An aider and abettor is guilty of the target offense and any other offense that is a natural and probable conseuence of the target offense if he acts with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent of committing, encouraging or facilitating commission of the offense. A “natural consequence” is one that is reasonably expected to occur in the commission of the target offense, absent unusaul intervention, and “probable” means likely to occur. Appellant and his codefendant who were members of the same gang, were burglarizing vehicles in opposing-gang territory when the victim arrived. The codefendant shot a weapon in the air. Appellant was convicted of witness intimidation on the People’s offered theory that he was an aider and abettor. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the co-defendant’s crime of witness intimidation was not a natural and probable consequence of the target crimes of burglary and possession of a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm by a participant in a criminal street gang. Separately, the court also concluded that evidence that a gang member has committed a crime with another person he knows to be a gang member is ordinarily sufficient to meet the elements of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), the gang enhancement statute.