If your friend takes you against your will is it still Kidnapping I know that kidnapping refers to unlawfully taking a person. I also know a friend is someone you know well, love, trust, and hangout with. But if your friend grabs you, forces you in their car and takes you with them, and you don't want to go, and you beg them to let go of you and let you out of the car, is this still considered "Kidnapping?" Even if they don't hurt you?
First degree kidnapping is abducting with various exploitative intents such as ransom, using as human shield, or messing with government function. Second degree kidnapping is any abduction, with an exception if (1) The abduction is not coupled with intent to use or to threaten to use deadly force, (2) The actor is a relative of the person abducted, and (3) The actor's sole purpose is to assume lawful control of that person. "Abducting" is defined as To restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either: a. Secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or b. Using or threatening to use deadly physical force. Given that, the act is probably not abduction there not kidnapping. Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree exists is a person restrains another (with the aforementioned familial custody exception). "Restraining" is To intentionally or knowingly restrict a person's movements unlawfully and without consent, so as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by confining him either in the place where the restriction commences or in a place to which he has been moved. Restraint is “without consent” if it is accomplished by: a. Physical force, intimidation or deception, or b. Any means, including acquiescence of the victim, if he is a child less than 16 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. Suppose the victim is between 16 and 18, the accused is not a relative etc. Also suppose the victim was was not shoved into the car nor were there threats, but was enticed to enter voluntarily – and then once on the road, the true intent was revealed. E.g. "Let's go to the DQ"; "Okay, sounds fun"; (gets in car, drives past the DQ); "I thought we'd go to the DQ on the other side of the state". This could constitute deception (in particular, which DQ and what the real plan is). So whether this is "restraining" depends on the circumstances.
The part about "If I'm the owner of the content, surely I have the right to request its deletion" is the problem. Sure, you have the right to request, but you can't legally compel. You have an agreement with them, according to which you got something, and they got something. You can't then take back the thing that you gave them, which is permission to use. You didn't give them the IP itself, which you still hold. Here's an analogy. You may own a car, and can give a person permission to use the car (let's say "if you bring me back a pound of cheese from the store"). You cannot later change your mind (especially after you've gotten the cheese) a say that you retract that permission and therefore they actually stole your car. When permission to use is given, as long as the conditions for granting permission are satisfied, you can't un-give permission.
It is not entrapment because entrapment must be done by officers of the State (police usually). A member of the public inducing another to commit a crime is not entrapment and not a defense to having committed it. Entrapment is a "thing" in Ireland as it is in all common law jurisdictions, however, the specific limits on what police can and cannot do vary by jurisdiction. Police posing as underage children to catch pedophiles is legal throughout Australia (i.e., not entrapment). Police are more restricted in Canada and the USA but I believe that online "trawling" by police is legal in those jurisdictions too, however, they must remain more "passive" than Australian police. Yes, there is a crime being committed, the crime of attempting to engage in underage sex. It doesn't matter that the actual crime attempted is impossible to commit because the "victim" is not actually underage. Evidence is evidence – it doesn't matter who collects it. However, amateurs in the handling of evidence are more likely to botch it up in a way that would allow the defense to have it ruled inadmissible than professionals (although even they can botch it up).
If the police order you to sit in an interrogation room and you are not permitted to leave, by definition, you have been arrested. Detaining someone against their will for longer than necessary to answer a few questions on the spot (which is a lesser imposition on your freedom called a &quot;Terry stop&quot;) is what it means to be arrested. Legally, the police are only allowed to arrest you if they have probable cause to believe that you have committed a crime. I believe that you are confusing arrested (being detained by law enforcement against your will for more than a Terry stop), with being booked, or being charged with a crime. Generally speaking people are arrested first, and then booked next, and then charged with a crime after that, although this isn't always the order in which this happens. In much the same way, if the police observe someone committing a crime, they will first handcuff them which places them under arrest, and then book them sometime not too long later when they arrive at the police station, and then formally charge them sometime after that after a conversation with the prosecuting attorney to see if the prosecuting attorney is willing to pursue the case. Booking generally involves bringing someone to a police station, getting identifying information, taking a mug shot, taking finger prints, and depending upon what the police want to do, searching your person and inventorying your possessions prior to putting you in a jail cell in jail garb. Usually, however, the grand jury or the prosecuting attorney (it varies by jurisdiction) does have subpoena power to compel you to provide information under oath prior to trial as a witness, following the service of a subpoena upon you a reasonable time in advance as set forth in the relevant court rules, unless you invoke your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and are not granted immunity from prosecution based upon your testimony in exchange, or you invoke some other legal privilege against having to testify. They can, of course, simply ask you to come to an interrogation room and answer questions, and merely imply that it is mandatory without actually saying that you must and without clarifying the situation. In that case, which is extremely common, their legal right to interrogate you flows from your own consent. If you answer their questions, your answers could provide the police with probable cause to arrest you that they didn't have when they started asking questions. Indeed, often, when police interrogate you before booking you, they are doing so because they need your statements to establish the probable cause needed to legally arrest you. This is why criminal defense attorneys counsel people to immediate ask for a lawyer and refuse to answer any questions other than those needed to establish your identity. You can also ask if you are under arrest and if you are free to leave (which are mutually exclusive). If they say you are not under arrest, you are free to leave, unless you are appearing pursuant to a subpoena.
