Comment on Anon walks home in the city at 2 AM

• nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Name the law.

  source

  • DScratch@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    What jurisdiction are we talking?
    For Canada, I think there’s a good argument for 2.d.
    laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/…/section-264.html

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

    source

    • Thcdenton@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Sir no fictional countries please

      source
    • pineapplelover@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • DScratch@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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?

        source
    • hayes_@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      10 points to gryffindor!

      source
  • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

    source

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

      source

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

        source
    • pixelscript@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • SomethingBurger@jlai.lu ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

        source
• CoolMatt@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Going home wearing a hoodie is unwelcome?

  source

  • DScratch@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

    source

    • CoolMatt@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • DScratch@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        That’s right!

        source
    • DScratch@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      OP being green text author, not the Lemmy OP.

      source