101–110 of 225 posts
> He has just driven through the red light to escape us! And if in the process he happens to crash his car into a family or pedestrian and kill everybody he hits, the defense will be "we were just trying to make a citizen's arrest?"
I'm not clear why they would be responsible for his hitting a pedestrian.
Truly, what compels a person to do such a thing? I too have struggled heavily with depression in the past, but I've never once felt the urge to repeatedly vandalize anyone's property. Like, I just don't understand what's to gain.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the normal levels of inhibitions and reading social cues aren't present in many stalking cases. There is a belief that if they are just persistent enough, their target will see their attempts as affection and fall head over heals for them. Fundamentally, I believe we need to do more for people like this. Safety nets and mental health and, if needed, in patient care. Wou…
Basically, the plot of every '80s and '90s Romantic Comedy. Entertainment of that decade left entire generations with warped views of courting and consent!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not clear why they would be responsible for his hitting a pedestrian.
There is a belief pervading society that criminals are not responsible for their own actions, that other things or people are responsible.
Truly, what compels a person to do such a thing? I too have struggled heavily with depression in the past, but I've never once felt the urge to repeatedly vandalize anyone's property. Like, I just don't understand what's to gain.
If you're curious, I recommend the book, "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". It busts a lot of myths and gives a good explanation of what abusers get out of their behavior. One important myth is, "He can't control himself". E.g., he's not good at managing anger, so he needs classes. But it turns out a lot of abusive people are perfectly good at managing their anger except when the ta…
I think the thing that would shock many people is that abusers have often adopted methods of harm and subjugation that they internalized and came to consider normal, justified, and correct. They're executing from a place of intent and necessity, not chaos. They witness themselves doing it from a wildly different perspective than those around them would, and they may think the worst thing they do is get "a little heavy handed" or something. They might say that perhaps they got too loud or angry, but whatever they did was close enough to in line with what was necessitated by their target's bad behaviour.
It could range from keeping a partner "in line" with passive aggressive ridicule, physical violence, abject control (denying access to car keys, no going out past 7pm, can't eat x amount of food, etc), to being so relentlessly discouraging and belittling that the partner feels helpless and trapped. No matter what it is they're doing, they whole-heartedly believe it's deserved and they're operating with as much control as anyone typically has.
When we witness their behaviour we see a monster. And yet they're going about their work as though they are the one being inconvenienced by their incompetent/immoral/stupid/whatever partner.
Many of these people would never dream of kicking their dog or something but they've completely normalized verbally and/or physically abusing people they have intimate relationships with. What would leave you absolutely mortified with yourself is simply necessary to these people.
This is often why it's best to end these relationships. Someone who has normalized abuse could change, but there is a very good chance that you shouldn't wait to find out.
> He has just driven through the red light to escape us! And if in the process he happens to crash his car into a family or pedestrian and kill everybody he hits, the defense will be "we were just trying to make a citizen's arrest?"
I'm not clear why they would be responsible for his hitting a pedestrian.
If they caused a guy to flee for his life (whatever the guy's crime) and in the process he hit and killed somebody, then you can bet a judge would be interested in the details.
> In his first court appearance he pled not guilty, which apparently is normal for the first appearance regardless of actual guilt (something to do with legal aid fees??) How is that a thing? Does anyone know more?
At least, that's how it works in the United States. Since Scotland is also a common law jurisdiction with something of a shared legal history (the union of Scotland and England predates the revolt by the American colonies by nearly a century) I imagine it probably works similarly there as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this too. But you can feel incredibly powerless if all you do is “let the police handle it.” Even in this instance, nothing would have come of it had they not traced the guy. Prosecution of crime happens after a crime is committed. Cops can’t do much if you’re worried someone will harm you or a loved one. Even if stalking is illegal, cops won’t / can’t feasibly spend the resources investigating and punishin…
The practical mechanisms to handle stalking like this are restraining orders and trespassing laws. Trespassing is the easier of the two to utilize. If it's your land, you can tell the police who's allowed on it. Once either of those things has been set up, the police can arrest the offender the next time he shows up. Beyond that, move somewhere with a strong castle doctrine, where you can own a firearm. This isn't a…
What nonsense. I live in Japan, where it is practically impossible to obtain a firearm. The same would be true for the OP in Scotland. Neither should be considered a failing state except under your ridiculous definition.
Maybe obvious, but uh: don’t fucking do this! I get it, I'm an older brother, I would wanna go ballistic too. But the fact that these guys skipped over "notify the police" and went straight to "seek out in-person confrontation" is insane! Stalkers are not people in their right mind. Staking out and planning to “citizen’s arrest”(???) someone who has repeatedly visited late at night to threaten and harass is NOT SAFE…
A citizens arrest is a well-known thing, why the ???
This isn’t America, where everyone may be yielding a firearm.
Maybe obvious, but uh: don’t fucking do this! I get it, I'm an older brother, I would wanna go ballistic too. But the fact that these guys skipped over "notify the police" and went straight to "seek out in-person confrontation" is insane! Stalkers are not people in their right mind. Staking out and planning to “citizen’s arrest”(???) someone who has repeatedly visited late at night to threaten and harass is NOT SAFE…
Truly, what compels a person to do such a thing? I too have struggled heavily with depression in the past, but I've never once felt the urge to repeatedly vandalize anyone's property. Like, I just don't understand what's to gain.
If you're curious, I recommend the book, "Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men". It busts a lot of myths and gives a good explanation of what abusers get out of their behavior. One important myth is, "He can't control himself". E.g., he's not good at managing anger, so he needs classes. But it turns out a lot of abusive people are perfectly good at managing their anger except when the ta…