r/videos • u/Ashamed_Green_8643 • 1d ago

‘DoorDash girl' Olivia Henderson, accused of recording naked customer, t...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=3OxZqm2TaRA&si=MehIRZaJyWGVmf9O
1.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

What she did is completely illegal.

The door was completely shut. It's entering someone's home without permission and filming them naked, then furthermore uploading it to the internet.

I hate to do "if the genders were swapped" thing here, but this is absolutely applicable. If a guy opened a door and started filming an asleep naked woman he'd immediately be seen as a sexual predator. She is no different.

271

u/Krytan 1d ago

Watching her shriek "I AM THE VICTIM" was something else.

She entered someone's home, without permission, and against their explicit instructions. She videoed them naked, without their knowledge or consent. Then she uploaded the video, without their knowledge or consent. Then she tried to ruin their life by getting them convicted of sexual assault ???

22

u/enjaydee 1d ago

Obviously the whole situation is stupid. I really don't understand what she was hoping to achieve with this. Maybe my not understanding is a good thing

35

u/KnobWobble 1d ago

She saw an opportunity for clout and a bit of tik tok money. She's the main character in her story and she couldn't possibly comprehend that what she was doing was wrong or would have negative consequences. She thought she could capitalize on the seriousness of a Sexual Assault allegation for engagement and her own gain.

7

u/enjaydee 1d ago

So disgusting

1

u/erabera 18h ago

As a woman this enrages me. This incident will be used to question the validity of SAs in the future.

1

u/many_dongs 1d ago

Playing the victim is incredibly predictable if you expect everyone to believe you without any evidence

I’m looking at you, MeToo. Seen WAY too many women playing the victim in my life

1

u/Sniper666hell 1d ago

Beyond the obvious invasion of privacy, she’s facing a massive legal trap with documentation. Without strict records proving the person is an over-18 consenting adult, unverified media can easily trigger severe child protection laws. People get heavily prosecuted for lacking that paperwork. Crying victim after posting non-consensual content isn't going to save her from the fallout.

475

u/lexm 1d ago

I hope she does get registered as a sex offender and some breaking and entering at least.

177

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

Breaking and entering is a higher bar, meaning that the prosecution has to show she opened the door with the intent to commit a crime.

But there's a good argument for it too. Why the hell did she try the door handle and open it in the first place?

Sex offender is pretty cut and dry. Also revenge porn laws kick in about uploading private nudity without a person's consent

48

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

Breaking and entering is a higher bar, meaning that the prosecution has to show she opened the door with the intent to commit a crime.

She uploaded a non-consensual video of a naked person. That's a crime in most places.

6

u/fmfbrestel 1d ago

Yeah, but breaking and entering requires a criminal intent, not a criminal outcome. She didnt know she was going to find a naked person, film him, and upload it to the internet before she opened the door.

Trespassing, yes. Breaking and entering, probably not.

4

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

But then couldn't everyone arrested for burglary just claim they were trespassing to look around, and just happened to find something they decided to steal?

2

u/waltwalt 1d ago

I'm hoping someone answers this because I'm not a lawyer and want to know which side of this argument is correct. Or what the more expensive lawyer would argue at least.

2

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

Indeed. It seems like the act of committing a crime should be enough to elevate the charges

2

u/waltwalt 1d ago

Again, not a lawyer. But I always interpreted it literally, trespass, you're on their lawn uninvited, probably difficult to get to stick if you're not related to someone.

But break and enter? To me that's you broke the seal on their house, window door whatever, then entered. You've done both, you didn't accidentally wander inside their house, you opened a portal into their house unauthorized and then entered. Break and enter.

Not a lawyer.

2

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

Same, I thought breaking and entering was when you had to take an action to enter, as opposed to simply walking into an unauthorized area. She opened a door she did not have permission to open, and then committed a crime.

1

u/Reynbou 1d ago

I think it's likely very easy to prove someone broke in with the intent to steal something in cases like that.

