Child abuse in regards to Dungeons and Dragons IRL, how should such things be handled.

[5ekyu]

All in all, I come back to my original advice and duggestion...

"My suggestion to the OP and/or the host/owner is to discuss this issue with an attorney. Follow their advice."

 

[jedijon]

I think you missed your opportunity to get anything positive out of this when you knew a 12yr old snuck out of the house and felt that was beneficial.

Now it’s just an argument and you need to let it go.

 

[Umbran]

Again, not necessarily a question of knowledge, but rather investigatory tactics.

Making the witness feel threatened into testifying is probably illegal, so if that's their tactic... it could, theoretically, get their case thrown out of court.

Great tactics, there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It’s perfectly legal. Witnesses getting pressured into testifying is as common as sand. That’s essentially what a subpoena is- a threat of legal consequences if one does not testify when requested to do so. In a sense, that’s the primary reason for perjury laws, at least in practice.

Whether it’s advisable is a different story,

And, of course, the nature of the threat is always key. A threat of legal action- arrest, prosecution, confiscation of ____, losing custody of your kids, etc.- is unlikely to get an officer even a raised eyebrow.

...unless the court deems the threat to be likely to evoke false testimony.

Baseless threats or promises of illegal actions will get the cops in trouble, and may even poison the evidentiary tree, causing an inability to use certain evidence unless it can be proven the evidence would have been acquired by other investigative means. And prosecuting attorneys hate losing evidence. So there IS a potential consequence for playing too fast & loose with the truth.

 

[Umbran]

It’s perfectly legal. Witnesses getting pressured into testifying is as common as sand.

I am optimistic enough to think that "pressured" and "falsely threatened with prosecution when there are no lawyers around" are not the same thing.

That’s essentially what a subpoena is- a threat of legal consequences if one does not testify when requested to do so. In a sense, that’s the primary reason for perjury laws, at least in practice.

A subpoena says you must come in and answer questions. It does not compel specific testimony - and includes, for example, application of the 5th Amendment.

And, if a subpeona is somehow equivalent (it isn't, but say it is), then why would the cops need to lean on these folks with a threat at this point? They could just be served with the subpoena and asked questions on the stand!

Baseless

threats or promises of illegal actions will get the cops in trouble

Like, threats that you would be prosecuted when you wouldn't be?

If you have an actual case against them, charge them and then get their testimony with a plea deal. This, "Well, if you don't speak up, we could charge you, if we wanted..." is nonsense... unless their actual case is really pretty weak, and they want to get more "reports" of events to strengthen it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Remember, police don’t know if who they’re talking to is merely a witness, a victim, a perpetrator completely uninvolved- at least in the initial stages. That’s why they’re asking questions. That’s why they’re also generally given leeway to lie or strongly overstate.

So threats that someone could be prosecuted may be levied at someone- even a victim- if the police are still trying to ascertain that the person wasn’t a perp.

And remember, even completely innocent people will lie to the police under certain circumstances, say...they were in a hotel lobby meeting a woman who wasn’t their wife, thereby witnessing the events being investigated. And once that lie is detected, police will treat that person as a suspect.

While they’re not going to compel specific testimony (beyond ”what happened on the night of ___” or the like), a subpoena carries with it the potential for fines and imprisonment. That can be very coercive, especially to an unwilling witness.

But subpoenas are much more expensive and involved than mere questioning by the police, so they’re used mainly as a tool of last recourse. You need a lawyer to present evidence why it should be issued and a judge to sign off on it. You may need peace officers to enforce it. (I’ve never had to have one issued myself, but I came within a day of doing that in a probate case where one party was simply refusing to respond to lawful communications, and thus, holding up an otherwise fairly simple proceeding for weeks.)

 

[aramis erak]

Oregon's Mandatory Reporter list is similar to Alaska's, but not as broad...
Alaska's applies to anyone employed by a school district or institution of higher education¹, anyone employed by a law enforcement agency or holding a law enforcement credential, anyone employed in a medical or psychological business/agency, anyone holding a counseling or medical licensure, anyone involved in child care. (At least per the Anchorage School District's annual training.)

For educators, the mandatory report for anything in scope of work is not direct to OCS, but through one's school principal². Encountered outside of work, or off-hours and life threatening, it may be sent direct to OCS. And it applies even to the janitorial staff. If one counts as a mandatory reporter, saw clear indications of abuse, and are shown to have thought it should be reported can be charged with failure to report.

