this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
196 points (70.6% liked)

Greentext

4609 readers
875 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

Sir no fictional countries please

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month 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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

10 points to gryffindor!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

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