footnote, one of the men's conviction was overturned, a couple weeks ago. According to the Appeals Court, “kidnapping is not a violent felony,” What? Breaking into a house, and removing the legal occupant by force, is not "violent"?

Ah, that speaks to me - I loves me a good legal conundrum!

The opinion is linked below. But basically, under Michigan law a felony is defined to be a violent felony if one of the required elements to prove the crime is the use of force. In other words, is it a felony where in order to convict you of the crime, the prosecution must prove that the actions involved "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force." If that's not an element of the crime, then the crime is not a violent felony.

Note that this is not specific to the actual circumstances of the case, but instead is determined by looking at the statutory definition of the crime. If a felony can be committed without using force and you happen to use force while committing that felony, that doesn't render the felony a "violent felony" for the purpose of determining whether it is a predicate felony. What matters is the definition, not the specific facts of your case.

Under Michigan law, kidnapping is defined in a way that does not require the use of force. In other words, you can kidnap someone without using force. That doesn't mean that you can't kidnap someone using force, or even that most kidnappings don't involve the use of force. Just that it's not a required element of the crime. Therefore, it's not a violent felony for purposes of the terrorism statute.

courts.michigan.gov - Case documents