They are not that expensive. She know the guy. No investigation is needed. A lawyer won't charge much to put a scary demand letter together, maybe a couple hundred at most but probably much less in such a situation.
Going to a lawyer first, before the police, could also have softened much of that horrific experience. Going to the police WITH your lawyer also makes a real difference. It will at least get you past the reporting window and talking to an actual investigator. I did this sort of thing while a law student. Cops take lawyers much more seriously than victims. it's Wrong, it's harsh, but that is reality.
Or just telling him directly to stop himself. Maybe she did, but she didn't say she did. "Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" isn't quite the same thing as DON'T CONTACT ME AGAIN. A gentleman would get the hint, but a gentleman wouldn't be such a creepy asshole to begin with.
You don't legally have the right to dictate to someone how they talk to you. You do legally have the right to cut off all contact with someone (unless they have a reasonable need to do so and their contact is in line with such purpose). It's not a crime to be a creep. If you tell a creep, "Call me whenever you want, just don't be creepy," that doesn't criminalize their creepy personality when they continue to make creepy calls. If you tell them, "Never call me again, you creep," and they continue to call, that becomes aggravated harassment in the state of New York.
His response to ""Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU", followed by a block when the messaging remained unchanged was to file a series of nuisance complaints about her and start messaging her friends and employers.
I don't think any reasonable law enforcement agency could conclude that this behaviour wasn't a problem because she hadn't asked him to stop.
There's no question that his behavior was "problematic." What is not at all clear in that scenario is whether or not it was unlawful for him to continue to communicate with her. "So much" literally means there is an acceptable amount of communications. Blocking on Facebook is a completely passive action which does not directly communicate anything. Sure you can deduce that she didn't want to hear from him again, but she should have sent an unhedged message to cease and desist further contact, THEN block him.
"Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" sounds exactly like "I told my cyber stalker that if he didn't ease up on how much he was messaging me - my phone was beeping multiple times per day, bothering me at all hours - he could forget about breakfast in the morning from here on out - the next time he showed up at my apartment, I'd send him home with the night bus as soon as we were done having sex." (not a quote, I'm making fun here.)
Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
The woman in the article says "When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request. He often sent me rambling accounts of his day-to-day life. I usually didn’t respond, but sometimes I messaged back if I was bored or lonely."
Oh really? Sometimes you messaged back if you were bored or lonely?
This is how you end up in a happy marriage with the guy twenty years later after you've finished your studies and want to start settling down.
The guy's behavior is COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE and there is ZERO excuse for ANY of what is described.
At the same time, he's not a stalker until she unequivocally tells him that she would not like any further contact and asking him to move on. I cannot believe that she is a writer, yet this bad at communication.
What is so hard about saying, "I don't want this. Leave me alone." Jesus H. Christ. I hope I never, ever have anything to do with a woman like this one, because who knows if she really consented when I make out with her in my or her bedroom?
Does she have an inability to open her mouth and communicate what is going on? Jesus.
All that said, (I only glanced through the article) the guy's behavior completely surpasses anything even remotely justifiable. He's in the wrong. She's in the wrong for not telling him.
Blame the victim, right? The article doesn't say she has not told him never to contact her again, so I don't know why you assume that. And regardless, she's not bad at communcation. If someone blocks you and stops responding for years, it can't reasonably be interpreted as an invitation for more contact.
You also insinuate that they had a sexual relationship, which I think it's pretty clear they didn't.
> Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
Nope. She definitely blocked him on Facebook, but only once she felt his behavior constituted harassment. And that's reasonable, in my mind - especially given that this portion of the story occurred 10 years ago when people had much less experience with online social networks. Problems like these can start small and escalate gradually.
Yes, the article is lengthy, but it might be more responsible to read the whole thing before passing judgment.
It's not about whether she "feels" his behavior constitutes harassment. She has a choice about whether to be contacted by him and she has to tell him in no uncertain terms exactly what she wants. She has to say, "Please don't contact me again. I am not interested in having you in my life in any way. Move on." (not a quote, my suggestion).
This is like her quote,
>"He handed me the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers CD (Stadium Arcadium, not great) and asked if we could eat dinner together. I panicked; I hadn’t seen Danny since middle school and didn’t want to see him now. But I also didn’t want to hurt his feelings and felt touched by his gift. I took him to the cafeteria and made awkward conversation until I faked an excuse and left."
Really? Why would she mention that his gift "Stadium Arcadium" was "not great"??
What does it matter? But at that part of the story, she literally went with him to the cafeteria and ate with him.
Like, where at any point does she clearly simply say, "Do not contact me again in any way. I am not interested in having you in my life. Please move on." or "I told you not to contact me. Please don't do this" etc.
Women are completely in the wrong if they refuse to unambiguously state what they want from communications but expect that they can just "feel" a certain way. They have a duty to tell the person unambiguously.
By the way this goes the other way too. A woman can be totally, completely into you and you can be oblivious. In that case too, if she does want something she needs to just say it.
There are literally entire articles written for how a woman can go about planting the seed in a man's brain that maybe he should ask her out. It's ridiculous. women can communicate and they have an obligation to do so, not to "be touched and take him to the cafeteria and make conversation" while thinking that they are doing so with a harasser. come on.
I think she hates and sympathises with this guy at the same time. One could block someone on every single internet (or other) channels these days easily.
> How would you so them from emailing your employer?
My employer would show me the email, asked WTF and swiftly proceeded with legal action if applicable. My employer is there to make my life easier, and the fact that they do it in their best interest - the less time I spend on being stressed out, the more time and value I can contribute - makes me comfortable when asking for help.
But there may be a somewhat unusual level of trust between my employer and myself, maybe I'm just lucky to work at such a company.
Going to a lawyer first, before the police, could also have softened much of that horrific experience. Going to the police WITH your lawyer also makes a real difference. It will at least get you past the reporting window and talking to an actual investigator. I did this sort of thing while a law student. Cops take lawyers much more seriously than victims. it's Wrong, it's harsh, but that is reality.