Lyras wrote:Gamergirl90 wrote:Isnt determining guily or innocence something we have trials for? Since when is it necessary to be able to prove someone committed a crime in order to arrest them?
Not 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', but certainly a 'prima facie'-standard proof. On what has been made available here, that isn't satisfied. Kidnapping requires coercion of the person being kidnapped. It must be conducted against their will. It must be able to be established to be the case. And age is not a factor here (for kidnapping itself), as there is no explicit suggestion of sexual misconduct.
No case for kidnapping to answer.
This is incorrect. Specifically this is the law in new york:
A person is so moved or confined “without consent” when such is accomplished by (a) physical force, intimidation or deception, or (b) any means whatever, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than sixteen years old or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian or other person or institution having lawful control or custody of him has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement
When the kidnappee is under the age of 16 their consent is irrelevant