Most people talk about stalking as if it’s a single behavior pattern. It isn’t.

Stalking is a category of pursuit behaviors—unwanted, intrusive, persistent contact and approach—that can be driven by very different motivations, relationship contexts, and mental states. And the mix of “what’s most common” changes dramatically depending on who the victim is.

That’s where confusion creeps in.

If you work in celebrity protection or UHNW protection, you’ll often say: “Most of our stalkers are mentally ill.” And you’ll be right in practice, because public visibility selects for a particular type of offender: the person who builds a private “relationship” with a public figure inside their own mind—sometimes delusional, sometimes grievance-fueled, sometimes both.

But if you look at stalking across everyday victimization, the most common origin story looks different: loss. A breakup. A separation. A divorce. An ex-partner who cannot let go. In prosecution sampling and official guidance, the ex-intimate context is repeatedly flagged as dominant and high-risk.

So which statement is “correct”?

Both are—once you stop flattening stalking into one bucket.

This is the core correction:

In everyday stalking, the most common beginning is loss (often loss of an intimate relationship).
In celebrity/public-figure stalking, the most common beginning is fixation (often associated with psychosis, delusional beliefs, or rigid grievance).

Understanding that distinction is not academic. It changes what you watch for, what you document, what you say to the victim, and what you do next.

Why the same behavior can have totally different meaning

Two offenders can do the same thing—send messages, show up, loiter, “accidentally” cross paths—and yet represent completely different trajectories.

• One is an ex-partner testing whether boundaries are real.
• One is a fixated stranger who believes destiny has assigned them a role.
• One is a grievance collector who thinks the victim “ruined” their life.
• One is a predator using stalking behaviors as a step in a larger plan.

Treating them all as “a creep” is how cases get mishandled early—because early is when you still have options.

---

The simplest way to understand stalking: relationship + motive

A useful professional model is the stalking typology developed by Mullen, Pathé, and Purcell (commonly presented in five categories: rejected, intimacy-seeking, incompetent suitor, resentful, predatory). It’s not about labeling someone for the sake of it—it’s about matching risk and management to the driver behind the pursuit.

---

The key correction: “most common” depends on the victim population

In everyday stalking, ex-partner cases dominate

When agencies sample stalking cases, a large share involve ex-partners. For example, a CPS analysis in England/Wales reported 84% involved complaints against ex-partners in their sampled cases, with many also tied to prior domestic abuse.

And even when you look at statutory guidance, the ex-intimate stalker is repeatedly highlighted as a particularly concerning relationship type for violence risk.

That supports your statement:

“In everyday cases, stalking most often begins with loss — specifically, the loss of a relationship that the offender was psychologically unable to relinquish.”

That’s not just narrative. It maps to what shows up in caseflow.

In celebrity/public-figure stalking, fixation and serious mental illness are overrepresented

Public figures attract a different offender pool:

• strangers with erotomanic beliefs (“we’re meant to be together”)
• individuals with psychosis-driven persecution narratives (“they’re targeting me”)
• grievance-fueled fixations directed at symbolic targets

A clinical/forensic review focused on celebrities and public figures explicitly notes that stalking of prominent figures is often driven by psychotic illness, including delusional persecution and erotomanic beliefs.

This is why, in the EP world, “mentally ill stalker” feels like the default.

Both realities can be true at once because they’re talking about different populations.

---

Risk: what predicts violence (and what doesn’t)

One of the most dangerous mistakes is assuming that “psychosis” automatically equals “most violent.” It’s more complicated.

Research on stalking violence repeatedly emphasizes factors like:

• prior violence / criminal history
• substance use
• explicit threats
• ex-intimate relationship context (often higher risk for physical violence than stranger/celebrity fixation cases)

A study on violence in stalking situations found prior violence is a particularly important predictor, and threats are especially relevant among ex-intimate stalkers; psychosis was less useful as a standalone predictor in that context. PubMed

And Meloy’s work on risk factors has highlighted the importance of the prior sexually intimate relationship as a predictor of violence in stalking cases.

So the clean professional takeaway is:

• Celebrity fixation cases can be extremely persistent and disruptive, and can absolutely turn dangerous—but violence risk assessment shouldn’t be reduced to “they’re mentally ill.”
• Ex-intimate stalking tends to carry a heavier baseline concern for physical assault risk, especially with threats, prior violence, and substance abuse.

---

What professionals should do early (without giving offenders a playbook)

I’m going to keep this operational but not tactical in a way that helps offenders.

1) Stop treating stalking as “annoying.” Treat it as a pattern that needs structure.

Stalking damages victims psychologically and socially, and a meaningful portion of cases involve psychiatric disorder in perpetrators. “Wait and see” can turn a manageable case into an entrenched one.

Early structure means:

• define what counts as contact/approach
• start consistent documentation
• coordinate a single response plan across stakeholders (family, assistants, staff, building security, EP, legal)

2) Separate “boundary message” from “negotiation”

Victims accidentally train stalkers all the time by negotiating, explaining, or arguing.

A boundary message—if used at all—should be one-directional, consistent, and final, and then the plan shifts to documentation and enforcement.

(When you’re dealing with a public figure, this is even more important because the stalker may interpret any response as intimacy.)

3) Don’t collapse everything into “block them”

Blocking can be useful, but it can also:

• remove your visibility into escalation
• trigger the offender’s abandonment rage (especially in rejected cases)
• push them into alternate channels

The correct approach is not “never block” or “always block.” It’s “block as part of a plan,” based on relationship type and risk factors.

4) Use typology as a decision tool, not a label

Ask two questions:

• What is the relationship history? (ex-intimate, acquaintance, stranger/public figure)
• What is the motive signal? (reconcile, punish, bond, access, plan)

That gets you to the right lane fast—and helps you pick the right next steps.

5) Watch for escalation markers that matter across types

Across research and practice, certain markers deserve immediate elevation:

• threats (especially credible or repeated)
• prior violence or violent history
• substance abuse issues (often associated with threats/violence)
• repeated approaches / boundary violations
• third-party leakage (contacting friends/family/employers)
• obsessional “ownership” language (“you’re mine,” “you belong to me”)
• grievance narratives (“you will pay,” “you ruined me”)

6) In celebrity cases, treat “delusional meaning-making” as a management problem

When someone is psychotic or erotomanic, your standard “logic” response fails because logic isn’t the operating system.

The management focus becomes:

• reduce access and reinforcement
• coordinate gatekeepers so the stalker cannot create “cracks”
• document consistently for legal action
• avoid accidental “reward moments” (acknowledgments, replies, face-to-face confrontations)

This aligns with the public-figure risk literature emphasizing psychotic drivers and fixated behavior.

---

Why this matters for UHNW and celebrity protection (and also for normal people)

The reason your corrected statement is powerful is that it unifies the field:

• Everyday victims need to know that stalking often begins with relational loss and boundary failure—and that early structure matters.
• Public figures/UHNW clients need to know that a meaningful share of threats are fixated individuals whose behavior is driven by mental illness or grievance—meaning you don’t “talk them down,” you manage exposure and systems.

In both lanes, the danger is the same: people treat it as a vibe problem instead of a pattern problem.

And stalking is a pattern problem.

By Michael Braun — Former Special Unit Operator, former Manager at Gavin de Becker & Associates, and Founder & CEO of MSB Protection. Widely recognized as one of the leading experts in executive protection, UHNW estate security, and security auditing in Beverly Hills and across Southern California.