To be fair, kidnapping doesn’t have a minimum duration before it becomes legally applicable; he already kidnapped the child the first time he drove off.
E. If it wasn’t clear, my logic above is why I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on that one small facet of this interaction.
My understanding of US Law isn’t great, so take this with a grain of salt, but for a kidnapping to occur doesn’t the accused have to do it willfully and wrongfully?
from what i’ve learned there are 2 outcomes: they actually prosecute according to the law in which case intent is usually very important, or they prosecute according to who has more money in which case all that matters is what shit they can get away with sentencing him for.
To be fair, kidnapping doesn’t have a minimum duration before it becomes legally applicable; he already kidnapped the child the first time he drove off.
E. If it wasn’t clear, my logic above is why I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on that one small facet of this interaction.
My understanding of US Law isn’t great, so take this with a grain of salt, but for a kidnapping to occur doesn’t the accused have to do it willfully and wrongfully?
from what i’ve learned there are 2 outcomes: they actually prosecute according to the law in which case intent is usually very important, or they prosecute according to who has more money in which case all that matters is what shit they can get away with sentencing him for.
Yeah. Makes the idea he did it for that actually pretty stupid
Doesn’t US law require intention?