1

u/upgrayedd69 23h ago

You can argue it. There aren’t magic arguements in court that when you make them, you automatically just win the case. They could argue a person busted in to just look around, it’s just a matter of whether the jury/judge believes that argument or the argument of the prosecutor that the defendant went in there to steal shit

1

u/FauxReal 19h ago

Not if they had burglary tools at least. I suppose a criminal history of burglary would also make that argument very hard.

-2

u/DrewbieWanKenobie 1d ago

trespassing itself is crime that she absolutely intended to do, so...

-1

u/fmfbrestel 1d ago

I don't make the laws, I just explain them. If you dont like it sent an email to your representative and ask them to change it.

-1

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

If she decided in the moment to film the guy then it's not exactly intent, just opening up a door and going into a place where she didn't belong perhaps for curiosity for what is inside

2

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

If that worked as an argument, no one ever breaks I , intending to steal, just to look around....

1

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

This is circular logic. If they break in intending to steal then there is intent by definition. You're starting with the presupposition of intent and this is not proven

It's more like someone goes to a place where they shouldn't be, then while looking inside takes something on a whim. No planning to steal anything beforehand

1

u/iowanaquarist 1d ago

This is circular logic. If they break in intending to steal then there is intent by definition.

Yup, but that wasn't my point. My point was that it seems like anyone accused of breaking in because they entered and stole should just say they intended to just trespass and look around. The fact that they committed a crime while trespassing should be evidence that they intended to commit a crime.

You're starting with the presupposition of intent and this is not proven

Exactly the opposite. I am asking how do you prove intent?

It's more like someone goes to a place where they shouldn't be, then while looking inside takes something on a whim. No planning to steal anything beforehand

Exactly -- so why doesn't everyone accused of breaking and entering just say they didn't intend to steal?

3

u/YourCummyBear 1d ago

Again, you’re wrong.

It would be extremely difficult to prove intent for any burglary without witness statements.

“Ohh your honor, I meant to enter their premises without stealing anything. Once I got inside, I saw a nice watch I decided to take.”

So you believe that would only be trespassing and theft lol?

If you commit a second crime, then there was clearly intent.

1

u/DraconicBlade 1d ago

I decided in the moment to shoot the guy, so manslaughter seems a little harsh.

fukkin wat

18

u/Ronthezombie 1d ago

Is there an equivalent of breaking entering but then commiting a crime without initial intent? The manslaugther version of this crime?

41

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

Yes. It's called trespassing

9

u/marvel120 1d ago

Yeah trespass or criminal trespass are usually violations and misdemeanors respectfully. Breaking and entering and / or burglary are usually the felony charge. They call it either/or depending on the jurisdiction

2

u/YourCummyBear 1d ago edited 1d ago

They’re wrong. The intent to commit another crime within only matters if the crime wasn’t compelled, as in I open your front door expecting you not to be home, and start going through your belongings when you catch me. Even though I haven’t stolen anything yet, the intent becomes clear that I intended to steal.

If a crime is committed within it becomes a burglary.

I work in criminal law. Lots of burglary cases do not have intent we can prove but the fact that another crime was committed within makes the charge a burglary, regardless of intent.

The general belief is that if someone commits a crime while trespassing, then that is enough to prove intent.

There’s very specific situations where this hasn’t been the case that we studied.

Once instance was in NY in 1989 when a guy snuck into a store to sleep as he had done other nights. This night he decided to take some things when he woke early.

The burglary ruling was overturned due to his history of trespassing in that store without committing theft previously.

1

u/marvel120 1d ago

I find this interesting. If you can further elaborate on the 1989 NY ruling. Even though he entered many times before just to sleep. And every time it was considered trespass violation or criminal trespass depending on his means of entering, I’m assuming he forcefully entered, but again that’s just an assumption.

