it was raining then and there is a toll on him supposedly staring at her while she was in her house my point testify even know that she was there there wasn't any  become sort of pretend it's not part of the record no messing with neighbor complained about that caused him to call the police the neighbor is the one that called the police right it's unclear to kind of i would describe it more as kind of a road race thing was completely the truck was looking as if it was lost its footing around and then there's testimony about  statute is designed to apply in situations like this to prevent a bad situation from escalating into a worse situation and as mr dunn stated these are next door neighbors  and she lives alone so it's understandable that he could strike an imposing room to live in figure took her the the statute that applies in this case is very wrong the read only petition has to show is that she's been a victim of aspi tailor it in such a way that we don't trample on first amendment rights even courage and that's in the states you specifically as an exemption to the definition of strong and also i think the trial judge tried to here's what she puts any and all attempts of communication will be considered harass so if it calls for twenty of the standing twenty six feet away and he says hey your dog twenty twenty right so it seems and then she goes on to say this includes as if you have two communications separate from what's included all social media and third party contact with the titian or so a neighbor who talks to the neighbor and says tell her the tree is all right rafferty i mean it seems to me that that kind of tailored to over this very broadly written to would apply to communications directed at the petitioner in this case so i think when you balance the concern for safety the concern  relationship could devolve into something more serious but i think it's appropriate to use that kind of language in order i do believe you know in the old days when we were before you were born there is t he u s supreme court was faced with in the vietnam war era they were faced with protesters who would stand in front of police and gather up you know pigs and provoke them and you have a legal conclusion here where any attempt to communication is arrest which is something that needs to be proved so i know what you're saying is right now with the court is trying to do what i want you to tell this is narrowly tailored to the specific situation room you know to two neighbors that are obviously can't get along with one neighbor's behavior you know i should add he cut tree limbs off of a tree in the middle of throwing them on her property line there's there's he admitted to speaking in a raised voice at a time when he was angry she added that the statement was you're not coming back from this he didn't go so forced to admit that i think the statute is narrowly t two years i mean that is now my issue really it's not my issue with the read the language in the paragraph ah i never i mean i don't have any question about twenty five feet i think that's you know what happened in this case you know i think the safest thing to do so keep this order goods into a firm so what you're saying is in situations where there could be a threat of real potential harm and went away this that his words were you were not coming back from this and she took it as a very threatening statement she testified that she has altered her routine she's afraid to go outside of her house alone especially early in the mornings the standard is a reasonable person along i think there's more than enough evidence to uphold the trial judge's decision certainly with the manifest weight of the evidence standard the opposite is not clearly evident in this case