Being Stalked by Not Even an Ex, But a Fuck Buddy That Fell In Love SMH

Okay so I was fucking around with this on and off for a couple years. He met me while I was escorting and we still fucked around even when I went on a hiatus. Needless to say he caught feelings, I never did and last year I broke it off out of respect that I just don't feel that way towards him. Needless to say, he found out I'm back in the game and this guy OMG the amount of time he is spending to play different characters and get different Internet numbers to go through my screening process to find out where I am is getting scary (Not to mention the lack of social life he must have!!). Last night he even had his friend come to the door and when I let him in, soon after he was knocking on my door. As soon as I saw him I flew out of my room so I wouldn't be caught in the room with them, because at this point I don't know what he will or will not do. But it is starting to get scary and idk if I am able to file a restraining order because he hasn't touched me YET. But I don't want this to end where someone gets hurt. Idk if I should call the police and file a report? I mean is there anything I can do?!?!

Do you know your "friend's" real information?

In general, different states have different bars that must be met to obtain a PO (protective order), but a lot of recent studies have suggested that the MAJORITY of PO's are not based on bona fide facts. But in general, assault has to actually occur before a PO is justified. Your fear is not enough. "Stalking," if you can prove to the judge or clerk beyond a preponderance of evidence, may be enough in some jurisdictions, but not as a general rule.

Keep in mind that no hitting, pushing, or any touching has to occur to assault someone (that's battery). Assault just means (two prong test) (i) that you act in intentional manner to put someone in fear for imminently getting attacked, and (ii) that you are capable of carrying out that attack.

Good luck.

that what happens when you put on a weak minded person !!!! lol good luck with that one

In general, different states have different bars that must be met to obtain a PO (protective order), but a lot of recent studies have suggested that the MAJORITY of PO's are not based on bona fide facts. But in general, assault has to actually occur before a PO is justified. Your fear is not enough. "Stalking," if you can prove to the judge or clerk beyond a preponderance of evidence, may be enough in some jurisdictions, but not as a general rule.

Keep in mind that no hitting, pushing, or any touching has to occur to assault someone (that's battery). Assault just means (two prong test) (i) that you act in intentional manner to put someone in fear for imminently getting attacked, and (ii) that you are capable of carrying out that attack. Originally Posted by sketchball82

These two paragraphs concern me because you're in Michigan and the OP is in Texas and you're making generalized statements about the law all over. The OP's fact situation is governed by Texas state law only, not some generalized version of the law of all 50 states. The law avoids generalizations and deals in specifics. For example, this statement you make: "'Stalking,' if you can prove to the judge or clerk beyond a preponderance of evidence, may be enough in some jurisdictions, but not as a general rule." That is a completely inaccurate statement under Texas law. First, there is a specific statute in Texas making stalking a crime, and if the complaining witness can prove stalking behavior, they WILL get a protective order -- no if's, and's, or but's about it. Second, the burden of proving stalking is beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard), NOT a preponderance of the evidence (the civil standard). Third, no one argues a case to "a clerk." Fourth, the complaining witness need not prove assault to get a protective order. The definition of 'assault' you give is for the civil tort of assault, NOT the Texas criminal offense of assault. Please, if you don't know WTF you're talking about, don't post.

I'm also concerned that you generalize about the law of all 50 states. Did you read the post and conduct a survey of the law in each state regarding assault? And you mention "recent studies." Please post the links to the studies. If you don't, I'm gonna conclude that you're talking through your ass -- in fact, I can hear anus-produced words and I can discern a fart-like smell here in Dallas all the way from Detroit, and I mean a stink different from the normal Detroit bad smell.

Scarlet: Call the District Attorney's Office in the county where you live and ask for victim services. They'll guide you through the process of getting a protective order.

These two paragraphs concern me because you're in Michigan and the OP is in Texas and you're making generalized statements about the law all over. The OP's fact situation is governed by Texas state law only, not some generalized version of the law of all 50 states. The law avoids generalizations and deals in specifics. For example, this statement you make: "'Stalking,' if you can prove to the judge or clerk beyond a preponderance of evidence, may be enough in some jurisdictions, but not as a general rule." That is a completely inaccurate statement under Texas law. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

First, I've said repeatedly, I work in IP and am not a member of the Texas bar. I only answer in generalizations for that reason. I have no intention on researching the specifics in Texas just to find out that I missed some case law and was wrong with my interpretation anyway.

I however disagree that generalizations are improper. The mere fact that this is a legal forum does not mean that every post has to be a legal opinion. I in no way implied that what I discussed was "Texas specific" or in anyway necessarily had the force of law in Texas or Houston. To the contrary, I would think the OP would find a lot of value in knowing a general principle or how common law generally treats POs, even if it is not necessarily "on the head" for Texas. That may make her comfortable approaching a probate court clerk or police officer to inquire further.

