To: MindBender26
No it isn't actually. Kidnapping doesn't have an exact definition in most jurisdictions simply because it has variables, and being held for "nefarious purposes" is not a requirement. Even in the "Model Penal Codes" (which aren't actual codes but an example designed by the American Law Institute) they include "interfering with a governmental or political function" in the list of purposes. In this example, was the woman seized? Yes. Was she physically moved? Yes. Was she held against her will in order to silence her? Yes. Did she have the right to speak in that forum? Yes. Was she recognized by the person running the town meeting? Yes. Did the police have any legitimate reason to seize, remove, and silence this person? No.
That's called kidnapping among other crimes.
87 posted on
07/07/2011 10:28:50 AM PDT by
Durus
(You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
To: Durus
It would not sustain a criminal or civil charge of kidnapping.
It was very foolish, and may subject the city to civil suit, but it was not a criminal act.
Let's stop blowing things up our of proportion.
115 posted on
07/07/2011 2:34:33 PM PDT by
MindBender26
(Forget AMEX. Remember your Glock 27: Never Leave Home Without It!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson