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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why a group of 4 or 5 men were interested to ride only ONE bike? Or were they looking to rent 5 different bikes? Or is it just one guy who needs a bike to ride but others just walk home/take a taxi?

Frankly, I think they just wanted to hassle a young woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me why a group of 4 or 5 men were interested to ride only ONE bike? Or were they looking to rent 5 different bikes? Or is it just one guy who needs a bike to ride but others just walk home/take a taxi?

None of it makes any sense. And, why 5 men would approach a woman and bully her to get off a bike when there were plenty available per the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

This happened off hospital property, so it makes no sense its impacting her employment.

The woman's primary concern when she first hired the lawyer was her employment because of the statement her employer put out, and clearly the conversation she had with them that led to her going on leave, and the planned investigation by her employer was of such a nature that she felt she needed to hire an employment lawyer. That concern soon paled in comparison to the shitstorm that followed and the death threats but her lawyer says they are still awaiting the findings of the investigation by the employer.

She was absolutely right to hire a lawyer. Not questioning that. Questioning why her employer is involved at all.

Because they put her on leave immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

This happened off hospital property, so it makes no sense its impacting her employment.

The woman's primary concern when she first hired the lawyer was her employment because of the statement her employer put out, and clearly the conversation she had with them that led to her going on leave, and the planned investigation by her employer was of such a nature that she felt she needed to hire an employment lawyer. That concern soon paled in comparison to the shitstorm that followed and the death threats but her lawyer says they are still awaiting the findings of the investigation by the employer.

She was absolutely right to hire a lawyer. Not questioning that. Questioning why her employer is involved at all.

Because they put her on leave immediately.

Yes, but why is her employer even getting involved when it did happen on work time. And, if it was on hospital property, where is the security? She absolutely needs a lawyer but it's getting absurd that no one has identified these men and really investigated what happened already. The police should be involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see we're back to discussing who rented the bike first.

I'd just like to point out that it is not possible to be confused about this point. The bike is locked in the dock until it is rented. To rent it you must scan the QR code with your phone. So while their could be a misunderstanding about who was at the bike first, there could not be a misunderstanding about who rented it first. If the bike was unlocked when you got there, the other person already rented it, the end.

This idea that you can reserve a bike is simply false. You can't reserve a CitiBike in advance.

The misogynist PP peddling that flatly absurd theory knows it is wrong, but pushing irrational and easily disproved theories is easier for her than acknowledging her misogyny.

I honestly don’t even think it’s misogyny anymore. It’s the rabid psychosis of a progressive that can’t come to terms with the fact that she’s completely and verifiably wrong.

Keep progressives out of it. It's misogyny and racism, period.

But the misogyny and racism that is on evident display here is promulgated by progressives. That’s why we are here: because of the progressive embrace of misogyny.

It’s time to have a frank and open discussion about how the progressive left has monetized and used misogyny to rise to power in the Democratic Party. That conversation is long overdue.

No. Misogyny and a different racism are promulgated by conservatives, too. Incels invented the word "Karen" on Reddit.

This isn't about politics. It's about being a straight-up racist and misogynist.

You’re ignoring what is right in front of you, probably because you can’t face your own embrace of misogyny. The term Karen is gleefully and enthusiastically used by the progressive left. It’s frequent, it’s casual, and it’s spoken without care. The fact that it originated in deeply misogynist circles on Reddit should have meant that all true progressives should have stood up and refused to use the term. Yet they did not. They did the opposite, in fact: they widely embraced the term. They made it popular, bringing it out of Reddit incel dungeons. Progressives made “Karen” mainstream, and we all know that.

Also, don’t derail the conversation by focusing on conservatives. Nobody is debating the misogyny of conservatives. THIS attack — and let’s call this was it is — on a pregnant PA who has been forced to flee her own house for her safety happened because of the misogyny of the progressive left. The online mob was prepared to accept the narrative of the Karen, slavered for it, in fact, despite the fact that any reasonable person should have watched that video and said “hold up.” There’s a pregnant woman out there forced out of her home because of progressive misogyny.

You don’t get to pretend this isn’t real. You don’t get to hide from the truth. People see the ugliness of misogyny in the progressive movement, and that sunlight needs to keep shining on it.

You’re ignoring that multiple progressives in this thread, including me, have said they loathe the term Karen and all the racism, misogyny and ageism it entails.

We’re not going to let a conservative like you tell us what progressives like us believe, bruh.

DP. Good for you. And, I mean that sincerely.
At the same time, you are ignoring all the progressives on twitter and other social media who have outright called her a Karen and said even worse about her.

