One law and how it applies, is NOT the same how another law, and it applies. You are trying to argue mechanics of laws as if they were the same, and they are not.
Murder is not aiding. Aiding is aiding. You are not arguing anything but spewing #### that doesnt matter to what you would say you are arguing.

However it is very much like real life, in this argument. Aiding a criminal would be like harboring a fugitive which is direct aid. That person committed no other crime, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the territory the criminal was subject to for harboring the criminal (aiding).

Do you see how I argued the law, in reguards to the appropriateness of the law itself, and not said ok.. I am going to argue about aiding a criminal, and using an entirely different law and helpful that had no bearing on the argument itself?

Try something like this for example, using a case of the law itself.