Physicians Assistant yelling “HELP ME” while stealing a CitiBike ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a fascinating example of the fact that people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. Just like people were too quick to believe the version of events that the men wanted us to believe, people are now accepting the narrative being pushed by the PA's attorney. The first version sounded off, and this version sounds off. All these people accepting the PA's version as gospel should learn from the mistakes of who jumped on the bandwagon of the black guy accusing her of Karen-ism. We really don't know what happened and it's not yet clear that the receipts prove what is being claimed.

I don’t think she could have retained someone who apparently (relying on what was said here) used to work at Littler Mendelsohn and who has already gone to some lengths to counter the narrative with proofs without there being substantially more to support her than the young men.

I honestly believe that unless the men admit what they did, if her story is what happened, she will not be believed. They would have to confess and even then people here would commend them for coming clean and ask every other page why on earth she didn’t say it was her bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the time stamp on her receipt redacted? Why include all info but that? Why can't both parties just put out their receipts, with time stamps, to clear this up?

To avoid online trolls with forged receipts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is a fascinating example of the fact that people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. Just like people were too quick to believe the version of events that the men wanted us to believe, people are now accepting the narrative being pushed by the PA's attorney. The first version sounded off, and this version sounds off. All these people accepting the PA's version as gospel should learn from the mistakes of who jumped on the bandwagon of the black guy accusing her of Karen-ism. We really don't know what happened and it's not yet clear that the receipts prove what is being claimed.

I mean, you’re right, but at this point only one side has already suffered serious repercussions over the incident when it is at least clear there was a rush to judgement. And if you look at the Twitter feeds of some of the individuals that blew this up originally, they’re already saying she’s still a racist even if her story is true. It’s insane.

Honestly, when I saw the video I was pretty quick to accept the original narrative due to what seemed like an out-of-control reaction. But then I saw a post where someone pointed out the QR code covering and the sound in the video that suggested the man didn't actually rent the bike until after after the video began. I didn't really believe that version at the time, but it was at least enough to make me suspicious.

Now we have the lawyer offering falsifiable evidence. It would be an incredible risk to fabricate that receipt, given there's obviously going to be independent records capable of confirming or refuting it. We obviously don't know the full story, but credibility favors the woman at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the time stamp on her receipt redacted? Why include all info but that? Why can't both parties just put out their receipts, with time stamps, to clear this up?

Has the man in the video come forward publicly? I haven’t seen anything indicating that he’s been identified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the time stamp on her receipt redacted? Why include all info but that? Why can't both parties just put out their receipts, with time stamps, to clear this up?

Has the man in the video come forward publicly? I haven’t seen anything indicating that he’s been identified.

Why isn’t anyone going after him now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if he would have canceled it, he would still incur a fee.

Racism, pure and simple.

We can’t just call racism any time there is something going on between a Black person and a White person. That’s lazy thinking. Maybe the three of them wanted to make a viral video but she was so bad at acting that she’s not believable. The two kids were laughing. Nothing seemed authentic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if he would have canceled it, he would still incur a fee.

Racism, pure and simple.

We can’t just call racism any time there is something going on between a Black person and a White person. That’s lazy thinking. Maybe the three of them wanted to make a viral video but she was so bad at acting that she’s not believable. The two kids were laughing. Who knows What Was going on.

[Anonymous]

I think we should be thoughtful about goal posts moving. We likely will never know exactly what happened (unless maybe some cctv coverage is unearthed), but we should ask ourselves what we need to know.

I don't know if the woman's story is THE definitive story. What is usually the case is that the truth lies somewhere between the offered versions. It doesn't even mean people are lying -- people sometimes just don't see things the same way. She says there was no one near the bike when she got on it, the guys might argue that no, the were nearby. What is "nearby"? She says they pushed the bike back into the dock, the guys might argue that the simply tried to prevent her from renting it. And so on.

