this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
421 points (96.7% liked)

News

38443 readers
1951 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As she walked the aisles, MR said in an interview, she sensed a man standing close behind her. She turned to confront him and noticed that he was a good six inches taller than her. He was talking in graphic detail about sexual things he wanted to do to her. “You’re so disgusting, get away from me,” she told him, and hurried off to find her friend.

Still, he stayed close, and for a few tense minutes the two of them locked eyes while she waited in line to pay. When at last he left, she thought that was the end of it – until, back outside in the chill of the winter morning, she felt something cold against the back of her leggings.

The man had ejaculated on her.

“I didn’t know how to react. I wanted to kill this man,” said MR, who was 47 at the time, recalling the horror and helplessness she felt as her friend wiped her off with towels. (The Guardian has verified MR’s identity but is not publishing her full name to protect her privacy.)

Hours later, on the advice of a sister who worked in law enforcement, she fished her soiled leggings out of the garbage and took them back to the store to report what had happened. A clerk listened to her account and, not seeming to realize that MR understood Spanish, shouted to a colleague in a backroom: “Tenemos otra.”

“We’ve got another one.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aramis87@fedia.io 221 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This should end up with them on the sex offender registry. It won't, but it should.

[–] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 83 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I mean what else would it be if not sexual assault tantamount to rape?

[–] HCSOThrowaway@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago
  1. Assault with a sexual motive =/= "Sexual Assault" in most jurisdictions

  2. This isn't tantamount to rape. It's definitely in the ball-park and it's done by the same kind of people so it should be treated very seriously, especially as a "gateway offense" to prevent rape down the line, but let's not minimize rape by exaggerating non-rape things.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago

Under Texas law, it's indecent assault, a misdemeanor for a first offense in most cases. It's similar in Pennsylvania. Those are two of the states where incidents in the article took place.

I'm generally against the recent trend to increase the severity of existing crimes, but I will make an exception here: this should be a felony.

[–] Folstar@lemmus.org -1 points 9 hours ago

tantamount to rape

I miss when words had meanings and victims were respected.

[–] pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Rape has a legal definition that this does not meet.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 74 points 1 day ago

It's sexual assault.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is not "rape". Let's stay sane please.

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

All these down votes.. I guess about half the people here want words to no longer have definitions.

It's definitely not rape, but these guys need to get charged with sexual assault or something. If this happens a lot, they're obviously getting away with it. That's just disgusting.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That user is up and down this comment section defending the gooners. That's why their comments are being rejected and downvoted.

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

I don't know anything about his other comments or about the user, but the comment I responded to is 100% true. Rape has a specific definition and this is not it. It's still indefensible, you're absolutely right. It's a disgusting violation and these men need to be charged with sexual assault.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 63 points 1 day ago

It's sexual assault.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But Dollar Tree never produced any footage, never apologized for what happened to her and, when challenged in a lawsuit alleging negligence and failure to provide a secure environment, argued that MR was not entitled to damages under Texas law because she had suffered no physical harm. Without video footage, police and private security officers at the River Oaks shopping center were unable to pursue an investigation.

MR’s lawyers counter that the relevant legal standard is not, in fact, physical harm but “offensive contact”. And, in a testy exchange with a lawyer for Dollar Tree during a sworn deposition, MR vigorously challenged the notion that she had suffered no damage. She described how the incident had rocked her confidence, affected her relationships and made her afraid to go out after dark. “My life is not the same since that incident,” she said. “I totally was caught off guard. I didn’t have a chance to defend myself.”

When the Dollar Tree lawyer asked her what she wanted out of the lawsuit, she replied: “You [have] to take accountability of what is happening in your stores. You’re causing pain to people. I don’t know if it’s because of the bottom line, or what, but it’s happening and you guys need to stop it.”

In its statement to the Guardian, Dollar Tree said it was committed to effective safety and security. “Our efforts include ongoing safety education, regular policy reviews, risk assessment and mitigation activities, investments in physical security measures, and collaboration with local law enforcement,” the spokesperson said.

With MR’s lawsuit, though, the company has attempted to limit the introduction of evidence from assaults in other states and other Dollar Tree outlets as a matter of legal strategy. In an August 2025 email to MR’s lawyers, company attorney Wesley Welmaker described the assault on MR as a “one-off event at Dollar Tree in the River Oaks shopping center”.

In response, Greenberg told the court that MR’s assault was “anything but a ‘one-off event’” and pointed to 10 cases of sexual assault at Dollar Trees she had documented over the previous year and a half, six of them involving ejaculation.

A year later, with the lawsuit still mired in preliminary motions and no trial date in sight, Greenberg’s research team has dug up 63 officially documented sex crimes in all – fewer than five a year before 2020 and as many as 18 a year since the December 2023 attack on MR. Sixteen involved masturbation or ejaculation. The company’s attempts to disavow this, Greenberg said in an interview, amounted to “a plethora of stupid arguments” and only underlined what she saw as a pattern of poor corporate governance.

Dollar Tree, its former sister company Family Dollar (which it sold last summer), and its rival Dollar General have all been under a microscope after multiple reports in recent years of safety violations, improper storage of drugs, rat infestations, poor security, shoplifting and other crimes including sexual assault that have occurred in its stores. Predominantly, the stores serve low-income neighborhoods where there are few alternatives, and critics often accuse them of preferring to endure some degree of criminal behavior occurring in stores and weather fines from the federal government’s workplace watchdog, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha), than pay for fully functioning security systems and boost staffing.

You could've read the article to know that it's an uphill battle to get these men punished for these crimes.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

The text you quoted is the delays experienced by victims trying to sue Dollar Tree. It says nothing about the state going after the sick bastards who did it, besides Dollar Tree refusing to release security footage, which might help identify them. But the state could get a warrant for that, if they gave a shit.