sf wrote:

>> It's ignorant to call someone a stalker when he or she clearly does not
>> meet the definition. Suppose clueless AOL newbie Sheldon "Pussy" Katz
>> physically drove to Jill's house (which a 5-second search says is on BB
>> Sams Drive, Saint Helena Island, SC) and lay in wait outside watching
>> her -- EVEN THEN he would not meet the definition of "stalker" unless
>> Jill knew about it and was terrified for her life. That second part is
>> essential to the definition of stalking.
>>
>> Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of words before throwing them
>> around.
>
> Internet stalkers have to make a physical appearance to be considered a
> stalker? Interesting. I didn't know that part.

I wrote that the SECOND part was essential to the definition of stalking.
The SECOND part was the part where Jill knew about it and was terrified for
her life. The part which is required is a CREDIBLE THREAT, i.e., the person
being stalked must believe that the person watching them both (1) intends to
inflict harm in some way, and (2) has the ability to inflict that harm.

There are a couple other legal considerations within the definition:

1. The person who believes that he or she is being stalked must be mentally
competent. (That's what completely refutes the drama queen who claims she's
being stalked by Jeßus. I'm sure she lives in constant fear, but it's all in
her fevered imagination, and so has no legal weight.)

2. The harm being threatened must be real harm, not some piddly imagined
mental distress, e.g., you'd be laughed out of court if you claimed someone
was stalking you with intent to collect phlegm from your discarded Kleenex.

Simply using the Internet to find out someone's personal information is not
stalking because there has been no threat, credible or otherwise.

Bob