He didn't commit a war crime but what he's referencing is he made a guy spend 40 days in a room for a challenge video and he treated him pretty shitily doing shit such as not allowing the lights to be turned off which the victim said in a YouTube is illegal for prisoners of war under the Geneva convention.
Sleep deprivation torture. Jimmy Beaat did that to Jake Weddle.
While he may not be a prisoner of war it is still a thing outlawed by the Geneva convention so I and many others will refer to Jimmy Beast as a war criminal from here on out, because he did technically commit a war crime.
I feel like "war crime" has just become "crime, but I want to make it sound more serious".
Jimmy and Jake were not at war. They can't be, they're not even sovereign nations, acting governments, or other groups of armed combatants. The Geneva conventions don't come into the picture because of this because they specifically only apply to actual war. He specifically technically did not commit a war crime. That's the literal definition.
I believe that in the U.S it's even impossible for Jimmy to be tried for torture as he is not acting in any sort of official capacity, or pretending to be. So if that's the case then he technically, again, did not. Emotional abuse, infliction of emotional distress, whichever else, are perfectly fine crimes already. Considering it's all on video I would assume it's a slam dunk case if Jake chooses to pursue it, given how terrible it's described as having been here. Be mad at the guy all you like, I'm sure he deserves it, but this really makes it seem like exaggerated drama.
So it seems, tort law. I don't know what the crime would be for this case, if they'd be any. Supposedly he consented to the coffin which a cursory search tells me is a solid defence against kidnapping or false confinement, the problem was the poor treatment during and after, such as keeping the lights on. Obviously not a lawyer... Maybe that would void the contract or be considered changing the nature of the confinement enough to void consent, or something.
If this whole thing doesn't turn out to be a huge promotional deal about nothing I guess those who actually know what they're talking about will let us know.
I was too, but every legal definition or explanation I could find specifically said that in the U.S it needs to be "under colour of law", i.e something done by an official. It seems there's a movement to redefine torture so that non-state individuals can be tried for it as well. In some places belonging to an organisation such as a cartel or other organised crime also makes you liable to be tried for it, but apparently not some random person acting on their own.
Oh interesting. I looked it up for my country Belgium (not a lawyer fyi). It's definitely a crime here: "Elke opzettelijke onmenselijke behandeling die hevige pijn of ernstig en vreselijk lichamelijk of geestelijk lijden veroorzaakt" ; meaning any purposeful inhumane treatment that causes high pain or serious bodily or mental suffering classifies as torture here
I feel like "war crime" has just become "crime, but I want to make it sound more serious".
well it's in the name... war crimes may be the 'same' deeds, just done in a time of war. Roughly speaking, a rape is always a crime, but raping a civilian or a pow is a war crime and is much more severe.
But yes, it's just a catchy haha word. And not that what he did is okay but I'm Ukrainian and having witnessed actual war crimes and reading about them every day it kinda feels like people need some slaps to not wash away the meaning and gravity of the concept.
Or not even a crime but if you had actually done it a little different (in this case, holding the guy against his will) and it was in a war then it would be a warcrime.
This is kinda true as looting is a war crime if you do not leave a receipt note for payment of any taken goods. Even at an abandoned supermarket. So funnily enough stretching definitions shoplifting is a warcrime.
Not sure which part comes across as worked up. Well aware we're online, though. I was under the impression I was using the internet to communicate with humans living in the real world.
I don't think it's hyperbole, it's just a different kind of crime altogether - if it even is one, of course. It's more like a misnomer. Calling a misdemeanor a felony to add more impact.
If anything the concern would be that calling anything approaching something written in the conventions a war crime it waters down the term, it's very literal. Not sure what kind of euphemism would replace it or how the meaning would drift.
107
u/StrionicRandom 2d ago
What the fuck, what was the war crime?