I will note also: in Oregon, Linn-Benton Community College has in their student trainings a strong encouragement to report suspected abuse/neglect of children and elders, and spousal abuse.

Given mentions of the PPB, Greylond being in Oregon, and being warned that he was obligated to report it implies something about Greylond.

Yeah. That is not even a little bit how mandatory reporting laws work, and they sure as hell don't apply to random strangers in gaming stores.

For those who are mandatory reporters, yes, it really is. If you even have to ask "is this abuse?" you report it. Greylond's initial concern was sufficient for a mandatory reporter to have been obligated. We do not have clear statement that Greylond does or does not have mandatory reporter status.

The operative phrase in what you quote is "reasonable cause". Let me put emphasis on reasonable.

"I saw the parent shout at their kids once," really does not count as a reasonable basis to suspect overall abuse. It is not a reasonable leap - it is at best a leap of intuition or fear - as is atested by how many folks here said so early in the thread.

The threat of expulsion from the household pre age 18 is very much a mandatory report act. It's explicitly so in Alaska.

——————————
¹: college, university, or career training agency or business.
²: in writing. Keep a copy. The principal can decide not to advance it to OCS. Scope of work reports filed directly are grounds for termination, especially if later shown to be unfounded.

 

[kyuss]

Similarly, publicly calling someone a satanist in certain communities could be an incitement to riot*.


* not probable, but possible

Give me a break. No where in the USA will you ever be charged with a crime for calling someone a satanist.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Give me a break. No where in the USA will you ever be charged with a crime for calling someone a satanist.

Are you familiar with America?

Incitement to riot, “fighting words” and similar offenses under a variety of names are very localized, facts and circumstance offenses that essentially hinge on whether spoken words are likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

To illustrate: shouting “Roy just came out of the closet!” in a gay bar in San Francisco might result in a celebration and someone buying a round. The exact same exclamation in a bar in a different part of the country might get Roy hospitalized, and if done knowing or expecting Roy to get jumped at some future point, that’s a criminal act.

Similarly, in a small, conservative Christian community, calling someone a Satanist could set that target up for violent reprisal, and that could be a criminal act depending on whether such an accusation could foreseeably expose the accused to violence.

Like I said, I don’t think it’s probable. But the legal possibility does exist. Whether it would happen depends on whether there is a community in which Satanists are viewed with enough animus as to make them targets for assault*. I don’t personally know of any, but I’m not certain enough to handwave the possibility away.




* there are cases in the U.K. and USA where people are serving life sentences for killing innocent people they thought were drug dealers and pedophiles. Some are likewise doing time- or found not guilty because of the “gay panic” defense- for killing people perceived as gay. Satanists could easily fall into the same societal rifts in certain communities.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are you familiar with America?

Incitement to riot, “fighting words” and similar offenses under a variety of names are very localized, facts and circumstance offenses that essentially hinge on whether spoken words are likely to cause a breach of the peace.

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

To illustrate: shouting “Roy just came out of the closet!” in a gay bar in San Francisco might result in a celebration and someone buying a round. The exact same exclamation in a bar in a different part of the country might get Roy hospitalized, and if done knowing or expecting Roy to get jumped at some future point, that’s a criminal act.

Similarly, in a small, conservative Christian community, calling someone a Satanist could set that target up for violent reprisal, and that could be a criminal act depending on whether such an accusation could foreseeably expose the accused to violence.

Like I said, I don’t think it’s probable. But the legal possibility does exist. Whether it would happen depends on whether there is a community in which Satanists are viewed with enough animus as to make them targets for assault*. I don’t personally know of any, but I’m not certain enough to handwave the possibility away.




* there are cases in the U.K. and USA where people are serving life sentences for killing innocent people they thought were drug dealers and pedophiles. Some are likewise doing time- or found not guilty because of the “gay panic” defense- for killing people perceived as gay. Satanists could easily fall into the same societal rifts in certain communities.

Fighting words is an essentially dead doctrine. It hasn't been applied at all in more than half a century.

As for statements that might cause lawless action, the test includes tgat tge kawless action be imminient to the utterance. If it happens the next day, not illegal. If it happens immediately after you say it, illegal.