… without violence, of course. Suppose I got the “victim” drunk, then drove him to a city, say, 100 miles away, and dropped him off there without him having any way of returning. Would I be guilty of anything?
Reckless nastiness in the Second Degree.
You can probably be charged with 3rd degree murder for voluntarily/directly contributing to somebody’s demise, and manslaughter for involuntarily/indirectly contributing.
I guess it would be up to the DA to convince the jury of your intentions.
I didn’t read it as the person dying but anyone should be able to get back eventually by some means, This is actually done in some fraternities during hell week and I have never heard of anyone getting charged with anything. I have had friends that did a more minor version too.
I read “get rid of somebody” as wanting them, uh… gotten rid of
Assuming you did not have his consent. And that might not help, if he was drunk when he gave consent.
If you really want him gone, why not forge his signature on job applications for great jobs that are located 100+ miles away. He may even leave happy.
As long as you shave his head and write “DORK” on his forhead you’ll probably be let off scott free.
I think the OP was talking about someone that consented on going on the drive. I don’t think anyone would ever charge you with kidnapping for driving a consenting drunk somewhere.
I recall asking law enforcement types this question in the past and the answer is that you can not be charged for not providing transportation, even if you told the other party you would drive them back. However, I believe you can still be sued for not holding up your end of the bargain for providing the return trip and causing a burden.
And if you inscribe “THE ENGINES CANNA’ TAKE IT”, you’ll be let off Scottie free!
In New Jersey, this might apply:
This person is incapable of having any kind of “great job”, or indeed any job at all.
I guess I should have said, "Would I be guilty of anything (besides being an asshole)?
I’m gonna take a guess and say that’s not what the OP had in mind.
I heard this as “true”. Pledges were required to attend a dinner with dates and both were required to eat all of their food including dessert (chocolate cake). Then they were driven to a deserted place, handcuffed and made to walk back.
The cake was made with ex-lax.
The elements are:
Victim was restrained.
Restraint was unlawful.
Restraint interfered substantially with victim’s liberty.
Defendant acted knowingly.
Restraint means “confinement, abridgement, or limitation. Restraint involves hindrance, confinement or restriction of liberty.”
I would say that putting somebody in your car and ditching them 100 miles away with no ready means to return home would qualify.
“Unlawful” means to accomplish the restraint by threat, force, or deception.
I would say that getting a person drunk and convincing them to get in your car without telling them that you intend to maroon them would probably qualify.
I would say that leaving the person 100 miles away substantially interferes with the victim’s liberty.
So it seems that the elements are arguably satisfied.
You forget the OP’s premise of getting the intended victim drunk. Agreeing to something while intoxicated does not always imply legal consent, depending on jurisdiction.
If he came to harm I’m sure the DA would think of something.
One way ticket on a Greyhound bus or Amtrak would get them farther away, and less likely to apply to any kind of kidnapping charges.