Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Villano" data-source="post: 453438" data-attributes="member: 505">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr&nbsp;But it is the word the originator of the post used.&nbsp; And it is, in all honesty, the correct one.&nbsp; &quot;Retaining&quot; makes it sound like she was someplace and the PCs just had to make sure she didn't leave.The reality (well, as real as a game can be) is that a group of armed men (I assume the PCs had their weapons) abducted a child and tied her up.&nbsp; Their purpose?&nbsp; To force a politician to free their rightfully imprisoned friend.And when she wiggles free and screams for help, they smack her with a weapon, accidentally killing her.I think this meets the average person on the street's definition (as well as all legal standards) of kidnapping (and murder).We should also remember that the PCs would have to have implied that they would harm the girl.&nbsp; I mean, why else would the politician free the criminal if he didn't believe his child's life was in danger?There was a tv movie a few years ago.&nbsp; I never watched it (the commercials made it look pretty bad), but the premise was that a man whose son was convicted of a crime (and, I believe, he was actually guilty of it) pulls out a gun (or he may have had a bomb) and holds the jury hostage.&nbsp; His demand is that his son be set free (reading this synopsis, you can see all the logic loopholes and why I would never want to watch it).It's pretty much the same situation as here.Now imagine that one of the jurors panics and the man hits her and she dies.Would you find the man guilty of kidnapping and murder?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Villano, post: 453438, member: 505"] [b]Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am with you Tsyr[/b] But it is the word the originator of the post used. And it is, in all honesty, the correct one. "Retaining" makes it sound like she was someplace and the PCs just had to make sure she didn't leave. The reality (well, as real as a game can be) is that a group of armed men (I assume the PCs had their weapons) abducted a child and tied her up. Their purpose? To force a politician to free their rightfully imprisoned friend. And when she wiggles free and screams for help, they smack her with a weapon, accidentally killing her. I think this meets the average person on the street's definition (as well as all legal standards) of kidnapping (and murder). We should also remember that the PCs would have to have implied that they would harm the girl. I mean, why else would the politician free the criminal if he didn't believe his child's life was in danger? There was a tv movie a few years ago. I never watched it (the commercials made it look pretty bad), but the premise was that a man whose son was convicted of a crime (and, I believe, he was actually guilty of it) pulls out a gun (or he may have had a bomb) and holds the jury hostage. His demand is that his son be set free (reading this synopsis, you can see all the logic loopholes and why I would never want to watch it). It's pretty much the same situation as here. Now imagine that one of the jurors panics and the man hits her and she dies. Would you find the man guilty of kidnapping and murder? [/QUOTE]

Verification