21–30 of 256 posts
Most of these amount to libel, at worst. File suit. There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
Most of these amount to libel, at worst. File suit. There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
The problem is that this kind of behaviour is a sign of an underlying mental illness. The victim's feeling that the situation was unlikely to escalate into violence may have no basis in reality. Kind of like people who get all surprised when (not-quite-tamed) animals attack people. I'd feel very uncomfortable with a loose end like this.
"When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request." It's hard to understand why, having previously already blocked this person elsewhere, they would accept a friend request from them. I suppose now, 10 years later, one can hope that people exact greater control over their online social networks.
"I had waited on Reverend Richard at a York Steak House I worked at, and one night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didn’t want to be rude, so… here we are."
And Matt Lauer responds: "I’m always amazed by what women will do because they’re afraid of being rude…"
It's often hard for men to understand the societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency in the world.
Most of these amount to libel, at worst. File suit. There are excellent reasons for police to be uninvolved in what amounts to people saying mean things, even if those mean things are directed at your employer or friends.
If it were a one-off incident I would agree with you. But a consistent pattern like this over years is stalking, and either is or should be a crime. In my opinion this clearly summarizes why: > For Franks, a big theme is that the “fundamental feeling of security that most people take for granted is taken away.” She has spoken to hundreds, maybe thousands, of victims in her research, who describe constant feelings “ha…
This is a perfect case for civil law: causing emotional distress, harassment, defamation, etc. You should attempt to sue him and get a no-contact order if you can.
There's a moment in the pilot of The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt where the women are rescued from the bunker and put on a daytime talk show and Matt Lauer asks one of the women how she ended up in the bunker: "I had waited on Reverend Richard at a York Steak House I worked at, and one night he invited me out to his car to see some baby rabbits, and I didn’t want to be rude, so… here we are." And Matt Lauer responds: "I…
I had an ex who got into a lot of sketchy situations because she refused to believe people were exactly who they were telling her they were. Guys would do inappropriate things that clearly bothered her, but she would claim they were "joking" or believe she misunderstood, etc. etc. So she wouldn't set any boundaries, and of course they would see that as a signal to escalate until she couldn't handle it anymore and would have to call in the cavalry. (That got old fast.)
But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.
Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or that in any event they were free to continue their advances.
The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." That is unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop. Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further contact is actionable, criminal harassment.
That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say, "X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous complaint.
Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem. Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over time.