Hacker News Reader

Comment by btilly | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it sucks, but no surprise. Stalking is an old, old problem. And the police won't do anything until it turns violent. You can stalk normal people, movie stars, business people - pretty much anyone other than a psychiatrist. (It turns out that psychiatrists have a really easy time getting their stalkers committed to insane asylums.)

I know a woman who owns nothing in her own name, changes her phone number frequently, and whose own family often does not know how to reach her. All to make it harder for her stalker to keep tracking her down. When she acquired the stalker she was high profile so the FBI actually did send someone to give her advice. The advice was basically that she was screwed, how to best hide, and to get trained guard dogs.

I wish I was joking.

View on HN

> And the police won't do anything until it turns violent.

Try violating a restraining order taken out against you and see if you maintain that opinion.

The behavior you describe as well as that of the article qualifies for seeking a restraining order, which this entire discussion seems to have forgotten is in existence. Once you have a EPO/TRO/PRO, then the police care when it is violated. A lot. It's easy for them to enforce and requires no investigation, which is the thorn that hits a lot of people when they try to get cases like this going with the police. As an example, my father went to jail more than once for violating my mother's PRO. It's also on the person's record, which is why it is good to involve a lawyer if someone files one against you.

I'm one more contact from my own stalker away from filing for one, but he seems to have forgotten about me for now. I'm mystified that the FBI advised your friend and the topic of a restraining order did not come up at all. I spoke with the FBI about my stalker after he threatened to kill me across state lines and it was the first thing they told me to do. Undoubtedly, there is more to your anecdote.

In California, as long as you choose the right kind (i.e., not domestic for civil), restraining orders are fairly trivial to get. In some cases you can get a legally-binding TRO from a judge, in a day, for free. They also show up on computers in a police officer's cruiser in California (thanks to the digitization of all of it in CLETS), so if you are literally standing in front of a person on whom you have a EPO/TRO/PRO and get a cop's attention, the crime is open and shut and they will arrest, speaking from experience. Bonus in California and maybe elsewhere: if you successfully take out a restraining order on someone, they have to surrender all their firearms or sell them (yes, really).

Seriously. Restraining orders, people. The courts are at your disposal, and they're not just for domestic violence.

Edit: Except in New York, apparently, where the author of the article lives. Go New York. New York readers: vote to fix that incredibly moronic situation at once, then travel to a sane state on this like California and go back home with one of ours, which should be enforceable there. Seriously, in the Internet age, the complete absence of a non-dating civil protective order mechanism is an absolute and disgusting shame, and means your only recourse from the courts exists if you make out with your stalker. What a grandly perverse incentive you have there from your judicial system. I'm actually worked up about this from learning it in this thread, and sympathize far more with the article author now than I did before I knew that.

California resources:

- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1260.htm

- http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-domesticviolence.htm (dating/relationship/etc)

- http://www.courts.ca.gov/1044.htm (not dating, impossible in New York, apparently)

Oh, she got specific advice about restraining orders.

The specific advice was, "The point at which a stalker is likely to flip out is the point where it becomes obvious to the stalker that the attention is unwanted and the relationship can never work. There is a real possibility that the act of taking out a restraining order will trigger a murder-suicide."

When you're dealing with insane people, you can't expect a sane response to legal threats.

(And yes, there is a lot more to my anecdote. But not stuff I'll talk about in public.)

At that point, why not just buy a gun and start going to a shooting range? Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others in self-defense.

I don't personally believe that anyone should have to do this, but I also believe that if you feel sufficiently threatened it'd be silly to ignore your legal right to self-defense.

Most US jurisdictions have a legal framework that enables you to kill others in self-defense.

ALL US jurisdictions have such a framework, although a 7 plus D.C. make it impractical to use by mostly not allowing concealed carry, and a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court (e.g. Maryland and at times, even in your home, Massachusetts). The author is said to live in New York, which is all but no possession let alone no issue in NYC, and may issue, sometimes liberally upstate, so she probably can't take your advice.

ADDED: And it still won't stop the cyberstalking, just give her a backstop if it goes "real world".

I wasn't talking about the article, but responding to btillys comment and btilly never clarified the jurisdiction where the events he was describing took place.

I do think that the ability to defend yourself would be of great help if you're faced with a serious threat of physical violence, as seemed to be the case in the situation btilly described.

> a subset of them have a duty to retreat which will likely get you crucified later in court

This is what I was referring to with "most".

Any decent self-defense instructor will tell you that the best way to win a fight is to not get into a fight at all. So why do something to encourage violence? Let's say you do get a gun, you go to a shooting range, you get good at shooting it. Who's to say that, when the stalker shows up at your door, you're going to be able to pull the trigger? Taking a life is not an easy thing to do, and in the "heat of the moment" some people can be unwilling to do it, even when doing so would save themselves from harm.

>Any decent self-defense instructor will tell you that the best way to win a fight is to not get into a fight at all. So why do something to encourage violence?