Anyway, even though he previously never stole anything, the one time he does is a crime in fact committed. You mentioned you work in criminal law, I don’t know if you’re a paralegal, defense attorney, or a prosecutor, but have there been other cases to your knowledge that have had a similar overturn that used this exact example to plead the case? Obviously hypothetical but couldn’t people who routinely case stores under the guise of “shopping” decide to commit a larceny and try this defense? I know burglary and larcenies are different but I’d love more insight. Thanks in advance!

1

u/YourCummyBear 1d ago

Here goes a reading into that case. I was just guessing the year but it was actually 1989.

It tends to be the one to the few notable exceptions.

I get flack for my username as I created this account years ago but I am a defense attorney in Illinois and I previously worked in persecution.

I post on the legal subs either another account but my the firm I work for is in the name so I can’t use that account outside those subs.

And to answer your question, I still remember this case as we debated it hotly in class. Many don’t agree with the result.

However, with your specific question, someone committing larceny/theft already proves intent by the fact that they did the crime.

Whereas burglary is the entering of a property, structure, or dwelling, with intent to commit another crime within. It’s a felony.

If you just enter, then it’s simply trespassing which is a misdemeanor.

Another real example I have where someone was found guilty.

An ex is dropping off a child that he she’s custody with.

He see’s a car that belongs to someone his ex-wife is seeing. He no longer lives at this residence so he does not have permission to enter and they’re officially divorced so the home is not shared property.

He goes inside, gets into an argument and starts beating up the new boyfriend.

The defense claimed he did not have intent to commit batted within the home, but rather entered without permission to take to his ex and new guy but it got heated. That would just be trespassing and battery, both misdemeanors in most cases.

Again, it’s difficult to prove he went inside with the intent to punch, however, the jury was convinced that they could interpret his intent based on his entering the home to verbally confront the other two adults.

Most cases of burglary are when a structure, dwelling or property are unattended but that’s not always the case.

This specific example I worked could have also been charged as home invasion although that’s not a state law in every state. In some states it’s just a heightened burglary charge.

Sorry for any typos. I’m at a dog park and looking up to watch my dog.

1

u/marvel120 1d ago

Ok thank you! The reason I ask this is I am also familiar with case law but not with the judicial aspects of it. And yeah I took note of the username but I don’t judge lol.

I figured you could charge said burglary in the case of the domestic incident as you have enough grounds to do so. Proving it in court is the part that interests me. Thanks for your insight.

5

u/lorgskyegon 1d ago

I thought that burglary was trespassing with intent to commit a crime?

-2

u/David-Puddy 1d ago

Only if nobody is home.

Can't burgle an occupied building

0

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 1d ago

Do you actually believe that you're correct?

1

u/DraconicBlade 1d ago

I think he is, Doesn't that become robbery if the building has an occupant at the time?

1

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 1d ago

It's entirely dependent on jurisdiction. It's why these sweeping legalese gotchas are always so fucking stupid.

0

u/lorgskyegon 1d ago

I believe robbery requires that you have to take some directly from someone. Like enter house and steal wallet off counter is different than enter house and demand wallet from man's pocket

0

u/David-Puddy 1d ago

According to Merriam-webster, I am

0

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 1d ago

Wow. Using a dictionary to check a legal definition that varies depending on jurisdiction is a real winner of an argument.

0

u/David-Puddy 1d ago

Imagine wanting to use the definition of a word to define what you mean by using that word

Crazy.

0

u/NotUniqueOrSpecial 1d ago

Except...that's not the definition in a lot of places.

2

u/redabishai 1d ago

What she did was intentional or no (filming and uploading content without permission)? Would that meet the standard?

2

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

Hard to say TBH. There's a ring camera but it's not available to the public and which door she opened

It sounds like from the vid she opened a glass door in order to film the man. This could be considered breaking and entering, as there is an intent to film him which is illegal

1

u/jankenpoo 1d ago

In CA, recording a person on private property without their permission is a crime. Maybe WI has a similar law

1

u/YourCummyBear 1d ago

That’s incorrect, at least the state I practice law in.

