You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
Hiring a private detective to follow your partner does not fit any legal definition of stalking. It doesn't even fit the definition of stalking to which Miss Sack included a link.
True, true. If it were the case, then by definition ANY private investigator could be classified (and charged I presume) as a 'professional' stalker! That's why private investigators require training and licensing/certification in order for them to do what they do, especially in surveillance of individuals.
Posted by: Sergeant1107 Posted on: Dec 19th, 2009 at 12:52am
Hiring a private detective to follow your partner does not fit any legal definition of stalking. It doesn't even fit the definition of stalking to which Miss Sack included a link.
Posted by: pailryder Posted on: Dec 18th, 2009 at 4:04am
True, relationships are often based on trust, but marriages are more often based on money and children. My point was the victimized woman, in my example, would be a stalker under Miss Sacks definition.
Posted by: BBernie Posted on: Dec 18th, 2009 at 2:30am
So. a woman who suspects she is a victim of a cheating husband and arranges for a private detective to follow him should be jailed for stalking?
I think the idea is that if you can't trust your partner anymore then its game over! A relationship is totally based on trust. Others might disagree and say something else...I don't know what else? Sex, common interests? infatuation? Whatever. If you have to resort to hiring a PI or a polygraph then its time to beat feet. I would at least.
Posted by: pailryder Posted on: Dec 17th, 2009 at 8:59pm
If you're in a relationship where you can't control your partner's every movement, and this bothers you... Please do the partner a favor and dump him.
Miss Sack,
I did not mean it that way. I never thought of it like that. I just meant for the investigator to keep an eye on the partner. They don't even have to go into emails or texts as those can be taken out of context.
But yes, if they are in a relationship like that, then a person can always get out of it by dumping the other one.
Posted by: Katelyn Sack Posted on: Dec 17th, 2009 at 5:22pm
TC is correct about this. If you really do suspect infidelity, just hire a private investigator to trail your partner's movements. Just have the person trail the partner and see where they go. That would be the best and most economical way to resolve this.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen Posted on: Dec 17th, 2009 at 2:35am
Hi, my partner took a polygraph test after i suspected him of having an affair. He was asked 3 questions and the test concluded no deception detected to all three questions. However, the result of the 1st question automatically answered questions 2 and 3 also. Should the tester have asked question 1 only? Also, The tester told him after the test that he had done well !! and that there had to be significant changes for there to be deception detected. Is this true? I still suspect my partner had an affair and am baffled that he passed this test. How easy would it be to pass one of these tests if you did no homework on how to pass but were lying?