Read the comment I was responding to, supposedly the FBI suggested that getting a restraining order would significantly increase the risk of a murder-suicide. Is the right approach there to avoid the restraining order to not encourage violence? I think not.

>Taking a life is not an easy thing to do, and in the "heat of the moment" some people can be unwilling to do it, even when doing so would save themselves from harm.

I absolutely agree, but what's the alternative here? Not getting a restraining order? Hoping that the cops will get there in time if something happens?

It seems to me that at that point you really wouldn't be left with much of a choice, besides just accepting the harassment and living with it.

Or, they could throw the asshole in jail, and be done with the whole thing.

Wow, what horrible advice. It might escalate if you get a restraining order? Yea, no shit, but then they can also go to jail. If someone is harassing you, silence is not the solution.

A bully might beat you up if you tell someone what they are doing, but it will more likely get you the help you need.

Maybe not for your specific situation but that is really bad advice for victims. Speak up, take action.

I'm suspicious of the whole thing based on that advice. It's basically victim blaming, and I have a really hard time imagining an FBI agent saying "avoid restraining orders because your stalker will probably kill you and get dogs because lol you are just fucked." That's a very shitty tone to take and is practically masturbating atop a victim's fear. Regardless of opinion on LE, I can't imagine someone who made it to the FBI even holding an opinion like that. Someone in Arpaio's MCSO maybe.

Something smells with that entire story. If I had to guess, it has something to do with us hearing it thirdhand because we are very clearly relying on the interpretation of at least two people, and it's also conveniently tied in to the overall narrative of LE being completely useless. Also weird that those parts are okay to discuss publicly but the rest isn't. It's not worth me continuing to call it out, though, so I'm just letting it go.

My email is in my profile. Email me if you want, and I'll give you enough additional details that the story should make more sense.

Can't people be put into a psychiatric ward at some point?

You can only be committed against your will if a mental health professional determines you to be an active risk to yourself or others. The key point there is that you have to be evaluated by a mental health professional: and it's not like there are psychologists roaming the streets evaluating strangers. There are only a couple of scenarios that can result in being evaluated: voluntarily (i.e. seeing a therapist) or by some sort of court mandate (if a person accused of a crime displays signs of mental illness, often a forensic psychologist will be asked to evaluate them). Basically getting a stalker committed requires getting them charged with a crime or in some way in front of a judge.

Also keep in mind the bar for committing someone against their will is pretty high. For instance, a person with schizophrenia who is homeless and spends their days talking to voices in their head has a very poor quality of life and is likely to die due to disease, starvation or exposure, but is not suicidal and thus cannot be committed, at least not long term. Sometimes that person can be committed for a few days for evaluation and observation, but no longer.

>voluntarily (i.e. seeing a therapist) or by some sort of court mandate (if a person accused of a crime displays signs of mental illness

So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first. And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.

(Not that I've done anything that would get me committed, but say I was feeling depressed or something... why would I risk it?)

Getting committed by a therapist you are seeing is very rare, generally only happens if you are actively suicidal, and will tend to only last a few days. The barrier for involuntary committing is very high: I've known several people who engaged in self harm and cutting, told their therapists, and were not committed. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

>And people wonder why we have such issues with our mental health care system.

Genuine question: what would you want to see instead? Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide? I understand being frustrated with the system, but I don't see any easy answers.

>Getting committed by a therapist you are seeing is very rare

There are many very rare things people take extreme precaution to avoid.

>Would you want it to be impossible to commit patients without consent, and risk more people committing suicide?

But more people would see therapists and thus less people would commit suicide overall. The choice is between a lower total suicide rate or a lower suicide rate in a subset which therapist are exposed to. And I'm not really surprised therapist opted for the one that is directly more visible.

But, knowing that your therapist can only commit you temporarily if you actively suicidal, do you still think you shouldn't see a therapist if you are depressed? I, for one, am glad my psychiatrist can commit me if I become suicidal; she would literally be saving my life.

I'm not a counselor myself, but I have several in my family. It has been my impression that therapists would not be interested in committing you unless there was an immediate threat to you or someone else.

They would much rather use a treatment method you agreed with. So if you were very depressed they would definitely be concerned. But I don't know if you would get involuntarily committed unless the difference between involuntary commitment and outpatient treatment was a life or death choice. I don't expect you could say much to a therapist that would not stay private unless there was an extremely good reason.

>I'm not a counselor myself, but I have several in my family. It has been my impression that therapists would not be interested in committing you unless there was an immediate threat to you or someone else.

The threat of me using a gun, no matter how unlikely it actually is, leads to me being banned from having a gun in quite a lot of places. Also, people will often not accurate take into account the chance of something happening when deciding how they should act.

> So what you are saying is that if I voluntarily seek a therapist, I could end up committed, but if I don't, then I have to have done something bad enough for me to be in front of the judge first.

It depends where you are. That's not true for the UK, for example, where a variety of people have powers to detain under the mental health act. There's a bunch of checks and balances built in to the system so while it's not perfect it's very far away from the misinformation some people are spreading in this thread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com