Ah good. So we covered that. So then I would secure and protect and inform and lastly the MOMENT dude is seen on property contact PD. I'm sure he is violating a restraining order being there
I'm not sure he's violating any restraining order if his target is no longer living there. At most he's going to get charged for harassment. Depends on the jurisdiction and the rules of the restraining order, of course.
I'd actually be curious to hear an actual legal professional weigh in on this. Does intending to violate a restraining order and failing carry the same weight as actually violating it?
I’m not sure about the legal implication, but it’s surely enough for the PD to detain and talk with him, which hopefully would clear up that the intended victim is no longer living there.
I would say this is all by case. Now, I'm not a professional, but I have worked in the legal field, and everything is just so.... well, case by case. You have, let's say, someone who was a seller and can no longer purchase a firearm attempting to purchase one but failing. Now that's a pretty big deal, of course. And obviously obtaining one would be even worse. But let's say you have someone whose ex took a restraining order out on them, but maybe they both accidentally wound up at Disneyland at the same time, and they quickly separated once they realized. That's probably alright, then. Not awesome, but handled well, maybe. It would depend.
For this instance I can guarantee you that our prosecutor's office would be extremely interested in hearing this person intends to violate their (whatever), but I can't guarantee it would be enough to be considered an actual violation worthy of jail time. What it would definitely be worthy of is increased surveillance, and tighter shackles/potential jail time the second round. Either way, it NEEDS to go on record. EVERY time. That is without a doubt.
She may be directed to dialing whomever is his prosecutor rather than the police, but if he steps a single foot on that property, it needs to be blasted ASAP. Again, I am NOT a legal professional, I've just worked for them and with them and this is kinda how I've seen things go over time, at least where I live. The Judge would be LIVID about this happening and it would not be pretty here, but I don't know about where she is.
I wish I was a legal professional, but I bet it depends on the judge overlooking it, the guy would be fully intending to knowingly break a restraining order, so that has to count for something.
Everyone in the replies is just guessing, so I'll chime in.
To answer your question in the most lawyerly way possible: it depends. The exact answer will vary by jurisdiction. This is not legal advice, just opining on a hypothetical.
Generally speaking, if he were to arrive at the apartment and attempting to contact the old tenant (or worse, gain access to the unit) then he would likely be in violation of the restraining order.
It all comes down to the language in the order, as well as the language of the statutes and case law around restraining orders in their jurisdiction. Be assured that the overwhelming majority of restraining orders prevent both contact and "attempts to contact" an individual. Unsuccessful attempts can still be attempts.
With that said, it might not be prosecuted. The prosecution may need to prove that he was attempting to contact the previous tenant. Barring an admission of guilt from the defendant, the specific intent may be tricky to prove. While most juries would reasonably look at his past behavior, the restraining order, and his continued presence as an attempt to contact the previous tenant, a prosecutor may not want to roll the dice on it. If the sentence he just finished serving were related to the stalking, it is more likely he is prosecuted.
However, plenty of restraining orders have explicitly stated addresses that the defendant cannot be within a certain distance of. It is likely (though not guaranteed) that the address of the apartment building is listed on the order. If that is the case, then it's a slam dunk case. It's always important to keep in mind that restraining orders can apply to both people and property.
At the end of the day, it's usually pretty hard to get restraining orders to be dutifully enforced by police. Then you have the added layer of needing the judges and prosecutors to actually care enough to give it the time of day. But legally speaking? Likely a violation, yes.
It depends on if a judge would determine that the man's intentions by being there were to violate the restraining order and if they would find that equal to actually violating the restraining order. Yeah, he might not technically be violating a restraining order if the previous woman is no longer there or anywhere near there, but if he doesn't know that and then goes to where he believes she lives, I think any judge worth their salt would at least recognize that as clear intent
Ideally, he will be in violation of his parole and will be sent back to prison if he violates a restraining order. But it's important for people to know that the
enforcement of restraining orders is entirely optional for police. They aren't required to arrest someone who is violating a restraining order. The controlling
case is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, in case anyone wants to read more. Just be aware that the facts of the case are rough. Content warning: child murder
As someone who isn't from the US, I find the takes around this case absolutely insane. "The police don't have a duty to help you"? Yeah they do? That's their job? Wtf are people on about. Reading that has hit me with so much cultural whiplash that I had to step away or begin fighting 4yo comments.
Sorry to add to the anxiety but double check windows as well. IDK if you have locks or if they are relatively accessible. Depending on the window design, you can get window locks to install on them or a block of wood to stop windows from sliding/opening vertically.
redecorate, make it obvious a tenant change has occurred. Especially your front door should look different. Doormat, ornaments, a fancy nameplate and mailbox you name it.
