Read the article, it’s not much more than clickbait on the surface. I hate QAnon but there is little info in the article about the “accessory to kidnapping” charges, which were “custodial” (done by a parent or guardian) and his defense lawyer said he was “essentially a landlord”.
I can’t say with certainty because as I said there’s not much presented about the actual charges, but this article for sure seems like ragebait.
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.
Attacking the article so awkwardly doesn’t lend much credibility to your “I hate QAnon”.
The headline is “A funder for ‘Sound of Freedom,’ a QAnon-adjacent film about child sex trafficking, has been charged with accessory to child kidnapping”.
That’s as not clickbaity as you can possibly get. It’s a short, factual statement about something that happened.
You could maybe stretch to it being “ragebait” on the basis that it may be overstating his role in the crime but even then, there was enough for them to charge him.
Read the article, it’s not much more than clickbait on the surface. I hate QAnon but there is little info in the article about the “accessory to kidnapping” charges, which were “custodial” (done by a parent or guardian) and his defense lawyer said he was “essentially a landlord”.
I can’t say with certainty because as I said there’s not much presented about the actual charges, but this article for sure seems like ragebait.
I love the idea of someone being a landlord somehow exonerating them, lol. That literally makes me more suspicious.
ETA also literally most kidnapping is custodial, that doesn’t make it OK. Still kidnapping.
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.
Attacking the article so awkwardly doesn’t lend much credibility to your “I hate QAnon”.
The headline is “A funder for ‘Sound of Freedom,’ a QAnon-adjacent film about child sex trafficking, has been charged with accessory to child kidnapping”.
That’s as not clickbaity as you can possibly get. It’s a short, factual statement about something that happened.
You could maybe stretch to it being “ragebait” on the basis that it may be overstating his role in the crime but even then, there was enough for them to charge him.
Removed by mod
Got any facts and FULL details you’d like to share?