Wow, that escalated fast. I left this thread somewhere on page 1 a few days ago. Since then dozens of posts have been sucked up discussing female safety with a clueless dude who isn't listening but thinks he is. (ETA: At the start of the thread, I also could be viewed as fitting that description. And maybe still! My apologies to all.)
@Cassie, best wishes for your safety.
@EricL, neither the start of this post nor the rest of this post is an attack, though I admit that my wording in the first paragraph might sound like one. The rest of this post will be an earnest, even tempered attempt to mansplain why your innocent attempt to be helpful has generated a seemingly endless flow of flak in your direction. Since no one has taken your side so far, I will intermittently do so, starting with your own words, which I respect as heartfelt and sincere. You were just being what you feel is a morally upstanding person, and multiple posters keep acting as if your words were negative, right?
What I'm seeing is you putting out a double standard. This is the era of the strong, independent, smart woman. Of feminism. Except when it comes to being an adult and being a friend. Then women are small, frail, emotional creatures that need to be put on a pedestal one moment, protected another.
Maybe I'm not seeing something. Maybe he collects hockey masks and machetes for a hobby. Or that he's not really a friend but an acquaintance she calls a friend because she likes his dog better. In either case it's just not worth it to stick around and she should just ghost. But she asked and she called him a friend. So I fell back on what I'd do for a friend not as a man but as an adult and as a person who values friends. Again, there are ways to do this without the OP sticking her head in the lion's mouth. Nor is she obligated to "cure" him or, as I pointed out, even hang around while he cures himself.
Oh please. It's not a double standard in the slightest bit that someone should not choose to put themselves in unsafe situations.
Let me put it this way. A friend of yours for 10 years shows up at your house with a gun a threatens your family and tells you that they want to murder your entire family. Do you invite them over in a week for coffee and tell them they need help? Do you continue that relationship if that friend continues to talk about wanting to kill your family?
Casie has literally worked in the field of human services and she herself (who knows a ton more context than you as an internet warrior do) said this is not a safe situation. I can't believe you have the gall to imply that her and others prioritizing actual her safety somehow makes women "small, frail, emotional creatures."
The OP asked, so I assumed she didn't know.
What I wrote: This person may be physically and/or mentally ill. The OP, as a friend, should gently point out to him that he's acting out of character and recommend he seek medical attention. If necessary in controlled circumstances safe for the both of them. Hopefully he will take her advice. Even if he does, she should step back and let that treatment take its course before resuming social relations. And if he refuses to she should distance herself from him for good for her own well being.
What people think I wrote (and I honestly don't know why): The OP should confront the friend alone while he's cleaning his shotgun and forcefully accuse him of being a jerk and tell him he should see a shrink because he's obviously crazy and freaks her out. Then she should sweeten the deal by handing him a check for her life's savings to pay for whatever medical treatment he needs and offer to marry him and take care of him like a baby.
At best, Cassie could communicate this via email, very gently and with no mention of law enforcement (due to risk of escalation). My recent personal experience suggests that the fixation she's described is actually worsened by face-to-face interaction. My own friend-turned-stalker was always far worse after an in-person interaction. But Cassie's friend threw a knife and made her feel unsafe in her own home. I'm not going to call her a bad friend for deciding that she's afraid for her safety and isn't up to going another round with him. And honestly, I'd rather be called a bad friend by a relative stranger on an internet board than ignore my instincts and end up regretting it.
Cassie is going to do what she must do. I hold no judgement for whatever she ultimately does based on the context of the situation as she sees it. Some friends are worth jumping on a grenade for; some could use a helpful email; others kicked to the curb. I only said what I would do if it was my friend. As pointed out, I'm a man, so I don't have any Florence Nightingale gender roles to fulfill.
I do resent having my advice mischaracterized and creatively misinterpreted as she "must" confront him or "must" fix him or that I'm somehow attacking her. I ask that other posters stop attacking me.
Re mischaracterizing your advice and creatively misinterpreting as she 'must' confront him, I'll be fair. What you really did is state that if she is truly a friend, she should communicate that he's out of line and maybe he needs a little help.
I think if you're truly a friend you should communicate that his behavior frightened you, seemed wildly out of character, and you're worried he needs medical attention or at least therapy.
You then raised the emotional and moral stakes by mounting a clear if indirect criticism, by asking if Cassie was "worth being friends with."
Are you worth being friends with?
This question implicitly repeats the statement that if Cassie doesn't confront this guy, she's not being a "true" friend. I think a reasonable person reading your question would conclude that you feel she's a bad person, not worthy of friendship, if she doesn't confront this guy. In other words you're the one who started casting value judgments here, so if others sound self-righteous here, you should realize that you're the one who raised the moral stakes and the emotional temperature. Please note that this paragraph is not attacking you, it is only analyzing the words that you posted in this thread.
Yet the guy you're talking about is one who throws knives and does other stalker-who-might-become-violent type things. For her to confront him clearly carries the potential for danger. Other posters have listed sources you can refer to in order to understand the danger, such as Gavin de Becker's book "The Gift of Fear", but danger exists whether you believe it does or not. Most of the comments directed towards you upthread were to explain to you that confronting him puts her in real danger. They are not attacks, they are attempts to explain something that you appear not to understand. I suggest you read the book that posters kept referring to. This suggestion is also not an attack.
Meanwhile, you mischaracterized the remarks that were directed to you in response to your assertion that, basically, a good friend would mention something to this guy instead of just ghosting him. You thought this was a reasonable remark by a caring person, correct? The responses generally explained the situation, pointing out that the danger might last longer or be more serious than you evidently anticipated - but you characterized them as being much angrier than that. The fact that your mischaracterization included several angry-sounding exaggerations suggested that, just like the guy who threw the knife in Cassie's kitchen might do, you yourself were getting angry when being calmly confronted by facts. Do you see the irony that you are writing in this thread in a pattern appears emotionally similar to the very behavior pattern that can be dangerous to Cassie and millions of other women?
Perhaps you do not. But as a guy, I have to say that the position you have taken so far does not appear tenable. It's obvious that you meant well. But so far, you do not seem to understand why other responders feel you stepped over a line. As a practical matter, understanding why they feel that way might help you adjust your advice in future so that it is perceived as helpful.
