News
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.
view the rest of the comments
This should end up with them on the sex offender registry. It won't, but it should.
I mean what else would it be if not sexual assault tantamount to rape?
Assault with a sexual motive =/= "Sexual Assault" in most jurisdictions
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.
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.
I miss when words had meanings and victims were respected.
Rape has a legal definition that this does not meet.
It's sexual assault.
This is not "rape". Let's stay sane please.
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.
That user is up and down this comment section defending the gooners. That's why their comments are being rejected and downvoted.
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.
It's sexual assault.
Yeah... Just jizz on her without consent and not in her without consent. Stay sane...?
As opposed to forcible or coerced penetration. It's awful, but it's not the same thing. Words have meanings for a reason, use the correct ones.
It should be an offense that ends up with them on the sex offender registry whether it's technically rape or not.
100% agree
I jizzed in my pants.
It does.
You could've read the article to know that it's an uphill battle to get these men punished for these crimes.
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.
I really struggle to see how the business is legally liable for something a disturbed rando does to a customer outside of the business.
Are we expecting the employees to be forced to act as security guards?
The bare minimum they could have done is hand over the recordings.
I expect them to at least fire employees when they masturbate in front of customers and have tens of thousands of photographs of children's upskirts.