable suspicion that you had committed a crime and I drove you away from the scene, then I could be held as an accessory after the fact. Which is a lesser charge in most cases than accessory to a crime.
In Miller's case, there is nothing to suggest that he knew what Miles' intent was. So nothing to support accessory to the crime. He didn't help Miles after the crime, so there is nothing to support accessory after the fact.
What we agree on:
1. This was a tragedy
2. Alabama COULD sit him solely based on optics.
3. Had this been Duke, it would be a shitshow.