But we don't really need to make a determination on any of that. In a court of law, a judge would determine the key question of fact that will dictate how the law is applied. In this case, I think these are the key questions of fact:

1) Who rented the bike first, and who "claimed" it first?

2) Can the nurse's level of upset be in anyway justified by the prior events?

The recent evidence released answers both of these questions for me. The woman rented the bike first and was the first to claim it, based on her rental receipt showing she rented that specific bike on the night in question. She must have rented it before the video started because we know she was not able to rent it after. Thus, she rented it first.

And given that she had claimed the bike and rented it first, that leads me to interpret the events in the video in a way that, to me, justifies her behavior. I think a reasonable person in that situation might call out for help, refuse to get off the bike, be frustrated enough to cry or shake, but that they also might eventually give up and walk away and stop crying. Based on her receipts and what I see in the video, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that she faked her reaction, or that it was intended to put those men in danger.

And that's enough for me. I don't actually need to know anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the time stamp on her receipt redacted? Why include all info but that? Why can't both parties just put out their receipts, with time stamps, to clear this up?

So I don't want to link to it because I think she's not a credible source, but Monique Judge has a lengthy post on a site called News One where she discusses talking to the nurse's lawyer and viewing the receipts he supplied. According to her, the receipts are redacted to protect the woman's privacy -- they redact any information that could give random people on the internet information about the nurse's work schedule, where she lives, or the route's she take to get from work to her house. So the time is redacted because it would reveal when she usually gets off work, and people already know where she works, and as this entire incident has proven, people are absolutely insane and dangerous and not to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we should be thoughtful about goal posts moving. We likely will never know exactly what happened (unless maybe some cctv coverage is unearthed), but we should ask ourselves what we need to know.

I don't know if the woman's story is THE definitive story. What is usually the case is that the truth lies somewhere between the offered versions. It doesn't even mean people are lying -- people sometimes just don't see things the same way. She says there was no one near the bike when she got on it, the guys might argue that no, the were nearby. What is "nearby"? She says they pushed the bike back into the dock, the guys might argue that the simply tried to prevent her from renting it. And so on.

But we don't really need to make a determination on any of that. In a court of law, a judge would determine the key question of fact that will dictate how the law is applied. In this case, I think these are the key questions of fact:

1) Who rented the bike first, and who "claimed" it first?

2) Can the nurse's level of upset be in anyway justified by the prior events?

The recent evidence released answers both of these questions for me. The woman rented the bike first and was the first to claim it, based on her rental receipt showing she rented that specific bike on the night in question. She must have rented it before the video started because we know she was not able to rent it after. Thus, she rented it first.

And given that she had claimed the bike and rented it first, that leads me to interpret the events in the video in a way that, to me, justifies her behavior. I think a reasonable person in that situation might call out for help, refuse to get off the bike, be frustrated enough to cry or shake, but that they also might eventually give up and walk away and stop crying. Based on her receipts and what I see in the video, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that she faked her reaction, or that it was intended to put those men in danger.

And that's enough for me. I don't actually need to know anything else.

This is well-stated. I think a couple of things are happening here:

For reasons that cannot be explained reasonably and justified rationally, the fact that she rented the bike first and it was re-docked is being used against her, and women here and on another site that I read, have switched from their Emmett Till argument to now insist that the PA must have willingly redocked the bicycle because she knew she had no claim to rent it first and thus made the second rental.

That’s obviously completely insane. It disregards reality, let alone what the dynamic would be when you’re being filmed and mocked and are alone. But that’s their narrative and they’re bringing it here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should be thoughtful about goal posts moving. We likely will never know exactly what happened (unless maybe some cctv coverage is unearthed), but we should ask ourselves what we need to know.

I don't know if the woman's story is THE definitive story. What is usually the case is that the truth lies somewhere between the offered versions. It doesn't even mean people are lying -- people sometimes just don't see things the same way. She says there was no one near the bike when she got on it, the guys might argue that no, the were nearby. What is "nearby"? She says they pushed the bike back into the dock, the guys might argue that the simply tried to prevent her from renting it. And so on.

