My problem with that perspective is that the law is clear on the subject: It is a criminal matter, according to the cyberstalking statutes across the country. If police don't like the law, they probably shouldn't have chosen a career of enforcing the law. (Certainly there are unjust laws, and I would hope officers would choose to exhibit some sort of leniency or looking the other way in minor cases of those sorts...but, in this case the response seems to be one of simply not believing the victim is worthy of their time and attention, despite the fact that the legislature of their state instructed them to consider protecting those victims a part of their job.)

Pursuing a civil case requires money and time that many people don't have to spare. There are very few pro-bono cyberstalking attorneys out there, and unless and until it becomes common for their to be large payouts for victims (and their attorneys) there's unlikely to be an industry built up around it (as in the case of workman's comp, personal injury, medical malpractice, and class actions over corporate malfeasance). And, I don't know that we want to look to those industries for the preferred practices for preventing harm to young women and girls who are overwhelmingly the victims in these cases.

I'm not saying the criminal justice system, or police, are the right way to handle it, either, though probably not for the same reason as some folks here have expressed. I think police have a history of further inflicting harm on rape victims, for example, and I don't now if I want that kind of harm to also be inflicted on girls and women who are victims of cyberstalking. It sounds like the experience of the author in interacting with police was similarly demeaning and dismissive to what some rape victims report about their experience going to the police, so I guess that's just where we're at in these kinds of crimes.

In short, I don't know what the right answer is, and I don't like police or the criminal justice system, but I'd rather they err on the side of protecting victims, when they are deciding what cases to pursue and how to allocate resources. They had a victim in their office, and they opted to snicker at her, and tell her to get lost.

They didn't snicker at her. They just didn't know how best to help her.

I feel your characterization portrays officers as hateful when they're really often just misinformed.

Again, just like you say, it's hard to find the right answer. And when you say you "rather they err on the side of protecting victims", there are too many people who could possibly be victims to protect. And how do you mean "protect" exactly?

[Downvoting is an acceptable response, but I was honestly hoping for an answer to the question. If I'm missing something, please let me know, I would really appreciate that!]

The police in this case knew the name of the victim, the name of the perpetrator, and had the ability to look over the evidence to figure out whether a crime had been committed (according to the statute, it probably had). You don't get much more open and shut than that. Yes, it takes resources with only modest results (modest in the sense that it's not usually gonna be a murder case or a drug smuggling case, and won't be a gold star on the officer's record, but they will probably be able to help someone), but so does so-called "broken windows" policing and stop-and-frisk, which have similarly modest results (and have the unpleasant side effect of creating new victims in many cases, and breeding mistrust for police among young brown folks in nearly all cases).

I'm not sure what's so hard about this. Police in the first instance should at the least take a report from the victim. That's the first step toward a restraining order and other legal remedies, and how things begin in other kinds of harassment cases.

I agree with that statement. It's much easier to agree with your points when they're specific.

I find it unfortunate that some members of police force think that they know the law well enough to decide whether or not a report should be made.

"Loud snickering from my left. Is it him? asked the cop in front of me, flicking his thumb at his colleague giggling in the corner."

Got it. I missed that.

Even though having a visit from the cops would probably cause this guy to be scared into no longer doing this?

Anecdotal evidence suggests that this tactic only works on some people. Some stalkers don't care when they get a visit from the police (the police very clearly can't do anything and will state that explicitly).

Some may take a short break and then feel the urge come back; others may just go right ahead. (Some people don't realize they're stalking, and will stop. It's worth a try to ask them to stop.)

After having asked nicely, suing is unfortunately your only recourse. And it really sucks that suing takes so much time, effort, and money, especially in a situation like this.

It obviously doesn't seem like he had the ability to make rational decisions like that. I doubt that a single visit from the cops would get him to change his ways after 14 years.

I'm sure it would've, but they would've needed to commit resources to investigate and confirm the claims were likely true before doing that.