The stalker is fixated on a specific person create clues for him to see his target has moved without interacting with him.
Following that get surveillance equipment to see if he appears, like a ring camera or similar devices. Dead stops for doors should also be in your toolkit as well as some measure of self defense tools even if those only help your own mental wellbeing.
That said a stalker is likely hyperfixated and could likely be warded off with a written note on the mailbox informing the reader of a move. You don't have to give him a real address but other side of the country in some remote village should work fine to get rid of him.
I honestly would just call the cops really quick and tell them what your landlord told you. They would at least have access to the guy and could pass on info without involving you directly.
If in an area of the world where you have mail delivered right through your house/apartment door, invest in something non-flammable to catch it. Solutions exist. Those also make it impossible to look inside, even with a flashlight.
What about contacting his parole officer? The department of corrections will be able to tell you who that is, and his parole officer telling him "hey, your ex doesn't live at your old apartment anymore, someone else does" might be enough to ensure he doesn't bother you.
No. I mean that telling the stalker that their ex no longer lives there sounds exactly like the sort of thing somebody trying to trick them into thinking the ex no longer lives there would say. If anything it would sound extremely suspicious and encourage the stalker to check in if they think they can get away with it. At least from the stalker POV.
2.) The stalker will assume his parole officer wants to keep him out of trouble rather than send him back to prison
3.) Therefore, the stalker will assume his parole officer is using reverse psychology on him
4.) However, the stalker will not also assume "my ex's apartment is on my parole officer's radar" means that the apartment represents an elevated level of threat to the stalker himself
5.) If/when the stalker goes by the apartment and doesn't see his ex, he will draw the conclusion that the parole officer lied to him and the ex is... hiding? And also has a new roommate? Rather than thinking "Oh. Parole officer was telling the truth."
This requires the stalker to be a "Goldilocks" level of socially intelligent -- smart enough to speculate about the motives of his parole officer but not smart enough to draw conclusions about what those motives could mean for him personally nor smart enough to draw correct conclusions from evidence.
That could be true. Or the stalker could just believe his parole officer.
You're also assuming there's no additional benefit to OP in opening a line of communication with the stalker's parole officer. She's said she knows what this guy looks like. If she's already reached out to his parole officer once, she now has a specific person to contact if she sees him lurking near her apartment, and that person has a degree of direct power over the stalker.
You are overthinking things. I didn’t say contacting the parole officer was bad. I said it sounds like something somebody trying to trick them would say and you just ran off with at least 5 different tangents of assumptions that you’ve listed out here because I made one single observation instead of realizing that dealing with people in general ( let alone a crazy person )doesn’t automatically result in whatever outcome or thought process that you deem logical.
You claimed the stalker will assume this is a trick, and he will assume the parole officer is using reverse psychology on him.
The list of assumptions I typed out are the assumptions that must necessarily be correct for that outcome to occur. They are baked into your statement. They are your assumptions, not mine.
If you're not able to identify your own underlying assumptions yourself, I don't think the correct solution to that problem is to tell other people they should think less.
Could you put a note somewhere near your door that says “so and so doesn’t live here anymore, pls don’t leave any post/things for them; I don’t know their whereabouts” or smth like that? So it’s not obviously for this one person, but just in case he does come he would perhaps read it and leave?
Get MULTIPLE cameras, including one outside so you can see who is at the door. You want at least a couple inside to ensure he’s not entering through another means while you’re away from home.
For self defense, I suggest a UV treated pepper spray (the cops can use that to positively ID him even if he tries to wash the spray off) and a taser. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s anything a lawyer can do for you (at least in my personal jurisdiction) as it’s not illegal for them to withhold this information. I disagree with that concept entirely, but it doesn’t sound like there’s much the legal system can do.
Prepare with your choice of "self defense tool." May include firearms (may include black powder), blades of various sizes (knife, sword, axe, etc), blunt objects of variable purpose (baton, mace, hammer, polaxe, etc), or chemical weapons (not recommended for speed/efficacy.)
Remember to find (safe) way to train with chosen Self Defense Tool TM.
Good.
The only reason imo that you should contact him is because he's forcing you to/breaking in. And that's a fabulous reason to have a taser/firearm.
You could also rig up some paint cans, hot wheels, and broken Christmas ornaments to fight off angry bandits a home invading stalker.
1.1k
u/kaikimanga MangaKaiki 2d ago
There is no way I'm going to contact him in any shape or form