strangeotron said:
I don't believe you, no.
Calling the cops is irrelevant. She could take this to civil court, as opposed to criminal court, and win. End of.
I'm sorry you can't understand that this is harassment because there are rules in civilised society that punish this sort of behaviour. I like living in a civilised society as a result.
Your post is otherwise a mass of straw men.
Okay, what would she sue him for? Emotional distress? Let's look at the legal definition of that:
1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
2. Defendant?s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
3. Defendant?s act is the cause of the distress; and
4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
Let's look at the legal definition of outrageous [http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/emotional-distress/]:
The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be
more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!"
An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.
and severe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress#Plaintiff_must_actually_suffer_emotional_distress]:
The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs must be "severe." This standard is quantified by the
intensity, duration, and any physical manifestations of the distress. A
lack of productivity or depression documented by professional psychiatrists is typically required here, although acquaintances' testimony about a
change in behavior could be persuasive.
