Miscellaneous desk
< June 13	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 14

Kidnappings where the person is unaware of being kidnapped

I watched the Simon Sez review by the Nostalgia Critic and I was wondering if there any known examples of kidnappings where the person was unaware of being kidnapped. Nowadays most people have a smartphone, so if this happened it probably happened a while ago. For example, you think you are going on a romantic cruise with your new boyfriend/girlfriend, but that person (or an accomplice) makes sure the letters you send home do not reach the intended recipient, and demands ransom for your safe return. It seems to me that a carefully worded ransom letter (e.g. if you send x amount to bank account y you will see person z back within 2 weeks) is in itself not illegal (AFAIK, IANAL). I guess you can even send the person back home sooner if the amount has not been paid, and claim that the "ransom letter" was actually a request for funding for an extended trip. I am aware of Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. I am not talking about cases of Stockholm syndrome and I am not talking about ransom demands by people who do not actually know where the person they demand ransom for is. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not responsive to your request for examples, but my understanding of general principles is that two elements of kidnapping are that the kidnapper must have moved the kidnappee, and done so against the kidnappee's will. Soliciting a ransom for someone not kidnapped is, without an intervening statute making it something else, is larceny by false pretenses. I don't think it'd even be attempted kidnapping since ransom isn't a necessary element, so all that exists is the mens rea, and no substantial step towards the actus reus. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good point. The easiest solution is probably to imagine me doing airquotes whenever I say the word kidnapping (and variations thereof). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under federal law in the United States, a kidnapper is one who "unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise" another person. 18 U.S.C. § 1201. It is "the involuntariness of seizure and detention which is the very essence of the crime of kidnapping." Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455, 464 (1946). So the initial abduction can be accomplished by inveigling or decoying the victim, but the victim must then be held involuntarily. I can imagine a situation where the victim, having first been inveigled under false pretenses, is falsely told and believes that he or she cannot leave due to some reason that is beyond the kidnapper's control, but I don't know of any examples of such. John M Baker (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

What none of the media outlets that I've read explain is HOW one person was able to KILL that many people. It's all very well saying oh he shot that many people but believe me, people don't just stand around and say 'shoot me, shoot me'. It's hard to believe one assailant could single handedly kill that many people. As I understand it even in FL getting hold of an AR15 that's capable of automatic or burst fire is difficult. Getting hold of a magazine with 30 rounds or more is again, difficult. The gun is chambered for 5.56mm which is more likely to wound than a 7.62 equivalent. So his shot placements must have been ungodly. Hence my skepticism. Pointers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.190.215 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Mateen had approximately three hours before the police raided the building. Also, even a semi-automatic AR-15 is capable of a high rate of fire, if the trigger is pulled rapidly. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. Crowded nightclub, few exits, AR15, point-blank range. Regretfully, shooting fish in a barrel. Your skepticism. My a***. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you IP82. for the trolling. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One factor to consider is Fight-or-flight response. The shooter is the only one who knows what's going on, and can take advantage of the confusion of the targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a news report that claimed approximately 200 rounds were fired. That would give him about two rounds for every person injured or killed, not counting the fact that a single bullet can easily injure multiple people when firing into a crowd. He would have to have been carrying a lot of ammo, but given enough time and limited interference it seems entirely doable. I don't think it makes much practical difference, but apparently he was actually carrying a Sig Sauer MCX and not an AR-15 as originally reported, though they are pretty similar in terms of capabilities. Dragons flight (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some of the victims were holed up in a "bathroom" and one texted his mother to say he was trapped and the gunman was coming. Every so often, someone posts for an explanation of the American meaning of this word, but I've not seen any replies. Here, for example, is the last post on the subject:

The following question was asked when this subject last came up for discussion here but I am unable to locate the answer:
Why do Americans call a lavatory a "bathroom" when it appears to contain not even a bidet, much less a bath? What's their terminology for a room that actually does have a bathtub in it?

Follow - up question: In Britain a "restroom" is a room provided by employers for employees to use while not working. It may or may not have toilet facilities. Some employers provide a "sickroom" (which may contain a bed or couch) for use of employees who feel ill or require first aid. A "washroom" is a place where washing is carried out. The "waiting room" on a railway station may provide toilet facilities. All these descriptors directly describe the activity undertaken. When Americans speak of a bathroom, restroom or washroom, what actually happens there?

