Suggested by BlakeTyner’s “Kidnapped by a nice person” thread.
The thread title is pretty much my entire question. Legally, how much force may I use to escape a kidnapper? Does it matter how well he or she treats me, assuming that I am nevertheless deprived of my liberty?
The law is going to come down to looking at what a “reasonable person” would do in the circumstance.
As many of the posters in the other thread have said, the mere fact that you are not permitted to leave should give you reason to feel threatened. This won’t necessarily justify you killing the person at the first available opportunity, but you come up against the contradiction in the post: how can they treat you nicely when ultimately they have to be using some kind of force or threat to keep you kidnapped?
It is the nature of that undefined force or threat that’s going to justify (or not) any violent actions taken by the victim. If they really will let you walk out at will, then no violence would be justifiable under the law. But as soon as they physically restrain you, threaten you, hurt you, etc. they’ve provided you with a legal basis for self-defense.
Of course, the “reasonable person” standard looks at all aspects of the scenario. If you’re “kidnapped” as part a fundraising event for a non-profit, then a reasonable person will not respond by immediately shooting the volunteers.
It’s going to vary from one state to another. But as a general rule you’re justified using deadly force it it’s necessary to defend yourself or a third person from a serious crime. And being held captive usually qualifies as a serious crime.
The big point if the part about it being necessary. If you kill your captor during your escape, you’re going to have to show that you had reasonable grounds to believe you wouldn’t have been able to escape without killing him.
Yes, but such a “kidnapping” is not legally a kidnapping at all, since it’s voluntary for all the parties involved. Similarly, if I’m acting in a stage play, and another actor threatens me with a fake gun as part of the action of the play, I’m not entitled to treat that as a real threat and shoot him with a real run.
(Said by someone who once “kidnapped” a lord mayor, then wasn’t sure what to do with him, so just drove him round the block and delivered him back to the city hall.)
Ready for a dry-as-dust legal answer? Good. In my jurisdiction an actor may use deadly force to the degree that he reasonably beleieves to be immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, which is kidnapping with the intent to hold the person for ransom or reward, to use him as a shield or hostage, to facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony, to inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually, to terrorize him or a third person, to interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function, or anytime a deadly weapon is used or displayed. Absent those circumstances he may use whatever force is reasonable to prevent the commission of the offense.
That’s nothing. I once kidnapped the Pope!
**Little Nemo **and pravnik pretty much nailed it. Given that my state is a stand your ground/castle doctrine state, I really wouldn’t be very concerned about being prosecuted for much of anything I did to a kidnapper during my escape attempt. I assume my life is in danger from the point I am forcibly abducted, and whoever is doing the abducting would be well served to keep me drugged/bound/otherwise incapacitated. If he doesn’t, I’m probably going to make him wish he had.
(That wasn’t actually my thread–I had a double take when I saw the preview of the OP. 
)
I’ll just echo the above–Texas allows the use of deadly force to prevent kidnapping, including a citizen using deadly force to prevent the kidnapping of any third party. Basically, so long as you would be justified in using force or deadly force to protect yourself, you can use the same force to protect another.
That seems weird. What kind of kidnapping doesn’t fit one or more of those criteria? Something like a non-custodial parent kidnapping his or her kid(s) from the custodial parent?
Most kidnapping charges I’ve seen have been aggravated kidnapping for exactly that reason - most of the time what we usually think of as a kidnapping is going to be an aggravated kidnapping. Similarly, it’s usually fairly easy to find an aggravating factor to elevate robbery to aggravated robbery as well. I imagine something like a parent or other family member kidnapping a child could be non-aggravated kidnapping, although the more common charge would be the lesser crime of interference with child custody.
Kidnapping is a forceable felony in Florida which justifies your use of deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop it.
I don’t know what the law says where pravnik is posting from (Chuck’s Kung Fu Theocracy hasn’t posted its penal code online) but New York state has eight different specific crimes that could be broadly defined as kidnapping:
135.05 - Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.
135.10 - Unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.
135.20 - Kidnapping in the second degree.
135.25 - Kidnapping in the first degree.
135.35 - Labor trafficking.
135.45 - Custodial interference in the second degree.
135.50 - Custodial interference in the first degree.
135.55 - Substitution of children.
Kidnapping in the second degree is anytime you abduct somebody. (And I’ll skip the legal definition of what abduction is, except to not there is one.)
Kidnapping in the first degree is more serious. It’s when you abduct somebody for ransom, in order to commit another felony, in order to injure or sexually abuse the person you abducted, in order to force somebody else to do or not do something (taking a hostage), or when the abductee dies while being held in captivity.
I put that up a while ago, after Chuck Norris wrote an ill-conceived article contempleting Texas seceding from the union (I think another poster used it as his trivia team name). Probably time to change it.
One ‘rule of thumb’ is that to resist a crime, you may use as much force as the state would use on the criminal once convicted. So shooting & killing a kid spray painting on your garage wall is ‘excessive force’, since that is a minor property misdemeanor.
But kidnapping is a capital offense. So you can resist even up to killing the kidnapper.
That’s not really a very good rule of thumb. There are fifteen states that don’t have any capital crimes and there’s probably others where kidnapping isn’t a capital crime. But I don’t think there are any states that prohibit the use of deadly force if necessary to prevent a kidnapping. In New York, for example, you can legally kill somebody to prevent them from committing a kidnapping. But you can’t be executed if you’re convicted of committing a kidnapping.
Kidnapping is a Federal crime, with the possibility of a capital sentence. Even in states which have outlawed capital punishment.
What on earth is “Substitution of children” in regards to kidnapping? Sounds more like something that would happen on an episode of a zany TGIF sitcom.
It’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like.
The law’s proven its worth. New York has one of the lowest rates of fairy changelings in the country.
Kidnapping is only a capital crime under federal law is the victim dies during the kidnapping. And if your kidnapper kills you, your right to kill him back seems somewhat moot.
As I said before, you’re allowed to used deadly force if necessary to prevent a kidnapping. This has nothing to do with whether or not kidnapping is a capital offense.
I’m not sure Skald’s hypothetical would qualify. The sole purpose seems to be to keep you away from everyone you know.
And as I said in the other thread, force is only implied if there’s no other way of keeping you there. I especially wouldn’t try to escape somewhere really remote, as I’d never make it on my own. But I guess that makes the question in this thread moot, since using deadly force would be suicide for me.