Way to generalize from a few loud voices to all progressives. I’m sure you’d be outraged if someone generalized about conservatives.

Libs do it all the time - you know, every conservative is a trump loving MAGA a$$hole. Get used to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

This happened off hospital property, so it makes no sense its impacting her employment.

The woman's primary concern when she first hired the lawyer was her employment because of the statement her employer put out, and clearly the conversation she had with them that led to her going on leave, and the planned investigation by her employer was of such a nature that she felt she needed to hire an employment lawyer. That concern soon paled in comparison to the shitstorm that followed and the death threats but her lawyer says they are still awaiting the findings of the investigation by the employer.

She was absolutely right to hire a lawyer. Not questioning that. Questioning why her employer is involved at all.

Because they put her on leave immediately.

Yes, but why is her employer even getting involved when it did happen on work time. And, if it was on hospital property, where is the security? She absolutely needs a lawyer but it's getting absurd that no one has identified these men and really investigated what happened already. The police should be involved.

Where have you been the last several years? I's common for the twitter mob to try you in the court of public opinion and put pressure on your employer to fire you.

[Anonymous]

I just watched the video again a noticed one of the guys gave the e-bike he rented to the PA to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

She was just as aggressive and snatched the guys 1k phone. Maybe they should file larceny charges against her. See where this is going…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

She was just as aggressive and snatched the guys 1k phone. Maybe they should file larceny charges against her. See where this is going…

And, she did it after they grabbed her on the bike and she was probably trying to see his receipt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

There is no need for charges. Neither the lawyer or his client felt this was anything other than a misunderstanding. The client does not want an investigation or charges and according to the lawyer his client "wishes them the best" as this was just a "mistake, a misunderstanding" and she doesn't want any of the same "scrutiny or misery" that has been applied to her to go towards these young men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

She was just as aggressive and snatched the guys 1k phone. Maybe they should file larceny charges against her. See where this is going…

And, she did it after they grabbed her on the bike and she was probably trying to see his receipt.

We must not be watching the same video. The PA was clearly the aggressor and unhinged. And that’s why this incident has gone viral and her gofundme is so low!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

I am glad it appears her name will be cleared, and sad that she has to go though it, pregnant, no less!
So why did the young men want her off the bike? They wanted to rent that particular bike that was already paid for by her? Seems like there were other bikes around?
Were they just looking for an altercation they could then put online?

The lawyer says it was "simple" that she was tired and just wanted to go home. That the specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then paid for the bike and that as she was doing this individuals were telling her that they had paid for the bike and that this was their bike. She then unlocked it and rolled it back and one of the individuals pulled it back into the dock and that is when the video starts. Given the lawyer's use of the words 'misunderstanding" and "young" it seems like the young men thought they had paid for the bike - maybe they were renting a few and so hadn't each sat on one yet - who knows.

Then, they should have physically been on the bikes. They should be charged with assault as they pushed the bike back into the dock with her on it.

There is no need for charges. Neither the lawyer or his client felt this was anything other than a misunderstanding. The client does not want an investigation or charges and according to the lawyer his client "wishes them the best" as this was just a "mistake, a misunderstanding" and she doesn't want any of the same "scrutiny or misery" that has been applied to her to go towards these young men.

I think they were clearly harassing her. If she went after them it would just be another reason to shout racist Karen. That’s why they’re laying low on that front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the video linked on page 1 deleted form Twitter?

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. Many accounts likely want nothing to tie them to the video.

Her lawyer also said this was a misunderstanding about the bikes and the woman holds no ill will at all towards the young men (and he emphasized the word young).

The lawyer said he and her legal team have 3 goals

1) clear her name
2) ensure her employer exonerates her and there are no employment related effects
3) go after media who made this a disaster (his word)

The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

This happened off hospital property, so it makes no sense its impacting her employment.

The woman's primary concern when she first hired the lawyer was her employment because of the statement her employer put out, and clearly the conversation she had with them that led to her going on leave, and the planned investigation by her employer was of such a nature that she felt she needed to hire an employment lawyer. That concern soon paled in comparison to the shitstorm that followed and the death threats but her lawyer says they are still awaiting the findings of the investigation by the employer.

She was absolutely right to hire a lawyer. Not questioning that. Questioning why her employer is involved at all.

Because they put her on leave immediately.

Yes, but why is her employer even getting involved when it did happen on work time. And, if it was on hospital property, where is the security? She absolutely needs a lawyer but it's getting absurd that no one has identified these men and really investigated what happened already. The police should be involved.

Yes agree to the bolded. I want to hear from them.