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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So it seems very unlikely he would make those claims, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

Jesus lord this! People actually think he’s faking the receipts?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

there is zero reason to think a reputable lawyer would falsify evidence. out of the question. unlike the online mob, his reputation and livelihood depend on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

there is zero reason to think a reputable lawyer would falsify evidence. out of the question. unlike the online mob, his reputation and livelihood depend on it.

+1, this guy has a solo practice, this is likely one of the most high profile cases of his career, he previously worked at Littler, Paul Hastings, and Deloitte. He is aware that if he falsified evidence on this case and was found out, he'd lose his license. He, uh, did not falsify evidence, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So it seems very unlikely he would make those claims, right?

I can’t speak for him but I’m very similar to him (former biglaw later at a biglaw refugee firm; we have lots of LinkedIn mutuals) and I wouldn’t dream of putting my credibility on the line as he has unless I’d looked at these things very carefully. If I were him I’d have taken the screen shots off her phone in my office, gotten her time card from the hospital to check when she walked out of the building, and asked for records of corroborating communications like texts/emails/DMs/instant messages she’d sent immediately after the incident. So I bet he has all that and more at this point.

[Anonymous]

^^^I’ll add, all lawyers know clients don’t always tell you the whole unvarnished truth and trust but verify. But no one knows that like employment lawyers. Their clients are typically aggrieved, emotional laypeople. If anyone is going to take special care to double check before talking to the press, it’s an employment lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I’ll add, all lawyers know clients don’t always tell you the whole unvarnished truth and trust but verify. But no one knows that like employment lawyers. Their clients are typically aggrieved, emotional laypeople. If anyone is going to take special care to double check before talking to the press, it’s an employment lawyer.

+1 to all that, and I will also note that it appears he specialized in employment discrimination cases at Littler and it all goes double for discrimination cases where fact patterns can be very emotional and complicated, and you have to be very careful about verification.

There is a reason that the nurse's camp was silent all week until dropping her entire account WITH evidence on Thursday morning. They were not biding their time. This attorney knew that coming out with her story before they had something to back it up would just lead to more back and forth. She no doubt had this receipt on her phone the day it happened (last week). They have likely spent the last week creating a solid timeline with as much concrete evidence as possible.

[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.

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.

Correction: they say yt women, not white women

[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.

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.

I can't even follow the logic of that. Are people still arguing that the guy "reserved" the bike before he unlocked it? That was one of the arguments on this thread at one point and people were so adamant about it that I was like "wait, can you reserve specific Citi Bikes ahead of time and this is just a feature I've never seen or used before?" And I actually spent 20 minutes at one point just verifying for myself that no, you can't do that and actually it wouldn't make sense if you could because then people would show up at stations they think have bikes only to discover they couldn't get any of them out because they were reserved by people who aren't there.

But the people making these arguments are so confident in them to the point of condescension. I think one reason I've become over invested in this whole incident is that so much of the conversation around it has just amounted to total gaslighting that has made me doubt really basic things, including things I can see with my eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I can't even follow the logic of that. Are people still arguing that the guy "reserved" the bike before he unlocked it? That was one of the arguments on this thread at one point and people were so adamant about it that I was like "wait, can you reserve specific Citi Bikes ahead of time and this is just a feature I've never seen or used before?" And I actually spent 20 minutes at one point just verifying for myself that no, you can't do that and actually it wouldn't make sense if you could because then people would show up at stations they think have bikes only to discover they couldn't get any of them out because they were reserved by people who aren't there.

But the people making these arguments are so confident in them to the point of condescension. I think one reason I've become over invested in this whole incident is that so much of the conversation around it has just amounted to total gaslighting that has made me doubt really basic things, including things I can see with my eyes.

Here’s the logic: either she’s lying in some way, or they did a very bad thing and are the villains who re-victimized victim, namely a frontline hospital staffer who saved lives during the pandemic, and therefore are villains.

They can’t be villains. So the PA must be lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I can't even follow the logic of that. Are people still arguing that the guy "reserved" the bike before he unlocked it? That was one of the arguments on this thread at one point and people were so adamant about it that I was like "wait, can you reserve specific Citi Bikes ahead of time and this is just a feature I've never seen or used before?" And I actually spent 20 minutes at one point just verifying for myself that no, you can't do that and actually it wouldn't make sense if you could because then people would show up at stations they think have bikes only to discover they couldn't get any of them out because they were reserved by people who aren't there.

But the people making these arguments are so confident in them to the point of condescension. I think one reason I've become over invested in this whole incident is that so much of the conversation around it has just amounted to total gaslighting that has made me doubt really basic things, including things I can see with my eyes.

Here’s the logic: either she’s lying in some way, or they did a very bad thing and are the villains who re-victimized victim, namely a frontline hospital staffer who saved lives during the pandemic, and therefore are villains.

They can’t be villains. So the PA must be lying.

That is the argument. Their logic is that because when they were filming her and the bike had per her lawyers receipt evidence been re-docked - before filming- she was being maliciously fake in saying “help” because she could have had them killed.

This is why the reference to an historical tragedy are effed as hell.

Anyway! All of group’s actions against her are completely ignored. And everyone still arguing here that she must be at fault are saying in more word that they can’t be villains so the PA must be lying. It’s a dumb stank pack of lies they’re selling and they won’t stop. And I hope that a couple of blue-check monsters get their nasty asses clobbered financially.

[Anonymous]

You guys can’t stand the fact that the white woman is the innocent not the black kid. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DM quotes her lawyer as saying, "But there is no animosity towards the men in the video. We frankly wish them the best in the future. The focus is clearing her name and going after the publications and high profile names that defamed her."

She's a better woman than me. I would be suing the ever living HELL out of them. And that might actually dissuade some of this vile behavior in the future

+1

I’d sue every single one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

.

Jesus lord this! People actually think he’s faking the receipts?!?

Well the moon landing was faked, and birds aren't real. Plus we all await the second coming of JFK, Jr. So...

[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.

People are gullible. This reeks or social media stunt.