is not “staging” a kidnapping. At least not in the sense of orchestrating a little bit of street theater or a happening. Rather, it is just “planning and committing an actual kidnapping.”
Second, if your victim dies in the course of the commission of a felony, the law actually doesn’t allow you to plead, “Whoops! What an unfortunate accident!” It instead becomes felony murder — that is, a killing with malice aforethought, which, when you think about it, is just about the opposite of “killing accidentally.”
Now, I get that “Man Kidnaps Victim, Commits Felony Murder” may not be as punchy as the original headline, but it does have the advantage of being the truth.
Not only is it not as punchy, it contains a lot less information.
What you said is accurate. It was an actual kidnapping. But it was also staged. Killing somebody during the commission of a felony is murder. But it was also an accident.
It was a staged and real kidnapping, and an accidental killing and murder. Their headline is better than yours.
Well, it was a “staged” kidnapping only in the sense that every kidnapping is staged. He didn’t stage the kidnapping, he actually kidnapped her. It would only be staged if the victim was in on it.
The fact that his motive for the kidnapping was to later pretend to rescue her doesn’t mean that it was a fake kidnapping.
Yeah, he accidentally killed his kidnapping victim during the attack. I guess he didn’t mean for her to die when he duct taped her mouth shut. But she died anyway. That happens sometimes.
Right on both counts. I understand the OP’s point, but it doesn’t make sense to argue with a headline based on the fine points of the law. The guy may be guilty of felony murder whether the woman’s death was intentional or not, but the actual headline gives a lot more details on what happened and would be more interesting to readers for that reason.
Among the definitions of stage (verb): “to produce or cause to happen for public view or public effect.” Which is to say he wanted to fool this woman into thinking she was being kidnapped so he could pretend to rescue her. That’s an accurate use of “stage.” It was also an actual kidnapping, yes.
They’re not describing a legal plea or defense strategy. They’re telling a story.
Since he hasn’t been convicted of kidnapping or felony murder, that’s not going to be a headline.
In your profession, this is known as “burying the lede,” no? Sort of like if my headline for July 21, 1969 was “Armstrong Calls Nixon From Space!”
Fine. “Man Allegedly Kidnaps Victim, Allegedly Commits Felony Murder” (although it does not seem that the accused controverts the allegations. Even journalists don’t have to write “allegedly” when the suspect acknowledges committing the actus reus.)
Except the way he fooled her into thinking she was being kidnapped was to actually, you know, kidnap her. It is highly misleading to state that he “staged” the kidnapping, since that implies that there was no actual kidnapping. You stage a kidnapping when the victim is part of the conspiracy. If you actually kidnap someone you didn’t stage their kidnapping, unless every kidnapping is staged.
The fact that he apparently planned to release her later, unharmed, and claim credit for rescuing her, doesn’t mean he didn’t really-really-for-real kidnap her and assault her.
Calling this a staged kidnapping is absurdly wrong. Saying he accidentally killed her during the kidnapping is fine, since it’s apparently true that he didn’t mean for her to die when he taped her airway shut.
Not quite. I agree with you that it was a real kidnapping by any sensible definition and the story makes that clear. In fact it’s the rescue that would have been staged. But without “staged” in the headline you get a much less complete picture of what happened. They’re telling you he wanted to fool the girl into thinking she was being kidnapped so he could stage a rescue and look like a hero, but she died. All of that is accurate. And while the law may not distinguish between accidental and intentional killing in this case, it does matter in terms of the story being told.
I know they don’t. But you still wouldn’t see a headline like that one. You’d see something like ‘Man charged with kidnapping and murder.’
Ok, how would you stage a kidnapping for a victim then?
He was faking being an unknown assailant (as he was definitely known to the victim), but since we don’t tend to have a phrase for “stranger kidnapping” versus “acquaintance kidnapping” like we do for rape, I think you can excuse their attempt to make the headline less wordy while conveying a workable idea of what happened.
The plan was more of a real kidnapping, and staged rescue. She was not fooled into thinking she was being kidnapped, she was really kidnapped. The plan was to fool her into thinking she was being rescued, when in reality it was just her kidnapper letting her go.
This guy wanted to have sex with her, but she said no. So he kidnaps her, and she dies during the abduction. After he gets caught he says it wasn’t a “real” kidnapping, he was only pretending so he could rescue her and be a hero.
And we believe this criminal… why? Looks to me like he kidnapped her and planned on raping her, and she died, so he came up with a BS story so he might not get in as much trouble. Is there something I’m missing?
Isn’t this all a bit premature? We don’t know how she died yet; there’s every chance he killed her on purpose. People don’t just expire because they are tossed in the back of a pickup truck.
Actually, no they aren’t. The one word “staged” doesn’t just have that one single implication. Furthermore, the purpose of a headline isn’t to impart all the important details, only enough to get you to read the story and learn all the relevant information.
The police and prosecutors seem to believe his version. Maybe there’s some physical evidence that supports it, and it sounds like he told both his brother and his girlfriend (separately) that that was his plan.
What I don’t get is how do we know any of this story is true?
Just because the alleged kidnapper tells us this is what happened?
That’s my problem with the headline. It presumes what the idiot says happened actually happened, without waiting for all the evidence to come in. For all we know, tomorrow the investigators could find a worn copy of “Cookbook for the Cannibal Serial Killer” under his bed and a giant pressure cooker in his basement.
Well, there’s the body of a dead fifteen-year-old. And the accused’s DNA on clothing left at the victim’s last known location. And a faked Facebook page with an IP stamp pointing to the accused’s house. And there is the additional testimony of the uninvolved brother and girlfriend of the accused. And, of course, the accused’s affidavit, suggesting that he made these statements with the benefit of counsel.
Now, perhaps there’s a good, non-kidnapping-and-felony-murder explanation for all this. But I’ve got to be honest, I’m having a hard time conjuring any such explanation up.