The legal system is set up to alleviate the problem or conundrum of intimidation by perpetrators. In the US criminal system, the State is the plaintiff, not the individual. In the extant described situation, very likely all you would have to do is sign an affidavit that the recovered phone is your phone, and that it was removed from your possession by unknown means on or about a certain date. From your description given here you don't know if it was stolen...you appear to have perhaps dropped it or left it somewhere, and someone picked it up/found it. Clearly it didn't belong to them, but this is more like "recovered lost property" rather than "received stolen property." The craigslist poster might be entirely un-chargeable with a crime, though they might have to give up the phone to you.
canada Summary The child's will or consent is relevant to a plain kidnapping charge. The child's will or consent is not relevant to abduction charges. This answer presents Canadian law for this body of offences, divided based on who is doing the taking (because of the specific offences created for abduction by a parent). Parent or guardian taking In Canada, a parent or guardian taking a child from the other parent implicates sections 279, 280, 282, and 283 of the Criminal Code. If the child is held against their will, this supports the offence of plain kidnapping under s. 279. This is an indictable offence (the higher of two categories of offences in Canada). Very young children will not possess the capacity to consent. Older children, even those younger than 14, may be capable of consent (see the discussion at paragraphs 401-417 of R. v. Al Aazawi, 2021 ABPC 155). If the child taken is under 16, the offence of abduction (not necessarily by a parent or guardian) of a person under 16 is available (s. 280). For this offence, the consent of the child is not relevant (explicitly stated at s. 286). It is considered an offence against the parent or guardian. If the taking is by a parent or guardian of a child under 14, then this supports an offence under s. 282 (abduction by a parent in contravention of custody or parenting order) or s. 283 (abduction by a parent in the absence of a custody or parenting order). Again, under these offences, the consent of the child is irrelevant (explicitly stated at s. 286). Sections 280, 282, and 283 create hybrid offences, punishable either by indictment (higher category of offence) or as a summary offence (lower category of offence). Often the age and circumstances of the taking may support multiple overlapping charges. See e.g. M.M. v. United States of America, 2015 SCC 62. That was an extradition case in which the corresponding Canadian charges were both s. 280 (abduction—by anyone—of a person under 16) and s. 282 (abduction by a parent in contravention of a custody or parenting order). Prosecution directives for this family of offences is available. E.g.: From the British Columbia Crown Counsel Policy Manual From a directive of the Attorney General published in the Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook Taking by someone other than a parent or guardian The same plain kidnapping offence will be available (s. 279) as will the offence of abducting a person under 16 (s. 280). However, there is an additional offence of abduction of a child under 14 (s. 281), also a hybrid offence. Again, the consent of the taken person is not relevant for the abduction offences (see s. 286), and the circumstances that give rise to an abduction offence are broader when the taken person is under 14 than when the taken person is merely under 16. A comparison of the elements of these two closely related offences can be found at paragraphs 17-24 of R. v. Gibson, 2018 BCSC 1869. Visualized Age of child Person taking Section &lt; 14 parent/guardian s. 279 (if against will), s. 280 (general abduction), ss. 282, 283 (abduction by parent) &lt; 14 non-parent/non-guardian s. 279 (if against will), s. 280 (general abduction), s. 281 (abduction by non-parent) &lt; 16 anyone s. 279 (if against will), s. 280 (general abduction) any age anyone s. 279 (if against will) A defence Section 285 provides: No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 280 to 283 if the court is satisfied that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm or if the person charged with the offence was escaping from danger of imminent harm.
The above is not quite accurate. First, assault. The correct definition is "a threat or physical act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact." Therefore, no attempt at a battery is necessary. Rather, simply making someone subjectively believe that you are about to commit a battery against them is enough for an assault charge. Please note the following two points. One, that apprehension does not mean fear. Apprehension means that the victim has to believe that the actor's conduct will result in imminent harmful or offensive contact. Two, it's not necessary that the victim believes such conduct will actually be effective - rather, he only has to believe the conduct is "capable" of making the contact. I can't tell if by "other security personnel" you mean, in addition to bouncers, say, security at concerts or if you mean private security guards, such as ones who guard warehouses or other businesses. Nonetheless, for the warehouse/business "guards," they do not have a special privilege above or beyond what any random person may do. That is, you may use force to the extent you reasonably believe necessary to prevent a felony, riot, or serious breach of the peace. You may use deadly force only if it appears reasonably necessary to prevent a "dangerous felony" involving risk to human life, including, for example, robbery, arson, burglary. However, if the private security personnel are operating under authority vested to them by local ordinance or the state legislature, then their rights (and also any attendant restrictions, such as those provided to citizens under the Fourth Amendment) would apply instead. So where's the difference? It comes about at the standard a situation must meet to allow use of deadly force. A police officer can use deadly force to effectuate an arrest based on a reasonable belief that a suspect has committed a felony involving the risk of physical harm or death to others (murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or burglary) or if there is substantial risk that the suspect was dangerous to the point that he may cause serious physical harm or death to someone if the arrest were delayed. On the other hand, as a private citizen, you may only use deadly force when attempting to effectuate an arrest if the suspect did indeed commit such a felony. Police can base their action on a reasonable belief and even if that belief is wrong, they will be safe from prosecution. A private citizen actually must be right about the suspect having committed the requisite crime. No matter how reasonable the belief was of a private citizen regarding a suspect, if that suspect did not actually commit the crime, the private citizen who used such force will be subject to prosecution. Bouncers are afforded no more rights than private citizens. They can issue verbal warnings, ask a patron to leave the establishment, check identification, refuse entry, call the cops, protect bystanders from violence, break up fights, and respond with equal force if necessary. They may not strike an individual with a punch or kick, push or physically toss someone out of the establishment, restrain them using chokeholds or other submission techniques, or use weapons or pepper spray.
The legal hook is reported to be §129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which authorizes use of force to disperse an illegal assembly, which this sort of is. No statute that I can find states that police can smack lawbreakers who are forced to disperse, but as is common in common law countries, the laws of India are not fully explicit on that which is allowed or forbidden for police to do. As this article indicates, systematic limits on police use of force remain to be developed.