I'm so glad that the women he stalks are so aware of his intentions.
I find it weird how awful you guys think this is. A guy goes for a walk through the crowded city and takes the direction of some girl for a short while (because it's never long before she goes into a cafe or a store, or he loses her, since it's not actually stalking). I wouldn't be comfortable doing it, but part of it is that I don't have his charisma. I'm pretty sure he's been noticed before, but never had a problem. Nor should he. He is completely harmless.
If I'm being stalked, I'm probably going to assume the worst, because people don't normally stalk people "just for fun," or whatever. And if someone is aware of how that might be perceived, yet they do it anyway because "it's funny," or whatever, then frankly, that person is either an asshole or an entitled twat, because they think they have the right to just stalk anyone, and have that person magically understand that they're "just having fun."
I think at least confronting him would be justifiable. And if he refused to keep following her, I don't see getting maced in the face (for example) as an outrageous response. Just because someone does something creepy in public, doesn't mean they are somehow exempt from standard practice when dealing with stalkers.
Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea. I find it very strange that he does this. I just also don't think that it'd be justified to attack him for it, and I don't think it such an awful thing to do. Being intently stared at for a prolonged time makes me just as uncomfortable and nervous as being followed briefly, and it's also not a good idea to stare at people. Wouldn't be justified to brutally attack the person in either case.
I don't believe in shooting to kill, and in many cases it's not necessary. But the idea is, if someone breaks into your house, they give you the BOD in protecting yourself, so that if you DO have to shoot to kill (or if you don't own a gun but have to use lethal force for whatever reason), as long as you can prove that your life was in danger, then you are given leeway in case you didn't have time or the right chance to properly disarm or remove the threat. I don't see anything wrong with that; it's certainly better than jailing someone in the event of a legitimate threat because they shot the person and it hit a vital organ or something, and so they didn't take the technically correct course of action in a tense moment.
A very drunk homeless guy just kind of wandered into our house one night. We'd forgotten to lock the door, but at the moment, we didn't remember that and thought he'd broken in. We shooed him out, but the castle doctrine again would've allowed us to kill him. What the fuck? How can people support that?
Regardless, that's a special case to me because your home is the last resort if you are escaping from somewhere; it's where you come back to every day, and it's where your family or children may be. Extending this confrontational mindset to other more public places, from which you can much more easily retreat, seems excessive and unnecessary.
I find it weird that you see nothing wrong with following strangers. He could be the nicest guy in the world, but the girls he follows don't know that. Seriously, if I were a young girl in a foreign country and some dude was following me around, I'd be fucking terrified.
Just seems like a really good way to make people really uncomfortable.
For all the things that I never did
For all the places I never was
For all the people I never stopped
But there was nothing I could do..."