86.151.48.25 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.238.101 (talk) [reply]

In American English, a bathroom is any facility with at least a toilet and a sink. Public bathrooms are generally called restrooms (because bathroom usually has the connotation of a residential facility with a bathtub) and will generally be larger capacity. Restrooms in certain places, such as pools, may have showers. Washroom is a place to wash your hands, though it's also used as a synonym for a laundry room, that is a room with a larger sink for washing clothes and/or hookups for washers and dryers. I agree, though, that the terminology is odd, since I would never consider resting in a restroom. See this article for a bit of information on the various euphemisms for toilets. clpo13_(talk) 23:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A toilet, of course, is actually a place where one attends to one's appearance. I remember being startled, as a child, on discovering a bottle of "toilet water".

(Another difference people should be aware of is that in American English, the word "toilet" applies only to the plumbing fixture, whereas in British English it may also mean the room containing the fixture. A British person might speak of "standing in the toilet"; an American will wonder how he avoids getting his feet wet.)

I think it was on alt.usage.english that someone made the keen observation that this is perhaps the only piece of equipment for which English has euphemisms (toilet, commode) and dysphemisms (crapper, shitter), but "no word that is simply accurate". --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be unambiguous, a full bathroom has a bathtub, toilet and sink. A half bath has no bathing. A three quarters bath has a shower, toilet, and sink but no tub. Often used in house advertisement. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can help me even if I talk about german law..

I have seen a windows 10 forum to talk about problems with win10. The Forum has a typical format how answers are shown up, including profile pictures and the usernames. Well I have seen an answer, which has also posted a link and I have clicked on the link because the "Answer" said something like "I found a solution! you need to install >this<". I have seen later, that the Username of this post is "Adsense" and the profile picture is only a standard.

My question is now, why is it not forbidden to place Ads in a forum made-up like a real answer from a real person? I heard a lot of Dating websites have been shut down or have paid a lot of money, because the guys on the website haven't written to real women, they were bots with female pictures talking to them. I don't understand why does Forums, which fake answers, don't getting shut down also. I hope everybody can understand my question.. --Ip80.123 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't. It's not legal or permitted to do so here, and if you should be asking this anywhere it's at the German WP. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Look at my response. It contains no legal advice, yet it does give references. It might even be helpful to OP. This is all totally fine. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question the impermissibility of answering such questions. I have restored the question removed by Medeis, because there is certainly no law that says someone cannot even ask a question, hence there is no basis on which such a question should be deleted without any acknowledgment or reference to its deletion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a news story [1] that talks a bit about Germany cracking down on certain types of internet fraud. We have an article on Law of Germany. It doesn't say anything about fraud, but some of the linked pages may. You can also read our pages on fraud, internet fraud, impostors, and social engineering. That is all fun reading, but won't really tell you a specific answer. For that, I'd suggest you ask your local German law enforcement agency about social engineering and internet fraud/impostor laws. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which answer do you mean SemanticMantis ? And I think my question is universal, does anyone of you know if it is forbidden in germany for a Forum to make fake posts with a bot which is showing ads in form of a potencial helpful answer? --Ip80.123 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right- this question "if it is forbidden in germany... " that is the question we can not specifically answer. You'll have to talk to either a German lawyer or police agency to clarify. We can give you information and we can give you references but we can't really say "that thing you mentioned is illegal in X jurisdiction". That would be giving legal advice, because it would be interpreting the law and applying it to a certain specific set of facts. I've defended your right to ask this question, and I've given you what references I can. I could find more if I spoke German, but I do not. When I search in English, I find sites like this [2], that attempt to explain bits of German law in English, but that's no good for your purposes. If you know the German words for "fraud" and "impostor" or "impersonation", those are the kinds of laws I recommend searching for. But if you live in Germany and speak German, just call your local police department, it might be just that easy :) SemanticMantis (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original question "...why is it not forbidden to..." is not at all a request for legal advice. It takes the non-existence of a prohibition for granted and asks about the reasons or legal principles behind it. In many cases that's a question that can be answered with references, even if it would take a lot of research reading bills, reports from parliamentary committees, judgments, literature on legal doctrines etc. etc. Sjö (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Marathon competitiors

Can anyone point me to asource that analyses the London Marathon by nationality? I am specifically trying to discover if a Cambodian person has ever competed. Richard Avery (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of such a resource, but nationality is listed in the results databases which are available for more recent marathons if you search online. I've quickly looked at 2016, 2012 and 2008, and there were no runners who identified as having Cambodian nationality in any of those races. Warofdreams talk 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying WarofDreams, I'd seen those too, but I was hoping (probably rather too optimistically) for a full database. Richard Avery (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]