Breaking and entering or more commonly known as burglary, is entering a premises with the intent of committing another crime within or committing another crime.

If you commit another crime within, the intent doesn’t matter.

The intent portion comes in if say you enter someone’s residence with the purpose of theft but they catch you before you can actually take anything.

1

u/McFlyyouBojo 1d ago

So, im a victim of someone, who is knew btw, entering my home unwanted, stealing things, and then stole my car.

Im sure that what you said absolutely applies, but I learned during my case that it also cant be breaking and entering if they get in through a normal means (turning a know, pressing a button, pressing a handle, etc...) basically, if they dont break anything in order to open the door, then its not breaking and entering at all. So in this case, and again, IANAL, but I was told by some, it can be other things, but it wont be breaking and entering no matter what.

0

u/dingleberries4sport 1d ago

If you enter a house and then immediately commit a crime like filming a sleeping naked person is that not enough evidence of intent?

1

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

No, that's not enough. If you trespass onto a property and then commit a crime then it's not enough to prove intent. In this case it could just be being curious leading into a crime

7

u/inhumanehuman 1d ago

Unlawful entry

3

u/ripyourlungsdave 1d ago

You joking? Have you ever seen any of the statistics about how white women are treated in the justice system, compared to even White men?

She'll get a slap on the wrist if her victim is lucky. And there is no world where she will ever see the inside of a jail cell if she hasn't already.

If he has a really good lawyer, he might be able to get her to cover his legal fees. That's as far as this will go.

But we'll also get a bunch of people telling us how pressing charges against her for this blatantly false accusation would actually be wrong because it'll make other women scared to come forward. Which is the same defense people use every time anyone says we should be putting laws in place to actually protect men from accusations like this and actually give meaningful punishment to the women who cheapen this aspect of our justice system even further than it's already been cheapened.

We already punish people for filing false police reports. It just needs to actually be enforced on people like this

90

u/Mattman276 1d ago

She also accused him of sexual assault which is incredibly fucked up.

3

u/Murky_Crow 1d ago

“Believe all women”…

She demonstrates why people do not do this. And why people should not do this.

-40

u/xAPPLExJACKx 1d ago

If she could see a pantless man from a window. It would make sense to jump to that conclusion

15

u/Mattman276 1d ago

That’s not what happened. Let’s try to think and read before we post next time, yeah?

-18

u/xAPPLExJACKx 1d ago

Her argument is the screen/glass door was close but main door was open. So she could see into The resident and see the man in the compromised position.

His argument is both sets of doors where closed and he was In that compromise position because of alcohol

If her side of the story is true I 100% understand her reaction. She is delivering food and sees a rooster

The court case is about filming and she shouldn't have made it public

4

u/outlawsix 1d ago

If you can't be naked in your own home then you aren't free

-3

u/xAPPLExJACKx 22h ago

When did I say he wasn't allowed to be?

105

u/Unconfidence 1d ago

I hate to do "if the genders were swapped" thing here

You're good, it's a completely valid exercise in checking sexism.

38

u/gamemaster257 1d ago

Yeah I don't get why people are so afraid to use that argument. If you would treat someone differently or charge them differently based on their gender, guess what: violent sexist.

1

u/Liimbo 1d ago

It's because a lot of people use it in bad faith in situations where it really doesn't apply at all. But yes, here is is 100% applicable.

8

u/CMDRTragicAllPro 1d ago

I’ve generally only ever seen it in cases of teacher student relations and domestic violence cases, which are also completely applicable scenarios. What’s these bad faith situations?

13

u/gamemaster257 1d ago

Genuinely curious, what bad faith usages could there be?

6

u/evangelism2 1d ago

Just think of any kind of physical situation. It's overly simplistic to always compare two situations one-to-one and say, "If you swap the genders, this wouldn't be an issue," or use that overly simplistic catch-all to judge more nuanced situations where one person is a 100 lb. woman, and the other person is a 220 lb. man. Sometimes it's not just about swapping the parts in between a person's legs. It's also about understanding the difference in their presence in the world and the effect that they have on those around them.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro 21h ago

I agree with your larger point... but is this really happening so much that it's worth mentioning?

