8

Let's say person A parks in a parking lot where they are allowed to park. Then person B blocks off the exit/entrance to the parking lot with his bike preventing person A from driving away. When person A attempts to move the bike person B threatens to spray person A with mace. Also person A would be able to safely depart if they were to leave their car behind

Is person B holding person A hostage and are any laws being violated?

This would be hypothetically in New York state.

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    I wonder if the threat of getting "maced" would be enough for person A to claim to fear for their safety to the extent where they could use their car to push the bike out of the way and escape the situation ...
    – brhans
    Commented Sep 16 at 13:34
  • @brhans If they were free to walk out, probably not. If the person could physically leave the garage but couldn't take their car out safely, it's most likely a traffic violation (illegal parking) but not imprisonment/kidnapping/etc, the same as if you get blocked in by a double-parked car.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    Commented Sep 16 at 21:53
  • 1
    The details are lacking to make any actual determination. Does Person A have a condition attached to the allowance to park, such as a fee? Does Person B own or represent the owners of the property? Does Person B have a lien or some other right to the vehicle? With the details provided, it can easily be either person committing a crime.
    – David S
    Commented Sep 16 at 22:33
  • IANAL. If I'm person A, parked legally and behaving sanely, and some unknown person B comes up behind me and without provocation blocks me in and threatens me with bodily injury (which seems to be assault in my jurisdiction), I am not going to get out of my car to see what else the unhinged assailant will do. Context: I live in Texas, and person B may be armed with more than just mace.
    – shoover
    Commented Sep 17 at 17:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
13

This was written to answer an earlier revision of this question.

The facts you have presented do not make out the offence of hostage taking under section 279.1 of the Criminal Code. This would require an intent to induce someone other than the hostage to do something in exchange for the release.

It is, however:

  • the tort of false imprisonment, if the blocking of the exit is in fact preventing Person A from departing the lot (i.e. there is no other way for them to walk out)
  • the tort of assault
  • the criminal offence of forcible confinement (s. 279(2)), if the blocking of the exit is in fact preventing Person A from departing (i.e. there is no other way for them to walk out)
  • the criminal offence of assault
Improve this answer
7

That question has a lot of if's and when's attached. I will simplify the question a bit: a person is in an enclosed space and another person is preventing them from getting out without any legal reason. In this case, through a physical barrier and the threat of violence to not remove it.

This is covered by

Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)

§ 239 Freiheitsberaubung

(1) Wer einen Menschen einsperrt oder auf andere Weise der Freiheit beraubt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

Translation:

Criminal Code (StGB)

§ 239 Deprivation of liberty

(1) Anyone who imprisons or otherwise deprives a person of liberty shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty.

Further paragraphs clarify the sentencing. Note that there is no intention to do anything with the "prisoner" necessary. If you lock someone in, it's illegal. That seems to be your example, because your person with a bike shows no intention to do anything else than not letting them go.

Hostage taking on the other hand requires that a threat of deadly force or bodily harm is used to gain something. Your example has neither the "I want you to..." part, nor the "if not, I'm gonna hurt you" part. Nor has the offender contacted anyone else to make those demands and threats. So it doesn't qualify for a hostage situation... yet.

Emphasis mine to mark the difference to the above:

Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)

§ 239b Geiselnahme

(1) Wer einen Menschen entführt oder sich eines Menschen bemächtigt, um ihn oder einen Dritten durch die Drohung mit dem Tod oder einer schweren Körperverletzung (§ 226) des Opfers oder mit dessen Freiheitsentziehung von über einer Woche Dauer zu einer Handlung, Duldung oder Unterlassung zu nötigen, oder wer die von ihm durch eine solche Handlung geschaffene Lage eines Menschen zu einer solchen Nötigung ausnutzt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren bestraft.

Translation:

Criminal Code (StGB)

§ 239b Hostage-taking

(1) Anyone who kidnaps a person or takes possession of a person in order to compel him or a third party to act, tolerate or refrain from an act by threatening the victim with death or serious bodily harm (§ 226) or with deprivation of his or her liberty for more than one week, or anyone who exploits the situation of a person created by him or her through such an act to carry out such coercion, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than five years.

Since you completely changed the question mentioning that the person is free to go, they just have to leave their car in the parking lot... obviously this is neither Freiheitsberaubung nor Geiselnahme.

This would be a "Nötigung". Just like someone intentionally parked their car so you cannot get out of your parking spot, or driving too close flashing their lights so you are forced to let them pass.

Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)

§ 240 Nötigung

(1) Wer einen Menschen rechtswidrig mit Gewalt oder durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel zu einer Handlung, Duldung oder Unterlassung nötigt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

Translation:

Criminal Code (StGB)

§ Section 240 Coercion

(1) Anyone who unlawfully coerces a person into an act, acquiescence or omission by means of force or by threatening a serious evil shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

Improve this answer
5
  • The OP has clarified that the car owner could have just walked away from their car. Does this change the analysis?
    – Paul Johnson
    Commented Sep 16 at 15:48
  • 3
    @PaulJohnson Yes, this is obviously a totally different crime... I wish people would not do this, doing a 180 on their questions.
    – nvoigt
    Commented Sep 16 at 16:25
  • 1
    @nvoigt I might be biased by having read the updated version first, but to me, the first question might have been unclear but it was definitely not clearly stating that the person can't just walk away. So the question was clarified, not turned around
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Sep 16 at 16:51
  • "deprivation of his or her liberty for more than one week" that seems an excessive deprivation of liberty, what penalty is provided for 24 hours of one's lifespan?
    – civitas
    Commented Sep 17 at 17:11
  • @civitas I quoted the law on that... you seem to be laser focused on the bold part, there is a lot of text before that :)
    – nvoigt
    Commented Sep 17 at 18:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .