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

[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.

Because in all viral videos where someone is perceived to be behaving badly, the "mob" wants the person to lose their livelihood.
Do you remember there was a video several years ago where some guy filmed himself going through the Chick Fil A drivethru and berating the young employee about Chick Fil As stance on Chick Fil A's LGBTQ policies. People called for him to lose his job--even though this did not happen on his work time, and he DID lose his job.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/reputation-1.4589616/his-first-protest-ever-cost-him-his-career-reputation-and-sense-of-self-1.4596546

Remember the Covington Catholic kid in DC in 2019? Some people mistakenly identified him as A DIFFERENT Covington Catholic student (one that wasn't even in DC for the march) and found out that student was applying to a specific college. The "mob" inundated that college's facebook page demanding they not admit that student!
This article goes into more detail about what that student and his family went through in those first days after the incident.
https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/how-a-local-family-found-itself-at-the-center-of-the-national-covington-catholic-controversy/

The "mob" wants to completely destroy.

[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.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

[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?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because in all viral videos where someone is perceived to be behaving badly, the "mob" wants the person to lose their livelihood.
Do you remember there was a video several years ago where some guy filmed himself going through the Chick Fil A drivethru and berating the young employee about Chick Fil As stance on Chick Fil A's LGBTQ policies. People called for him to lose his job--even though this did not happen on his work time, and he DID lose his job.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/reputation-1.4589616/his-first-protest-ever-cost-him-his-career-reputation-and-sense-of-self-1.4596546

Remember the Covington Catholic kid in DC in 2019? Some people mistakenly identified him as A DIFFERENT Covington Catholic student (one that wasn't even in DC for the march) and found out that student was applying to a specific college. The "mob" inundated that college's facebook page demanding they not admit that student!
This article goes into more detail about what that student and his family went through in those first days after the incident.
https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/how-a-local-family-found-itself-at-the-center-of-the-national-covington-catholic-controversy/

The "mob" wants to completely destroy.

This has nothing to do with the hospital as she was not acting as an employee at the time. The men should have to produce a receipt.

[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?

Yes.

Very much sounds like they were waiting and setting this up. Why not post it on a real account and identify yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

She freaked out when she was being assaulted by a man and was probably not sure what to do as she just got off a 12-hour shift pregnant. She wasn't expecting a man to grab her on a bike and try to force her off the bike saying it was his. You aren't fully thinking clearly and logically when you are in flight or fight more and just panicking. What kind of man would behave that way and grab a woman on a bike to try to take it from her?

[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.

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.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

You are making up a story about the young guys and what happened just like others did about the woman. You are sensationalizing and dramatizing events to try and create a different narrative. There is no need for creating fake hate based on your own personal assumptions and biases. You don't know better than the woman what happened - have a modicum of respect for her and take her word for what she says happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because the goal was finding a white woman to harass and to start a social media witch hunt that would ruin her life. This was fun for them. They felt powerful.

[Anonymous]

The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because in all viral videos where someone is perceived to be behaving badly, the "mob" wants the person to lose their livelihood.
Do you remember there was a video several years ago where some guy filmed himself going through the Chick Fil A drivethru and berating the young employee about Chick Fil As stance on Chick Fil A's LGBTQ policies. People called for him to lose his job--even though this did not happen on his work time, and he DID lose his job.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/outintheopen/reputation-1.4589616/his-first-protest-ever-cost-him-his-career-reputation-and-sense-of-self-1.4596546

Remember the Covington Catholic kid in DC in 2019? Some people mistakenly identified him as A DIFFERENT Covington Catholic student (one that wasn't even in DC for the march) and found out that student was applying to a specific college. The "mob" inundated that college's facebook page demanding they not admit that student!
This article goes into more detail about what that student and his family went through in those first days after the incident.
https://www.cincinnatimagazine.com/article/how-a-local-family-found-itself-at-the-center-of-the-national-covington-catholic-controversy/

The "mob" wants to completely destroy.

This has nothing to do with the hospital as she was not acting as an employee at the time. The men should have to produce a receipt.

And the guy at chick Fil was not acting as an employee of his company

[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.

No. This was a tactical decision on the lawyer's part. Those men are untouchable, so he's focusing the fight elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

It is very different, because they are the ones who used their power as men to invade a pregnant woman's personal space and intimidate her. She was just going about her business and got framed.

[Anonymous]

It seems like everyone is just glossing over the fact that one of the guys in the group had the decency to give up his e-bike to the PA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The witch hunt on here against these young men isn't all that different from the start of the witchhunt online against the woman. Neither looks good.

These men are accusing this woman and making sure to spin it to ruin her life and career. They absolutely should be identified, questioned, and see their receipts and entire video. They absolutely should also be held accountable for their actions as well.

[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.

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.

Why are they getting a free pass? The man grabbed a woman on a bike and was basically assaulting her. The lawyer is trying to play nice to diffuse the situation but these men need to be identified and get a copy of the full video to see the entire situation as well as receipts from the man showing he rented it. He probably wanted the bike, maybe was hanging out but didn't reserve/take it yet, then decided when she got on it he wanted it and was going to do what it took to get the bike. There is no excuse for him putting his hands on her.

Well, maybe there was a legitimate dispute over the bike. I think the real point is, why post the video? Posting the video was an act of defamation that I think they should NOT get a free pass for. They need to answer for that. If the PA decides to sue the videographer, I'll support that with a donation.

Seriously, not even an apology from them?