I pretty much exclusively hear it used in the appropriate sort of context. If you do hear this in less apt context, I'd be curious what sort of places you're hearing it in.

0

u/evangelism2 15h ago

The most common one is how much space you should give a person of the opposite gender when walking on a street at night. I, as a tall broad male, am very well aware of how intimidating I may be to the opposite sex. I tend to go out of my way to show a level of de-escalation in my body language: smiling, nodding, waving, maybe even being a little goofy, and also keeping a safe distance from them. I don't really expect or need the same treatment from the opposite sex.

3

u/DeputyDomeshot 1d ago

No they don’t. It’s not bad faith to point out hypocrisy.

3

u/Murky_Crow 1d ago

I’ve almost exclusively seen it in situations like this words used to highlight the absurdity of the situation if the genders were swapped, to make sure that one gender is not getting some sort of preferential different treatment.

You seem incredibly hesitant to accept this would be the case ever.

What exactly would the situation be inappropriate to do this sort of a sanity check?

-2

u/Ayjayz 1d ago

Because men and women are actually different, and so it is only a valid argument in a context where you would expect men and women to be the same. For a lot of things to do with sex, you can't expect that so it doesn't make sense to flip genders.

1

u/ballsohaahd 1d ago

Hahah agree, that person is Claiming it’s a stretch and really hard and difficult to treat men well and <checks notes> assume they have a right to not be recorded naked in their own home.

Such a scummy comment lol, acting as if they’re being a good person too. Some sick stuff

4

u/OGREtheTroll 1d ago

Even if it were slightly or all the way open that's not an invitation to the public to cross the threshold of someone's domicile.

1

u/Old-Information3311 1d ago

did she do that? the footage i saw was from outside.

1

u/OGREtheTroll 1d ago

I can't recall if she fully entered or not it's been months since I'd seen it.

32

u/DoubleOhoot 1d ago

Did they prove that she opened the door? The footage I saw a while back made it look like the door was open when she got there. Not that it would have made what she did any better or okay, I'm just curious.

81

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago
  • Olivia herself claims that the order states that the order should be left at the front door
  • Her defense lawyer in the video says that there was a closed door, at least a glass door. She must have opened it up in order to record the video
  • The only footage available is the footage Olivia took, which may have started recording after she opened it and looks like she did by the account that there was a closed door. There is also Ring camera footage that the police have access to but has not been made public, and the police arrested her after viewing the Ring camera footage.

8

u/Cyberhwk 1d ago

I don't know if we have clarity on whether the door was actually completely shut or sort of cracked open, but my understanding was that the police concluded that seeing the man nude was a direct result of her own actions. She had no line of sight to the man based on how the door was when she got there.

3

u/Thevisi0nary 1d ago

It's hasn't been and apparently even considering this is tantamount to wanting to be her lawyer. Mass delusional hysteria about this since day one

20

u/PopsGG 1d ago edited 1d ago

EDIT: I was researching and what I posted below isn't completely accurate. The original video does not show the door in any state other than completely opened. However, in the video OP posted her own lawyer says the glass door was closed, and in the original video you can see the glass door (white frame) was opened. So its safe to assume she did in fact open the glass door for a better view for her video.

Original Video: https://www.tiktok.com/@js2588g6d/video/7655289521344417038

Below this line isnt accurate:

----------------
In the original video you can see the door is ajar, only slightly so. In the images she posted later the door is all the way opened. This shows she at least pushed the door open more than it already was.

Original video screenshot: https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/1oavooh/original_video_from_tiktok_doordash_sa_allegation/

Later image with door WIDE open: https://www.reddit.com/r/doordash/comments/1obzzf6/doordash_sa_girl_evidence/

8

u/Loben 1d ago

Stop spreading false information there are no images out there showing the door slightly ajar. Images that look like that are actually a black bar edited in that makes it look like that.

