"elsie" <lcubbison@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ee3eb.9362$NX3.5623@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "goat" <goat@goat.goat> wrote in message
> news:1064856348.37070.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
> > "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f73c271.26316041@news.telusplanet.net...
> >
> > > The perfect woman is a mass produced zombie chick?
> >
> > Think about how much happier everyone would be if lonely guys could buy an
> > Ayanami type mass-produced woman.
> >
> >
> At first I thought fixating on an anime character as the epitome of feminity
> was incredibly pathetic, but I realized while talking to a friend of mine
> today that it's probably safer for us women that such men choose a fictional
> character to stalk. It turns out the man who has been stalking my friend's
> daughter is now in jail--stalking is a parole violation--and meanwhile her
> daughter is having a hard time putting her life back together.
> 
> laurie



Oh shit.  If she hasn't already, I suggest to your friend that she 
contact a risk assessment group like Gavin De Becker and Associates.  
This stalker obviously has a criminal case history and so a background 
check should be done on him especially if his is a short sentence.  
While some stalkers are merely persistent idiots who are too clueless 
to take a SUBTLE hint (a restraining order is effective against dorks 
like these because they haven't invested a lot to begin with and the 
threat of it is a BLUNT hint-but really if she tells the person no and 
it doesn't work than a risk assessment is in order.)

However with stalkers who are obsessive what a low level "deterence"
does is escalate things, something like a restraining order is
largely just a threat and often lacks credible ability to enforce it.
Issuing a restraining order or sending someone to warn the stalker off
increaes the likelihood that stalker will escalate.  Because in their
judgement call the risk vs. reward ratio is very much in their favour,
at most they might be thrown in jail for a few months.  Now murders
by stalkers are typically justified by them as self-defense but what
is it really?  It is an attempt to defend self-identity.  Obsessive
stalkers aren't exactly Mr. Self-Esteem despite whatever macho schtick
they might pull (not to mention they're not exactly the portrait of
stability) so while a low level deterence doesn't do much to them, it
sticks in their craw.

A high level action should be used very early in these cases (though
we still want it to be legal-no hiring the mafia to dump his corpse
in the river).  I say action because a high level deterence might
not be readily available (for example the stalker may fulfill a number
of rankings in terms of danger level but if he lacks a criminal record
or a history of mental illness, the courts and police might have their
hands tied up.  This has improved quite significantly in most 
jurisdictions as knowledge of how dangerous a stalker can be is 
realized, especially if they've had previous experience in such scenarios
and managed to learn from them).  A high level illegal deterence can be
used but I sincerely doubt you want to go there.

Now hopefully this guy's will have a criminal record that warants life 
with no chance of parole but I doubt that's the case and so I recommend
checking with a risk-assessment group.  (Michael-who still thinks that
fixating on a cartoon character is really pathetic and knows that it
doesn't necessarily make a person "safer"; the fact that the person
obsesses sets off warning lights).