193
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 73 points 2 weeks ago

Amusing if fictional but if in real life, this is seriously messed up

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

And, illegal if you can make the argument that OP knew or should have known their behavior would be unwelcome.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago
[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 weeks ago

What jurisdiction are we talking?
For Canada, I think there's a good argument for 2.d.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html

engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

Sir no fictional countries please

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 10 points 2 weeks ago

We're on the internet so the default country is the US of A

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

You’re posting in sh.itjust.works, hoser.

Now drink that Molson, there’s a Leafs game in 8 hours and I’m not paying $12 for a half a beer, eh?

[-] hayes_@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

10 points to gryffindor!

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago

Depends on jurisdiction, but in a fair number it would be "menacing".

A person is guilty of menacing when by some movement of body or any instrument the person intentionally places another person in fear of imminent physical injury.

That's Delaware's, but different states do it differently, and some out that classification under stalking.

Following someone around intentionally and knowingly causing them fear of injury is illegal. Why on earth would you even for a moment think you're allowed to do that? It's like thinking guns are legal so you can point your gun at someone on the street.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Why on earth would you even for a moment think you're allowed to do that?

Because OP actually lives in that building and the rest comes down to proving his intent which is extremely difficult in every situation. You're "allowed" to do it because proving that someone literally walking to their home has intent to menace is so difficult that no authorities will even try to prosecute.

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Lives in the same building for one of the examples given. And we're not DAs, we get the benefit of OP telling us their state of mind and intent which involves very explicitly making choices of dress, behavior and demeanor for the explicit purpose of quite literally menacing women for his own amusement.

Difficult to prosecute doesn't make something legal.

[-] pixelscript@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

I can't think of a time before this I've seen the word 'meanacing' used as a verb and not an adjective.

[-] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 points 2 weeks ago

It probably comes from the French verb "menacer" which means "to threaten".

[-] CoolMatt@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Going home wearing a hoodie is unwelcome?

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago

Don’t be obtuse. OP openly admitted to wearing clothes and behaving in a way that makes them more threatening to vulnerable women.

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

OP being green text author, not the Lemmy OP.

[-] CoolMatt@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Sorry, I'm stupid. I'll try to be more acute from now on

[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

That’s right!

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
193 points (70.5% liked)

Greentext

4494 readers
613 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS