C
chevalier
Guest
Yep. It’s not even a standard of proof, but rather a standard of the crime, so to say. A definition, that is. It probably comes from defining stalking not as a concrete act on its own but rather inflicting the feeling of being stalked… and you inflict it if the other person has it, according to some. This is something I don’t like about those touchy feely laws of the modern era. I can’t really tell you very much because I’m a civil lawyer (I have a Polish degree and my thesis was actually related to standard of proof, but ours is a civil law system, not case/common law), but perhaps it would be a good idea to consult a lawyer in your area at least to give you a little theoretical knowledge about what stalking looks like in your laws, what they need to prove, what you can use as your defence, and so on. The sad reality is that between us humans, without divine intervention, if they have a lawyer, you need one too. The accusation will likely fall, but do pray. St Thomas More is the patron of lawyers (and he died as a result of a false accusation), as is St Raymond of Penyafort and some other saints.That’s how I viewed it as well. However, once I started looking at various definitions and laws for “stalking” it seems that a lot of people merely define it as anything that made the other person uncomfortable or “fear for their safety”. If they claim they were, it doesn’t matter if I so much as said Hi to them on the street more than once… it could possibly be considered stalking. Such a subjective and arbitrary standard for “proof” is what scares me more than anything.