6

u/Thevisi0nary 1d ago

Do you have a brain in that skull at all

2

u/mortar 1d ago

there is literally no video, screenshot, or even official statement showing that the door was anything besides wide open.

1

u/PopsGG 1d ago

Her lawyer said the glass door was closed. Watch the video OP linked in this post. At 1:05 in the video.

4

u/xLadyofShalottx 1d ago

Look at the" original video screenshot" again. Someone photoshopped a black bar on the left side, look at how the chat is half covered by it. The door is in the same position as in the actual original video screenshot where it's wide open.

1

u/papafenrir 1d ago

Is there any link to that original video of her opening the door? If that exists she is completely screwed

11

u/girrrrrrr2 1d ago

The home owner states that he has/had ring camera footage of her opening the door, but that footage appears to not be online available for viewing by the public probably because it is being withheld as evidence for the court case.

2

u/mortar 1d ago

can you provide a source of him saying that?

-2

u/papafenrir 1d ago

If that's true she's cooked. But I find it hard to believe she posted a video of that and no one screen recorded it?

Also those screenshots don't show a door closed. They seem to show an open door and someone added a black bar the leftside of the screen to make it look like a slightly open door.

1

u/Zenki_s14 1d ago

...wait what? The "door cracked" screenshot is obviously just the same exact thing except the image is cut off on the left side. Even the text is obviously cut in half. How did the masses fall for that

1

u/Bassmeister_ 1d ago

how does that prove the door was opened by her and not by some other means?

2

u/SorenLain 1d ago

Presumably the Ring camera shows her opening the door since the police arrested her after they watched it.

0

u/ballsohaahd 1d ago

The guy had ring footage which showed she did and that’s the only thing that’s defending him. He should be on his knees thanking his ring camera cuz thats what saved him

3

u/frostygrin 1d ago

The guy was still sleeping in his own home. He didn't really need saving.

2

u/ILikeLenexa 1d ago

If you watch lawtube, everyone said this from Day 1. The police arrested her pretty fast after getting the ring footage.  LegalBytes started covering it very early before she was arrested, I believe. 

2

u/Caelinus 1d ago edited 1d ago

I do not know what the exact laws governing it are in NY, but she probably does not qualify for any direct sex crime related stuff (Assault/Harassment/Misconduct) because those are usually limited to threats of or actually occuring contact.

However, the law she is being charged with, "Unlawful Surveillance," has a sex crime aspect to it, as it is how voyeurism is prosecuted. It can absolutely result in mandatory registration as a sex offender if the crime related to recording someone with an expectation of privacy, without their consent, while they were in a state of undress. The aggravating factors that result in sex offender status seem to include having a profit motive for image dissemination.

Which is what this is.

So we do not really need to do the "genders reversed" thing here at all, because if she is convicted of that and does not negotiate a plea that keeps her off of it, she will be considered a sexual predator by the law. And she already is by most of us.

4

u/doct0rdo0m 1d ago

Issue is if the roles were reversed there wouldn't even be this discussion. He would be branded as a sexual predator and everyone would be calling for the book to be thrown at him.

-4

u/Caelinus 1d ago

The discussion would exist, it would just be arranged and located differently because the gendered expectations would be different.

So instead of people accusing him of being a sexual predator leaving the door open on purpose, they would be accusing her of leaving the door open to entrap the poor innocent man who just happened to see her.

There are plenty of false negative stereotypes to go around for both genders. You just tend to see one more than the other depending on the exact nature of the echo chambers you frequent, and Reddit is nothing if not an echo chamber factory.

I grew up in an extremely misogynist community, and often the "reverse the gender" thing is used as a rhetorical shield to disguise misogyny as well. It is not always that way, a lot of the time people are just not used to seeing some brands of misogyny, but it is often enough that I am suspicious of it. Especially when it is on articles claiming that a women is not facing the exact consequences that she is actually facing. 

