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

Greentext

4392 readers
962 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
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 71 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days 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.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 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.

[–] pixelscript@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days 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.

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 points 2 days ago

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

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 days 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.

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

Sir no fictional countries please

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 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?

[–] hayes_@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

10 points to gryffindor!

[–] CoolMatt@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Going home wearing a hoodie is unwelcome?

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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 days ago

OP being green text author, not the Lemmy OP.

[–] CoolMatt@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

That’s right!