What he did wasn't "kidnapping" ... until he started driving away. Then it 100% was.
However? While what he did was HIGHLY "sus" it wasn't a crime. Giving a kid a ride home, grabbing a snack? Because they're (I presume) the same "community" that's not unheard of. Maybe it looked like rain? BUT if the kid wasn't also a jeet? That's highly suspicious. Plus the "leave your gear here" is a huge red flag.
So the act of talking to the kid, giving the kid a ride & even getting a treat aren't criminal. The gear is huge & the driving away IS a crime.
18 months is a HUGE sentence in Canada, slaps on the wrist for non-Whites is SO commonplace.
Good point, especially if they're under 12 & might not understand such things well enough.
Coupled with "don't take candy from strangers" which this boy's parents omitted :/
I don't know what his motive was. I don't know if he's simply a pedophile, or if he had some emotionally-fucked-up reason to want to play Big Brother for a few hours, or if there are voices in his head telling him to protect the kid from the Terminator, or just what the fuck that was all about.
Obviously it's wrong to take a kid for a drive while his parents panic. And obviously it's a lot more wrong if he was about to molest the kid than if the kid was never in any real danger. Those two crimes are quite different, and the penalty for them should be very different.
Motive is everything in a case like this. It's all I'd want to know if I were somehow in charge of sentencing him.
If he wanted to molest this kid, I want him locked away for life. If he just wanted to push the kid on a swing and drive him back home, I want him locked up for maybe like two months and then put under supervision for a few years, just as a very strong "Don't do that shit, you might think it's harmless but it terrifies parents. It's downright fucking traumatic. Never do anything like that again."
We can’t read his mind so we can’t guess his intent! Na, I’m going to go ahead and guess his intent was molestation. If he is innocence and totally just told a kid to leave his belongs, took him out for ice cream and then got bizarre about dropping the kid off or not but was totally not up to something, oh well! It’s better to assume something suspicious with incredibly suspicious behavior than not do anything because we lack the ability to read minds.
Motive is completely irrelevant in the case. And you are demonstrating inferior intelligence if you can't figure out why. Because it's actually really simple. Sure you don't want to take a crack at it?
And you're still overlooking the important part that you yourself quoted.
It is relevant if there's some ambiguity. When he started driving away? THAT left no ambiguity at all: straight-up kidnapping.
But before that he was highly "sus" but not criminal.
Without the drive-off, would I let this guy within 10 meters of any kid? Hell no! What a creep. Boku no Pico Material eh?
It's not irrelevant. Legal definitions of "abduction" frequently require the intent. For example, intent to deprive of liberty or to conceal then from an entity lawfully entrusted with them (parents, school, etc.).
So a child kidnapping in broad daylight isn't enough for you?
Since you got here you've refused to make a lot of very simple moral judgments but this just might take the cake.
What he did wasn't "kidnapping" ... until he started driving away. Then it 100% was.
However? While what he did was HIGHLY "sus" it wasn't a crime. Giving a kid a ride home, grabbing a snack? Because they're (I presume) the same "community" that's not unheard of. Maybe it looked like rain? BUT if the kid wasn't also a jeet? That's highly suspicious. Plus the "leave your gear here" is a huge red flag.
So the act of talking to the kid, giving the kid a ride & even getting a treat aren't criminal. The gear is huge & the driving away IS a crime.
18 months is a HUGE sentence in Canada, slaps on the wrist for non-Whites is SO commonplace.
You do not, EVER, feed someone else's kid without asking.
Is the kid lactose intolerant? Deadly allergic to peanuts? How do you know?
This is why it's simply never appropriate to interact with a strange child unless the very first thing you're doing is contacting their parents.
Good point, especially if they're under 12 & might not understand such things well enough.
Coupled with "don't take candy from strangers" which this boy's parents omitted :/
I don't know what his motive was. I don't know if he's simply a pedophile, or if he had some emotionally-fucked-up reason to want to play Big Brother for a few hours, or if there are voices in his head telling him to protect the kid from the Terminator, or just what the fuck that was all about.
Obviously it's wrong to take a kid for a drive while his parents panic. And obviously it's a lot more wrong if he was about to molest the kid than if the kid was never in any real danger. Those two crimes are quite different, and the penalty for them should be very different.
Motive is entirely irrelevant. So why you're trying for that besides an obvious attempt at a red herring, I'd have to speculate.
Personally I think you're feigning ignorance.
You even quoted a very important part as to this pajeet subhuman's intent yourself but you seem to have missed it.
Motive is everything in a case like this. It's all I'd want to know if I were somehow in charge of sentencing him.
If he wanted to molest this kid, I want him locked away for life. If he just wanted to push the kid on a swing and drive him back home, I want him locked up for maybe like two months and then put under supervision for a few years, just as a very strong "Don't do that shit, you might think it's harmless but it terrifies parents. It's downright fucking traumatic. Never do anything like that again."
We can’t read his mind so we can’t guess his intent! Na, I’m going to go ahead and guess his intent was molestation. If he is innocence and totally just told a kid to leave his belongs, took him out for ice cream and then got bizarre about dropping the kid off or not but was totally not up to something, oh well! It’s better to assume something suspicious with incredibly suspicious behavior than not do anything because we lack the ability to read minds.
Motive is completely irrelevant in the case. And you are demonstrating inferior intelligence if you can't figure out why. Because it's actually really simple. Sure you don't want to take a crack at it?
And you're still overlooking the important part that you yourself quoted.
It is relevant if there's some ambiguity. When he started driving away? THAT left no ambiguity at all: straight-up kidnapping.
But before that he was highly "sus" but not criminal.
Without the drive-off, would I let this guy within 10 meters of any kid? Hell no! What a creep. Boku no Pico Material eh?
Hey you figured out the part that the other guy literally quoted and somehow overlooked.
It's not irrelevant. Legal definitions of "abduction" frequently require the intent. For example, intent to deprive of liberty or to conceal then from an entity lawfully entrusted with them (parents, school, etc.).
Motive is very relevant.