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.
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.
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.
Amusing if fictional but if in real life, this is seriously messed up
And, illegal if you can make the argument that OP knew or should have known their behavior would be unwelcome.
Name the law.
Depends on jurisdiction, but in a fair number it would be “menacing”.
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.
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.
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.
I can’t think of a time before this I’ve seen the word ‘meanacing’ used as a verb and not an adjective.
It probably comes from the French verb “menacer” which means “to threaten”.
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
Sir no fictional countries please
We’re on the internet so the default country is the US of A
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?
10 points to gryffindor!
Going home wearing a hoodie is unwelcome?
Don’t be obtuse. OP openly admitted to wearing clothes and behaving in a way that makes them more threatening to vulnerable women.
OP being green text author, not the Lemmy OP.
Sorry, I’m stupid. I’ll try to be more acute from now on
That’s right!