"Michael Lo" <IwillneverbeaJedi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:884b7c04.0310010310.f6ad2c2@posting.google.com...
> "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).

The sad thing is that the daughter wants to be a school teacher and is
worried that at any job she gets the system would want to put her name on a
website directory. Which is basically a sign saying, "Here I am. Stalk me
again."

laurie