Yeah, but the problem is we don’t know. I’m not trying to defend the man, I’m trying to say that it would be typical of a media outlet to put in a headline that sounds good regardless of whether it’s technically true.
Well, the article says he’s being charged as an accessory to custodial kidnapping, and his defense is that he’s “just a landlord”.
That leads to one of two scenarios, either he unlocked a door that he shouldn’t have to allow the noncustodial parent to abduct the kid(s), or he rents to the noncustodial parent and refused to let the custodial parent retrieve the kid(s).
The second would be a bit of a stretch to get charges of being an accessory to kidnapping. Not unless he helped hide the kid(s) and noncustodial parent. Which is also an option.
I’m guessing that the “just a landlord” unlocked a door so that the non-custodial parent could abduct the child(ren).
That would be accessory to kidnapping.
Yeah, but the problem is we don’t know. I’m not trying to defend the man, I’m trying to say that it would be typical of a media outlet to put in a headline that sounds good regardless of whether it’s technically true.
Well, the article says he’s being charged as an accessory to custodial kidnapping, and his defense is that he’s “just a landlord”.
That leads to one of two scenarios, either he unlocked a door that he shouldn’t have to allow the noncustodial parent to abduct the kid(s), or he rents to the noncustodial parent and refused to let the custodial parent retrieve the kid(s).
The second would be a bit of a stretch to get charges of being an accessory to kidnapping. Not unless he helped hide the kid(s) and noncustodial parent. Which is also an option.