Something else did happen, he ordered food and had someone coming around to deliver said food and left the door open. Also, he potentially did do something illegal, again from the article:
The legal criteria for indecent exposure often rely on the idea of an incident happening in “public space.” But, “exposure can be deemed indecent if visible from public areas, such as a street or neighbor’s yard,” according to legalclarity.org.
Nice. Now we’re at the straight up blaming her and downplaying sexual harassment part of the conversation. Never mind she had video evidence of this incident.
The video evidence either showes her entering a home illegally or a man illegally exposing himself.
The only way to know would be to prove the man’s intentions and determine if the door was intentionally left open
Edit: It’s come to my attention that there is no evidence she entered the home at all. That’s a baseless claim being spread in this thread. The article is vague, and we don’t have sources to say one way or another
Since you’ve gone around and replied to 3 different comments with essentially the same thing I’ll reply to this one. In large because I think it’s interesting you’ve chose this comment to reply to, since it’s me pointing out the prior commenter implied “she was probably shit at her job and made everything up”. Which is a completely baseless thing claim.
He was allegedly visibly naked through the open door. Either he left the door open intentionally or not is the issue that a court/police should investigate, i agree with that much. I don’t know when or why we’ve suddenly decided she’s a potential perpetrator here but I doubt she’d be able to be charged with trespassing or breaking and entering, since again, the door was open.
“she was probably shit at her job and made everything up”.
Can you quote the whole of what you’re talking about here? I’m not seeing it in the chain. Possibly an edited comment.
He was allegedly visibly naked through the open door.
That’s the bit that I was unclear about. The article was vague and the commentors painted a different picture entirely. If she didn’t enter the home then there’s clearly no wrong doing on her part.
So that just leaves determining the man’s intent, but the police have refused to investigate the case.
Either because they’re inept (likely) or there are details we are unaware of.
So that just leaves determining the man’s intent, but the police have refused to investigate the case.
Which is unfortunately uncommon in these type of cases.
Either because they’re inept (likely) or there are details we are unaware of.
I agree the former is likely and has been historically. Which is what makes thread like this frustrating because instead of “hey the police should investigate this fully” it’s become people arguing she wasn’t assaulted by their definition and people adding misinformation like “she only saw him naked because she entered the house” from old mate. To straight up accusing her of lying as referenced in the link.
I’ll be honest when I saw the words “Welcome to the Internet” I completed skipped over that comment as irrelevant when going through the thread lol.
I’d personally still want more details before casting blame. Unfortunately we’ll never get those details. Either details were collected at the scene we dont know about, or it’s another failing of the justice system.
I hope she gets her money and more though. Door dash has no buisness withholding that from her.
You’d have to have admission of guilt from the guy to prove anything.
I don’t know about you but I don’t try to enter stranger’s homes regardless of if the door is open or not.
This whole thing rests on “did he intentionally leave the door open with the intent to expose himself” or “did she illegally enter his home and saw him. The door being left open unintentionally”. We need a lot more facts to know for sure.
Edit: It’s come to my attention that there is no evidence she entered the home at all. That’s a baseless claim being spread in this thread. The article is vague on the matter. If he was visible from the door that changes things
Something else did happen, he ordered food and had someone coming around to deliver said food and left the door open. Also, he potentially did do something illegal, again from the article:
Indecent exposure is not sexual assault and he was in his home!
It’s gross, but the overreaction is ridiculous
Removed by mod
Nice. Now we’re at the straight up blaming her and downplaying sexual harassment part of the conversation. Never mind she had video evidence of this incident.
The video evidence either showes her entering a home illegally or a man illegally exposing himself.
The only way to know would be to prove the man’s intentions and determine if the door was intentionally left open
Edit: It’s come to my attention that there is no evidence she entered the home at all. That’s a baseless claim being spread in this thread. The article is vague, and we don’t have sources to say one way or another
Since you’ve gone around and replied to 3 different comments with essentially the same thing I’ll reply to this one. In large because I think it’s interesting you’ve chose this comment to reply to, since it’s me pointing out the prior commenter implied “she was probably shit at her job and made everything up”. Which is a completely baseless thing claim.
He was allegedly visibly naked through the open door. Either he left the door open intentionally or not is the issue that a court/police should investigate, i agree with that much. I don’t know when or why we’ve suddenly decided she’s a potential perpetrator here but I doubt she’d be able to be charged with trespassing or breaking and entering, since again, the door was open.
Can you quote the whole of what you’re talking about here? I’m not seeing it in the chain. Possibly an edited comment.
That’s the bit that I was unclear about. The article was vague and the commentors painted a different picture entirely. If she didn’t enter the home then there’s clearly no wrong doing on her part.
So that just leaves determining the man’s intent, but the police have refused to investigate the case.
Either because they’re inept (likely) or there are details we are unaware of.
https://lemmy.world/comment/19982865
Which is unfortunately uncommon in these type of cases.
I agree the former is likely and has been historically. Which is what makes thread like this frustrating because instead of “hey the police should investigate this fully” it’s become people arguing she wasn’t assaulted by their definition and people adding misinformation like “she only saw him naked because she entered the house” from old mate. To straight up accusing her of lying as referenced in the link.
I’ll be honest when I saw the words “Welcome to the Internet” I completed skipped over that comment as irrelevant when going through the thread lol.
I’d personally still want more details before casting blame. Unfortunately we’ll never get those details. Either details were collected at the scene we dont know about, or it’s another failing of the justice system.
I hope she gets her money and more though. Door dash has no buisness withholding that from her.
You’d have to have admission of guilt from the guy to prove anything.
I don’t know about you but I don’t try to enter stranger’s homes regardless of if the door is open or not.
This whole thing rests on “did he intentionally leave the door open with the intent to expose himself” or “did she illegally enter his home and saw him. The door being left open unintentionally”. We need a lot more facts to know for sure.
Edit: It’s come to my attention that there is no evidence she entered the home at all. That’s a baseless claim being spread in this thread. The article is vague on the matter. If he was visible from the door that changes things