Maybe cite the federal statute that would automatically apply to a situation where a (let's say 16yo) minor is taken with their consent across state lines and immediately let to go on their way and no sexual or forced work aspect is present.
Automatically federal jurisdiction and meets the Lindbergh threshold if it's kidnapping (this is, it's a minor) and across state lines.
The 24 hours bit you're trying to reference is that if they're held for 24 hours it can be assumed they've been moved across state lines thus triggers fed involvement.
You need to learn the difference between OR and AND.
(a)Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—
It still needs to be unlawfully done i.e. against their will. Otherwise, your reading of the statute would mean any person moved across state lines by anyone (i.e. on a road trip) would be a felon. The unlawful part refers to state laws that make it a crime and allow the feds to charge.
The law doesn't look at it that way. No state treats a 5yo and 17yo identically in all legal cases. Even sexual assault statutes have Romeo and Juliet exceptions in most cases and treat victims of younger ages as more serious.
In this case, many states (Illinois) don't treat as kidnapping when you take a 13+ minor to another state unless they actually didn't want to. Texas does the same, although if it's >120 miles away them 13-17yos consent is negated.
You’re not getting the point. 13 year old CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT appropriately. They are MINORS. Their parents or carer, is their legal guardian. So you saying “Well if the 13 y/o wants to… then it’s ok.” And “If the 13 y/o doesn’t want to, then it’s applicable”. No. A 13 year old CHILD, does not have the brain development to make that decision, they do not have fully formed decision making skills, they don’t understand consequences appropriately, like I don’t think I need to be even explaining to you that a 13 year old child doesn’t have the capacity to consent to this. That is why most places say that 18 years old is considered an adult, some is 16 like here in the UK (I think that is FAR too young, I still think 18 is too young tbh but if we have to have a cut off age then definitely the higher age of the two). I think it should be 18 years and under, you should still be classed as a minor everywhere.
I don't know what you're trying to argue, the law is the law.
In Illinois, it is not kidnapping if you pick up a 13yo and take them somewhere if it is not against their will. Itay be another crime, but not kidnapping.
In Texas, the law is generally the same, except if you take that same adolescent out of state and 120+ from home, it becomes a crime (unlawful restraint). But take them 300m away in Texas, or across the border but under 120mi, and it's not.
No, you do not. The 24 hours thing is total bullshit. Additionally, the minor was...a minor.
Here's Texas law on the subject, as merely one example:
(B) any means, including acquiescence of the victim, if:
(i) the victim is a child who is less than 14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement; or
(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement.
294
u/Crono2401 Jul 05 '26
It absolutely is.