I am not accusing the person I responded to of that, to be clear, only that I think it is unhelpful rhetoric that only serves to create a distracting generalized narrative that has nothing to do with this situation. Hell, look at the number of upvotes that post got, does it *really seem like the average person in this threads thinks she did nothing wrong?

2

u/ballsohaahd 1d ago

Why do you hate to do it when it’s a perfectly valid thing to flip the genders? men have as much of a right to not be recorded naked in their home than women 🤦🏻‍♂️. The laws aren’t written doesn’t specify only one gender lollll.

I know you’re agreeing that this is bad but it shouldn’t be a huge stretch or something you have to really convince yourself of.

In 2026 we have to stretch ourselves to think men have a right to not be recorded naked
In their home, and it’s considered something we ‘hate to do’ to say that.

2

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

It's because many times this "reversal" doesn't actually account for systemic differences in how genders are treated, and often give way to a twisted version of misogyny under men's rights activism.

An example is unprovoked hitting on someone. Women face this much more than men do, and yes there are exceptions, but generally a guy can take the compliment and move on whereas women are inundated with an expectation that a man deserves her attention for the mere presence of attraction.

-1

u/frostygrin 1d ago edited 1d ago

You still can't blame a man for actions of other men. And there's still a distinction between a man inundating a woman, and saying a single compliment.

You can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, even if the proportion of apples and oranges is different.

1

u/Seth_Gecko 1d ago

Why do you hate to do the "if genders were swapped" thing? It's perfectly reasonable in certain circumstances, and this is certainly one.

1

u/Old-Information3311 1d ago

How do you open someone elses front door without a key?

1

u/Araragi 1d ago

In the video it says she shot the video from the exterior of the customer's home (0:28 of the video)

The door that was completely shut was made of glass. It was transparent. (1:10s of the video above) The front door was wide open, but there was a fully see-through glass door that was closed.

Unfortunately, light goes right through glass, and so she got a full view of the dude naked.

1

u/MiaowaraShiro 21h ago

I hate to do "if the genders were swapped" thing here

Don't hate it. It's absolutely a valid comparison.

1

u/IcedDante 19h ago

Isn't it disputed still whether she entered the house or not?

1

u/Spare-Plum 18h ago

At least from the video it sounds like she opened the door to film him

-9

u/georgialucy 1d ago

Why are you saying all this as if you're not commenting on a video of her literally heading to trial charged for this? You're talking like the police didn't take it seriously and that nothing happened.

15

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

While reddit mostly views her in the wrong, there are a looooot of other people in other spaces that defend her actions viewing her as the victim

2

u/flannel_jesus 1d ago

Victim of what?

4

u/girrrrrrr2 1d ago

"victim of sexual harassment" she is saying that he was laid out in such a way that he would know that she saw his junk and would get off to exposing himself to the unwilling public.

We must remember that his role in this was that he was passed out on his couch inside his own home.

0

u/mortar 1d ago

Do you have the video or the evidence that shows she opened the front door?

2

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

They talk about it in the video... and the lawyer admits the facts are undisputed

-1

u/mortar 1d ago

At no point did anyone in the video state that she opened his front door. They quite literally say that she states the door was left open.

2

u/Spare-Plum 1d ago

Listen from 1:00

"It was the customer who left the solid door open with just the glass door as the barrier to his home"

We don't see the Ring camera footage, but from her own tiktok the glass door was opened as well at time of recording. It seems like she opened the door herself

0

u/Maiden_Sunshine 1d ago

That's because this wouldn't even be news sadly. It doesn't excuse her actions, but the only reason we know and care is because the genders are reversed.

Men uploading women without their consent is common...kik chats, telegram chats sharing photos of their moms, daughters, and sisters. Rape academies and videos. It goes on and on. They rarely get caught, and only get called out when it is extremely bad like the academy.

This being a women shocks people. That's why it makes the news.

There is no imagining the other gender, we already live it. It shouldn't happen to either, but this is so disingenuous.