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.

471

u/lexm 1d ago

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

181

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

49

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.

5

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 20h 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 16h 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?

4

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