• ricecake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • pixelscript@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

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