First, there is a specific statute in Texas making stalking a crime, and if the complaining witness can prove stalking behavior, they WILL get a protective order -- no if's, and's, or but's about it. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

That's great. I never said there was not, so I'm not really sure the relevance of this comment, to me at least. This may be fine advice to the OPp, but as I have no intention on brushing up on my Texas statutes, I really couldn't care less.

Second, the burden of proving stalking is beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard), NOT a preponderance of the evidence (the civil standard). Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Umm, you're dead wrong. Probably because you misunderstood me. I never discussed or implied any criminal charges. That's something you brought up and then tried to force my comment into your paradigm. Classic straw man logical fallacy, amiright?! To be clear: I was talking about the standard for getting a PO, not a criminal conviction.

Third, no one argues a case to "a clerk." Originally Posted by ShysterJon

When I mentioned "clerks," I meant jurisdictions where you file paperwork for a PO without oral argument to the judge. However, upon rereading my comment, I see the confusion. For this one, I slapped my own wrist. Bad sketch.

Fourth, the complaining witness need not prove assault to get a protective order. The definition of 'assault' you give is for the civil tort of assault, NOT the Texas criminal offense of assault. Please, if you don't know WTF you're talking about, don't post. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Again I was talking about domestic violence protective orders, which are civil issues, not criminal.

And yes of course there are several reasons for a PO other than assault. You're missing my point and it seems like you're more interested in attacking me than considering my advice. As I said, stalking is not always grounds for a PO (note I did not say in Texas because I have no fucking clue). But in my experience, assault is generally grounds for a PO and is the closest related cause to stalking to pursue one. The point: try to get a PO for stalking but if you can't, then consider assault. I don't think it was that hard to follow...

I'm also concerned that you generalize about the law of all 50 states. Did you read the post and conduct a survey of the law in each state regarding assault? Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I guess at a this point your just arguing the extreme to try to make me look like a fool.

As I said above, I'm not a member of the Texas bar. I fucking fully concede that. But I am a member of several other bars. And preponderance of the evidence is the de facto standard (statutory standard in most) for a PO in ALL OF THEM (which in all fairness is only 3, at least at the state level--lawls), not reasonable doubt. You are dead fucking wrong there. As you said: that's the criminal (i.e., conviction) standard [not the civil standard, which is what I was discussing]. So while my generalizations may border a little on casual reasoning because I'm not a member of all 50 bars, it's a good fucking start.

And you mention "recent studies." Please post the links to the studies. If you don't, I'm gonna conclude that you're talking through your ass -- in fact, I can hear anus-produced words and I can discern a fart-like smell here in Dallas all the way from Detroit, and I mean a stink different from the normal Detroit bad smell. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Here is a paper that survey of the problem. This paper has links to dozens of credible sources beyond itself:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag.../nmlr39&div=13

So that shit smell wafting through your nose right now isn't coming from Detroit. I'd check your pants. I too would shit myself if I just got served.

This is the last time I defend myself to you. I have nothing but respect for you, but how about some professional fucking courtesy? If you want to disagree with me fine. If you want to be specific if I generalize, great! But implying that I'm talking out of my ass? I can berate you too and try to pick apart every position you ever have, but I don't think the forum would value that. That would just be an ego-manic trying a new version of cyber-sex, but instead of looking at a video of some girl I'll never meet, I would be jerking off to likes on my posts on eccie because I attacked shyster jon and tried to make him look like a moron.

This board should not live and die with you (being the most active Texas-barred attorney) deciding to or against commenting on a thread. Yes generalizations may not be strictly-germane to a given jurisdiction's actual statutes, but that does not mean they have no value. They are a starting point for the confused in the absence of specific guidance for their jurisdiction, and they give basic guidance of where to start for someone in a different jurisdiction than the OP having a similar issue. I think it's shitty that you tried to humiliate me here, especially because you completely misunderstood my post and blatantly applied the wrong standard. Lastly, I will note if you had just superseded my comment with the relevant Texas law instead of attacking me, this thread would not have gotten derailed and would have been better information for everyone.

EDIT: Well, I think I'm done. I'm sure you don't care, but I won't be visiting this section of the forums anymore. That was prompted mainly by all the likes to your post attacking me. Apparently a lot of people really enjoy the conflict, they didn't at all follow the exchange and just accept you as the authority, or you have some peanut gallery that magically likes every post you make. Nevertheless it makes my advice feel completely undervalued, so congrats on getting your e-peen stroked by completely irrelevant comments and arguments addressed to something I never commented on. Congrats, you won your child custody case with arguments directed to trademark infringement because the damn jury couldn't follow your arguments, but damn did they like the way you dressed and talked. Way to take over the forum and push out anyone else with an educated opinion.

SHYSTER IS THE BEST, JUST ASK HIM.

We can only hope that ShysterJon defends his clients with the same tenacity as he defends his position as the resident legal advisor for this board.