But we don't really need to make a determination on any of that. In a court of law, a judge would determine the key question of fact that will dictate how the law is applied. In this case, I think these are the key questions of fact:

1) Who rented the bike first, and who "claimed" it first?

2) Can the nurse's level of upset be in anyway justified by the prior events?

The recent evidence released answers both of these questions for me. The woman rented the bike first and was the first to claim it, based on her rental receipt showing she rented that specific bike on the night in question. She must have rented it before the video started because we know she was not able to rent it after. Thus, she rented it first.

And given that she had claimed the bike and rented it first, that leads me to interpret the events in the video in a way that, to me, justifies her behavior. I think a reasonable person in that situation might call out for help, refuse to get off the bike, be frustrated enough to cry or shake, but that they also might eventually give up and walk away and stop crying. Based on her receipts and what I see in the video, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that she faked her reaction, or that it was intended to put those men in danger.

And that's enough for me. I don't actually need to know anything else.

This is well-stated. I think a couple of things are happening here:

For reasons that cannot be explained reasonably and justified rationally, the fact that she rented the bike first and it was re-docked is being used against her, and women here and on another site that I read, have switched from their Emmett Till argument to now insist that the PA must have willingly redocked the bicycle because she knew she had no claim to rent it first and thus made the second rental.

That’s obviously completely insane. It disregards reality, let alone what the dynamic would be when you’re being filmed and mocked and are alone. But that’s their narrative and they’re bringing it here.

What other site? I've become mildly obsessed with this incident and am interested in talking to others about it, or at least reading what they have to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are NOT boys!!

They are over 18. MEN

They are, I think; I support this woman and also think they are not likely to be legal adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should be thoughtful about goal posts moving. We likely will never know exactly what happened (unless maybe some cctv coverage is unearthed), but we should ask ourselves what we need to know.

I don't know if the woman's story is THE definitive story. What is usually the case is that the truth lies somewhere between the offered versions. It doesn't even mean people are lying -- people sometimes just don't see things the same way. She says there was no one near the bike when she got on it, the guys might argue that no, the were nearby. What is "nearby"? She says they pushed the bike back into the dock, the guys might argue that the simply tried to prevent her from renting it. And so on.

But we don't really need to make a determination on any of that. In a court of law, a judge would determine the key question of fact that will dictate how the law is applied. In this case, I think these are the key questions of fact:

1) Who rented the bike first, and who "claimed" it first?

2) Can the nurse's level of upset be in anyway justified by the prior events?

The recent evidence released answers both of these questions for me. The woman rented the bike first and was the first to claim it, based on her rental receipt showing she rented that specific bike on the night in question. She must have rented it before the video started because we know she was not able to rent it after. Thus, she rented it first.

And given that she had claimed the bike and rented it first, that leads me to interpret the events in the video in a way that, to me, justifies her behavior. I think a reasonable person in that situation might call out for help, refuse to get off the bike, be frustrated enough to cry or shake, but that they also might eventually give up and walk away and stop crying. Based on her receipts and what I see in the video, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that she faked her reaction, or that it was intended to put those men in danger.

And that's enough for me. I don't actually need to know anything else.

This is well-stated. I think a couple of things are happening here:

For reasons that cannot be explained reasonably and justified rationally, the fact that she rented the bike first and it was re-docked is being used against her, and women here and on another site that I read, have switched from their Emmett Till argument to now insist that the PA must have willingly redocked the bicycle because she knew she had no claim to rent it first and thus made the second rental.

That’s obviously completely insane. It disregards reality, let alone what the dynamic would be when you’re being filmed and mocked and are alone. But that’s their narrative and they’re bringing it here.

