I applaud this woman for standing up for the rights of all US citizens, at great inconvenience to herself. There was no reason to arrest her, so she was actually kidnapped and held against her will. How is this scenario not part of basic police academy training?

Misleading title, otherwise it would be a good post. The slave trade of the 1700's would never have grown into what if became if there were not buyers.

@newtboy, you are correct. Slavery indeed long predates the trade of Africans across oceans. Though, it probably didn't start in Mesopotamia because it was probably happening a little bit everywhere there were tribes that were aggressive with each other.

When slavery is thought of in a modern sense, we tend to think of the slave trade during the early stages of the industrial revolution.

And indeed, members of different tribes were more or less kidnapped and brought to the coast by coastal tribes, where they were sold to ships, which usually originated in Europe or N. America.

One of the busiest ports for the slave trade was Dakar, Senegal. The kingdom there would collect people, to take to Goree Island where they would be later loaded onto ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor%C3%A9e

It's probably a regional thing, but once he started moving, and not where she wanted to go, it would be a form of kidnap. Unless he went to a police station. I've been a professional driver (not Uber) here in Canada for a couple decades now, I've been in a similar situation.

No it's not. He demanded she get out of the car. After disobeying his lawful command he informed her he was going home and that she had a choice to stay in or get out. If she chose to stay it would not be kidnapping.

Unfortunately, that's kidnapping. He'd have to take her either where she wanted to go, or to a police station.

Don't hold your breath waiting for fascists to do good things. If the nigger prince were capable of moral human behaviour, he'd already have pardoned the hundreds of thousands of innocent people he kidnapped and falsely imprisoned for drug offences.

I'm pretty much with you on this one dude. But I think arguing kidnapping & lethal force is a bit of a stretch even in (most of) the USA.

I realise you aren't advocating for that anyway, but I suspect in most jurisdictions lethal force here (or even just a good kicking) would have been a trip to jail.

"Spirit of the law" is very significant in most courts. While this could be defined as kidnapping on the most narrowly technical of terms, it would take a hell of a lawyer to make it stick don't you think?

It definitely wouldn't fly in the UK at any rate.

Really? And what video were you watching, because this one didn't have him in it.
He certainly should have feared bodily injury, since he suffered bodily injury. In my view, when someone is so irrational that they physically attack a larger, stronger, younger person, it's reasonable to assume that they are extremely dangerous.
He could not, from what I saw, turn the other way. Scooters don't turn on a dime, and it wouldn't help anyway, she follows him to continue the encounter, she would have done the same thing in the other direction, imo.
Being detained by force is kidnapping. In no jurisdiction that I know of is kidnapping not justification for killing someone, no matter how little they threaten onlookers. ;-) Lucky for her he wasn't a stand your ground don't back down asshole in a stand your ground state.

Absolutely untrue.
She appeared to be on drugs, judging from her action and demeanor...in the Philippines she could be a target for death directly from the president, as well as from the death squad militias.
Also, America is far from the only place where deadly force may be used in self defense.
Let's not go into all the nations where a woman alone like that would just be kidnapped, crazy attack or not.

Nice try though.

Only one asshole, the idiot that attacked the rider because she's 100% wrong about the law and her rights to enforce it. He could have legally killed that woman. She kidnapped (that's what it is when you illegally detain someone, like she did) and assault and battered him. As I see it, he would have been justified shooting her.
I hope they find and charge that moron, she committed at least 2 felonies on camera.

Edit-keep in mind she had already blocked and attacked him before the video starts, explaining and excusing his attitude in my eyes.

Or someone kidnaps your daughter and thanks to your preparedness and special set of skills you realize you're actually Liam Neeson.
This whole guns-for-safety-schtick has been debated online a thousand times. You know what protects you from crime? Tackling the very real social issues like poverty and racism that cause crime.
You have so many guns and yet your crime rate is so shitty. Mass shootings are routine in america. Where are all the good guys with guns to stop the bad guys when you need them?
It's not working. It simply isn't, crunch numbers all you want. Just look at Canada. They have guns. Yet, they seem to live so much safer lives. Is Mexico such a dangerous place because they don't have enough guns? They got the good Heckler&Koch rifles, you know.
You want to fight fights that I say should be avoided in the first place. Fix your social issues and less people will have reasons to try breaking into your home.
Same with the terrorist. Don't just bomb them, disable their ideological rethoric, disable their methods of recruiting.
We have islamic terrorists here in germany. They either try to build bombs (requires actual know-how) or they attack with axes and knives. Something must be working in our favor here. Same can't be said for the citizens of Paris or nightclub visitors in Orlando. They got shot.
The american paranoia is a reaction to an action that can be made far more unlikely to happen. Once you are ready to tackle the issues.
You can bring a fire extinguisher every time you go to the gas station in case a fire breaks out or you can just stop smoking around the gas station.

Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

Baby deer kidnapped by well-meaning but ultimately mistaken photographer.

Mom probably got the other baby safe and waited until after the guy left the area to come back, but the baby was gone.

Nice that it worked out but that fawn was obviously imprinted on him. Could have been bad.

If it's not fake, it appears the black VW was following the Porsche with the intent of kidnapping the occupants. Either the cyclist gave them the opportunity, or he was actually part of the operation (though he really didn't block the Porsche enough to be guaranteed that kind of response, unless they knew he was prone to that sort of thing).

Sting operation?

Kidnapping?

Putin bored and trolling?