Yeah. Guy was a thief. That’s a bad thing.
But the video commenter sure was a dick about it.
Around here you would still be on hold with 911 an hour later.
IANAL, but from reading the California kidnapping penal code, it looks like it isn’t kidnapping unless you try to move the person, or try to gain by it.
From the false imprisonment code, it looks like it isn’t false imprisonment unless it is “accomplished through force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury.”
As for the fire code, I think this is the relevant section:
[B] 1008.1.9.3 Locks and latches. Locks and latches
shall be permitted to prevent operation of doors where
any of the following exists:
- Places of detention or restraint.
- In buildings in occupancy Group A having an
occupant load of 300 or less, Groups B, F, M and
S, and in places of religious worship, the main
exterior door or doors are permitted to be
equipped with key-operated locking devices from
the egress side provided:2.1. The locking device is readily distinguishable
as locked;
2.2. A readily visible durable sign is posted
on the egress side on or adjacent to the
door stating: THIS DOOR TO REMAIN
UNLOCKED WHEN BUILDING IS
OCCUPIED. The sign shall be in letters
I-inch (25 mm) high on a contrasting
background; and
2.3. The use of the key-operated locking
device is revokable by the fire code official
for due cause.
I didn’t see the signage, and you probably need a licence for a “place of detention or restraint,” so they may be able to nail him with that.
1 Like
Wouldn’t there be some requirement to use minimal force in restraining and retaining an intruder and also to alert police as soon as possible to avoid charges of false imprisonment or assault regardless of any interpretation of European Human rights legislation?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