I meant to add that THAT is why they are focused on the time-stamp. They aren’t accusing her lawyer of forging or knowingly using a forged receipt. They argue that the time-stamp and that lunatic Monique Judge’s tweets (it is very clear they’re using her tweets as their evidence) show the “minute later” is now somehow proof of the PA knowing she was wrong in the rental. It’s absolutely insane but these are shameless women, and they apparently have endless hate for white women. Because any other piece of context (eg her coming off of a long shift at Bellevue, her pregnancy — see how neatly one of those monsters did that here? Why was she bike riding if she’s pregnant hmmmm???, her being one person surrounded by a few people) is completely ignored. Because she’s white and “cried” even though…she didn’t.

[Anonymous]

The timestamps are being redacted from the public but they will have to produce unredacted versions for the defamation lawsuits they’re working on (and probably as an exhibit to the complaint). If they indicated something other than what Marino says they indicate, the whole thing would blow up in his face as soon as the lawsuit was filed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should be thoughtful about goal posts moving. We likely will never know exactly what happened (unless maybe some cctv coverage is unearthed), but we should ask ourselves what we need to know.

I don't know if the woman's story is THE definitive story. What is usually the case is that the truth lies somewhere between the offered versions. It doesn't even mean people are lying -- people sometimes just don't see things the same way. She says there was no one near the bike when she got on it, the guys might argue that no, the were nearby. What is "nearby"? She says they pushed the bike back into the dock, the guys might argue that the simply tried to prevent her from renting it. And so on.

But we don't really need to make a determination on any of that. In a court of law, a judge would determine the key question of fact that will dictate how the law is applied. In this case, I think these are the key questions of fact:

1) Who rented the bike first, and who "claimed" it first?

2) Can the nurse's level of upset be in anyway justified by the prior events?

The recent evidence released answers both of these questions for me. The woman rented the bike first and was the first to claim it, based on her rental receipt showing she rented that specific bike on the night in question. She must have rented it before the video started because we know she was not able to rent it after. Thus, she rented it first.

And given that she had claimed the bike and rented it first, that leads me to interpret the events in the video in a way that, to me, justifies her behavior. I think a reasonable person in that situation might call out for help, refuse to get off the bike, be frustrated enough to cry or shake, but that they also might eventually give up and walk away and stop crying. Based on her receipts and what I see in the video, I don't think it is reasonable to claim that she faked her reaction, or that it was intended to put those men in danger.

And that's enough for me. I don't actually need to know anything else.

This is well-stated. I think a couple of things are happening here:

For reasons that cannot be explained reasonably and justified rationally, the fact that she rented the bike first and it was re-docked is being used against her, and women here and on another site that I read, have switched from their Emmett Till argument to now insist that the PA must have willingly redocked the bicycle because she knew she had no claim to rent it first and thus made the second rental.

That’s obviously completely insane. It disregards reality, let alone what the dynamic would be when you’re being filmed and mocked and are alone. But that’s their narrative and they’re bringing it here.

What other site? I've become mildly obsessed with this incident and am interested in talking to others about it, or at least reading what they have to say.

It’s a site called WhyBeMom that you have to join, you have to search by Bellevue. The post has been partially deleted but it shows. They are seriously arguing that because the bike was redocked, it was not hers when she was upset while being recorded. Like, I find that argument — after they also discussed her claim that they PUSHED it back in — legit shocking.

The level of wanting to punish is I think connecting to wanting to seem “good,” and people not understanding but also not using empathetic imagination to accept that a pregnant PA at Bellevue might have a flat affect and seem “off” after 12 hours of work and being heckled. It’s really effed up and I really, REALLY think a lot of self-identified “good” women who believe in “social justice” will never stop pushing lies onto this woman. That site is very UMC overall, and I think the patronizing distance separating most of these women from the young men makes them generously disposed towards them, but they have NO such disposition towards an exhausted, uber-pissed white woman who is semi-screechy because she’s overwhelmed and trying to get home to an outer borough.

And how do I know that fact of her home life? Twitter and Monique Judge have helpfully highlighted that for everyone who can get online.