...I do believe that it was incumbent upon this woman to stand up for herself. Especially since there was no express intent to harm, and the only unwelcome physical contact was the ancillary contact that comes from sitting next to someone. In order for it to be harassment, it must be unwelcome, and absent overt contact or overt threat, it can't be unwelcome unless it is expressly stated as unwelcome by her. Otherwise, anything can be called harassment.

His behavior certainly does sound rude, and I wouldn't have any problem with him being publicly and loudly chastised for it. But criminally actionable? I certainly hope it never comes to that in this country.

I am sorry to hear that you had two experiences of this sort of thing that were followed by an actual sexual assault. I would remind you, however, that in this case, sexual assault did not occur.

That's getting the state to fight her battles for her. And the State should have said no.

Standing up for herself means telling him to stop, or getting up and moving. In other words, making it expressly known that what he was doing was unwelcome. Until and unless an express threat is issued, or overt, unwelcome contact occurs, this is her problem to face, not the government's.

A certain amount of time must have elapsed between the staring incident on the train and the moment when she filed the report with the police. If sexual assault was going to occurr in this situation, don't you think that it would have happened then? Your assumption that sexual assault was bound to happen, and that police action was the only thing that stopped it, is not supported by the facts of the case.

...that women can't report intimidation and harassment to the police. I said that, until it is overtly unwelcome, it doesn't constitute harassment, and that, lacking an overt threat or direct uninvited contact, it does not become unwelcome until and unless it is expressly stated as unwelcome by the person in question.

The fact is that merely staring at someone is not necessarily a prelude to violence (and in this case, it was not a prelude to violence), and therefore, cannot be taken implicitly as a threat, unless it is expressly unwelcome by the person in question. That requires the person to speak up, or to find some other indirect method of communicating their discomfort, like moving to another seat. This is not confrontation or escalation. This is merely self assertion, and if you are too afraid to assert yourself, it is not the government's responsiblity to assert itself on your behalf.

As I said to others in this thread, you should feel free to assume the worst in others, if you feel that that is what is necessary to keep yourself safe. At times, that is the wisest course of action. However, your assumption is just that - an assumption, not a fact. Until facts prove otherwise, the government must assume innocence.

"Stare too hard at someone and you WILL get shot at home"

You have done quite a good job of painting a scary picture of "the hood," and made a convincing argument that it is dangerous to stare there. However, you have yet to explain exactly how a stare, by itself, is implicitly a threat. For all the ranting and raving you are doing here, you are actually making the staring party look like the innocent victim here.

The truth is that it is possible to innocently stare at someone, with no malicious intent in mind. Your story about your boyfriend and the guy in the club actually proves this point. A man stared at you. When confronted, he apologized. Violence did not ensue. At the very least, this story fails to prove your point that staring is an implied threat and that imminent violence can be assumed from it. I would decline from citing it in future arguments along these lines. It proves your outrage, but not your point.

...based on the facts as presented to me, and as I understood them. Those facts were that (A) there was an incident in which he sat "too close for comfort" to her; (B) there was an incident in which he sat in front of her and stared at her the whole time, and (C) it was based on these two incidents that the man was sentenced to incarceration. I argued my point because I believe very strongly in innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and find the notion that wordless staring can be an assumed threat and punished accordingly to be repugnant. As I have repeatedly stated here, I was given no indication that the woman either asked him to stop staring or got up and moved. If she had done either (and, admittedly, it is possible that she did, and it hasn't been reported), then things would be different.

Point taken about Italy, and its culture of political incorrectness, but still, this is the police force we are talking about here. If there were ever an organization that, in general, should not be taken at face value and should be subject to extensive scrutiny and repeated second guesses by the general public, it would be the police.

For the record: I have nothing bad to say about AKA Smith. Admittedly, I haven't read all of her posts here, as I have been busy arguing with others, but I found her responses to my posts to be intelligent, well reasoned, and polite.