XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican
On 2024-03-05 10:42, AlleyCat wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VJX9ac7ThXQ?feature=share
False imprisonment.
"In simple terms, FALSE IMPRISONMENT can apply to ANY ACT IN WHICH A PERSON INTENTIONALLY RESTRICTS ANOTHER PERSON'S FREEDOM TO MOVE OR TO LEAVE WITHOUT CONSENT."
There's an important word you're glossing over there, loser:
"can" as in "can apply", but (implicitly) there for doesn't always apply.
Pedantic, semantic little child.
The man was restrained, you fucking little baby.
"False imprisonment is a legal term that refers to the restraining of a person
without legal authority or justification."
They had authority and justification.
"In simple terms, FALSE IMPRISONMENT can apply to ANY ACT IN WHICH A PERSON INTENTIONALLY RESTRICTS ANOTHER PERSON'S FREEDOM TO MOVE OR TO LEAVE WITHOUT CONSENT."
Watch again, and prove it that he's not having his freedom to move restrained or restricted.
You need to prove they had no "legal authority or justification".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)