It would seem that how OFPs are implemented flies in the face of one of the intensive law.
When combined with the fact police can selectively refuse to enforce apparently any and every crime repeatedly even with bias one party against another
Wasn't the concept at least partially based on justice or harming another one having an outreach or system other than physical violence in return having the system creates or keeps order well creating punishments that fit the crime. But if no crime is enforced and all of a sudden some extension of civil court can imply strippingable ones rights and police continue to ignore actual crime while the criteria for arresting is a verbal threat which has never actually taken anyone's life unless it caused something like a heart attack. But that's a pretty big if and a rare case. Especially when crimes and even malicious actions can create significant real threat to life like ability to eat maintain clothing shelter consume fluids maintain or seek income. This shouldn't take explaining
Even if the concept that people are human and especially when their life is in danger react with fight or flight. It should probably be considered admittable or assigned a maturity if you can react with only words while your life is continuously threatened laws are violated and the police turn a blind eye.
Allow lawlessness so you can snag the party with fewer means under pseudo no standards probably beneficial to the state and job creation and job maintainment plus feeding a lucrative industry that employs people but at the expense of the first come first serve justice I feel sick
the fact that there's no statue of limits and that the burden is on the accused with the lower standard to no standard of proof or evidence for the accuser