False imprisonment can get you up to a year in jail. The basic requirements for something to be considered such require only that a person be unable to act on their right to freedom of movement and for said inability to be willfully and with intent caused without the consent of the person being restrained.
this person is willfully trapping someone else in a plastic box. The person in the box did not consent to being trapped in the box. They, by what they said in the post, have expressed their intent to cause the restriction of this persons ability to leave the box.
I hope whoever is stuck in the plastic shit box pressed charges because the person operating the machinery effectively confessed to the crime for all to see on the internet.
I mean yeah honestly it's sad because you know that an asshole like the guy in the porta potty would probably be willing to press charges even if he was closed there for 5 minutes
if you think what the machine operator did was ok you need to re-evaluate your morals.
also, downvoting me because you dont like the truth that im saying is sad.
what he did is a federal crime. It's actively deciding that your feelings are more important than someone else's rights. It's feeling like your feelings make you above the law, make you more important than other people. It's selfish and entitled, not to mention highly illegal.
the act of downvoting isnt the sad part. Its downvoting the truth of the law because you dont think the law should apply in a situation because "dont take a meme seriously, its just a prank bro"
so you're saying in any situation, law enforcement should be called to press charges, rather than taking the law into your own hands, such as a baseball bat?
Stopping a crime is a legal action. brandishing a weapon while detaining an individual committing a crime is also a legal action. using that weapon should the criminal attempt attack the person detaining them is, again, a legal action.
thats also a strawman arguement. If you have to strart what you are saying with "so you are saying" you might want to rethink what you are saying and ask yourself if you are arguing against a point no one made.
stopping a crime yes, beating an unarmed person with a bat is also a crime, but there's only an accusation of an intent to commit a crime, assault cahrge would still be made.
The of threat of force during the detaining of a criminal currently in the act of committing a crime is legal. It's not assault to detain a pedophile currently trying to fuck your 14 year old daughter (just for anyone reading this out of the loop, that is the context of the bat threat that iccarus is talking about)
contrary to popular belief, hearsay is allowed in court, its not this tv drama "hearsay is inadmissible"
legally speaking anything that wasn't said in court is hearsay, video recording is hearsay, audio recording is hearsay, text conversation records are hearsay.
It would easily stand up in court, even if you ignore the solicitation of child charge, he is in a house he was not invited into by the father, he is trespassing and thought to be there for the purpose of having sex with a minor. At minimum he's committing trespass which is a crime.
Now if we actually talk about the solicitation of a child charge, chances are the person had some sort of recorded or traceable conversation with the child, very likely over some text form, most likely text or instant message program.
I offer two possibilities and don’t see room for many others. Either 1. The man showed up without contacting the child before hand, trespassing in the house in the hopes he would end up having sex with a minor, or 2 he contacted the minor before hand with one of the above methods and arranged it, either not know he was really talking to the father or the father found out before he arrived or maybe the father wasn’t supposed to be home.
Either 1. Prior contact or 2. No prior contact
If 1. There is a paper trail in the form of texts or calls, even if the actual content of the calls can’t be found, there being calls at all is enough of a red flag that, combined with him being in the house, he could get convicted.
In the 2. Situation, he’s trespassing. Nothing else need be said, that’s a crime with very low proof requirements.
Comments
this person is willfully trapping someone else in a plastic box. The person in the box did not consent to being trapped in the box. They, by what they said in the post, have expressed their intent to cause the restriction of this persons ability to leave the box.
I hope whoever is stuck in the plastic shit box pressed charges because the person operating the machinery effectively confessed to the crime for all to see on the internet.
also, downvoting me because you dont like the truth that im saying is sad.
what he did is a federal crime. It's actively deciding that your feelings are more important than someone else's rights. It's feeling like your feelings make you above the law, make you more important than other people. It's selfish and entitled, not to mention highly illegal.
thats also a strawman arguement. If you have to strart what you are saying with "so you are saying" you might want to rethink what you are saying and ask yourself if you are arguing against a point no one made.
legally speaking anything that wasn't said in court is hearsay, video recording is hearsay, audio recording is hearsay, text conversation records are hearsay.
It would easily stand up in court, even if you ignore the solicitation of child charge, he is in a house he was not invited into by the father, he is trespassing and thought to be there for the purpose of having sex with a minor. At minimum he's committing trespass which is a crime.
Now if we actually talk about the solicitation of a child charge, chances are the person had some sort of recorded or traceable conversation with the child, very likely over some text form, most likely text or instant message program.
Either 1. Prior contact or 2. No prior contact
If 1. There is a paper trail in the form of texts or calls, even if the actual content of the calls can’t be found, there being calls at all is enough of a red flag that, combined with him being in the house, he could get convicted.
In the 2. Situation, he’s trespassing. Nothing else need be said, that’s a crime with very low proof requirements.