Greentext

4437 readers

1293 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

193

Anon walks home in the city at 2 AM (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Name the law.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

What jurisdiction are we talking?
For Canada, I think there's a good argument for 2.d.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html

engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Sir no fictional countries please

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're on the internet so the default country is the US of A

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

You’re posting in sh.itjust.works, hoser.

Now drink that Molson, there’s a Leafs game in 8 hours and I’m not paying $12 for a half a beer, eh?

[–] hayes_@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

10 points to gryffindor!

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week 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 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 points 1 week ago

It probably comes from the French verb "menacer" which means "to threaten".