First Complaint about The Club, 2013
On Jan 27, 10:32*am, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> 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 Je us. 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.
|