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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

Does Google have a lot of info about "random person who said something in public video and the left the scene"?

They didn't do anything to identify themselves. The incident didn't mention their names, their home or work address, or anything of the sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this man is in the right, why not come forward with your receipt as everything is online and he clearly has a phone and speak the truth.

Don’t worry. They’ll be subpeonaed for discovery in the PA’s lawsuits.

Only if the PA pays to find them. So far the police haven't acknowledged anything needing their involvement, and the perpetrators are in hiding.

Citibike has the records and can easily be subpeonaed. And she’s raised all she needs for legal expenses. Not that subpeonaing these records is an expensive task.

I understand you don’t know how litigation and discovery works but feel free to ask questions instead of showing off your ignorance.

Thanks for the offer. Here's my question: what do the terms "pay" and "legal expenses" means, and how do they release to each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this man is in the right, why not come forward with your receipt as everything is online and he clearly has a phone and speak the truth.

Don’t worry. They’ll be subpeonaed for discovery in the PA’s lawsuits.

Only if the PA pays to find them. So far the police haven't acknowledged anything needing their involvement, and the perpetrators are in hiding.

Citibike has the records and can easily be subpeonaed. And she’s raised all she needs for legal expenses. Not that subpeonaing these records is an expensive task.

I understand you don’t know how litigation and discovery works but feel free to ask questions instead of showing off your ignorance.

Thanks for the offer. Here's my question: what do the terms "pay" and "legal expenses" means, and how do they release to each other?

What you’ve written makes no sense, at least in the English you’re attempting to use to communicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this man is in the right, why not come forward with your receipt as everything is online and he clearly has a phone and speak the truth.

Don’t worry. They’ll be subpeonaed for discovery in the PA’s lawsuits.

Only if the PA pays to find them. So far the police haven't acknowledged anything needing their involvement, and the perpetrators are in hiding.

Citibike has the records and can easily be subpeonaed. And she’s raised all she needs for legal expenses. Not that subpeonaing these records is an expensive task.

I understand you don’t know how litigation and discovery works but feel free to ask questions instead of showing off your ignorance.

Thanks for the offer. Here's my question: what do the terms "pay" and "legal expenses" means, and how do they release to each other?

How do they release to each other? That sounds.... dirty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this man is in the right, why not come forward with your receipt as everything is online and he clearly has a phone and speak the truth.

Don’t worry. They’ll be subpeonaed for discovery in the PA’s lawsuits.

Only if the PA pays to find them. So far the police haven't acknowledged anything needing their involvement, and the perpetrators are in hiding.

Citibike has the records and can easily be subpeonaed. And she’s raised all she needs for legal expenses. Not that subpeonaing these records is an expensive task.

I understand you don’t know how litigation and discovery works but feel free to ask questions instead of showing off your ignorance.

Thanks for the offer. Here's my question: what do the terms "pay" and "legal expenses" means, and how do they release to each other?

How do they release to each other? That sounds.... dirty.

She’s engaging in performance art - a high love parody of an old sketch where big words trip up the intrepid hero. Usually the words were more than a syllable or two but here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marino on Twitter:

“
@AttorneyJMarino
·
8h
I created this account so individuals can tag me as to defamatory statements/videos made against Ms. Comrie. I'm looking for comments labeling Ms. Comrie a: 1) Karen; 2) racist; and/or 3) thief. Also, videos referencing a third party doing the foreging is also actionable.”

Monique judge has already been tagged.

This is fantastic, though I do think he probably missed the boat by a few days -- a lot of people appear to have deleted tweets at this point.

But I would love if this case actually addressed the question of social media bullying/defamation. There could be implication, for instance, for teenagers who get harassed by peers online. It feels like for some time the attitude has simply been "oh well people can say whatever they want about you online, try not to make yourself a target," but what if this case forced social media platforms and users to face consequences for spreading lies and defamatory statements online. This PA is far from the first person to experience serious reputational destruction because a few bad actors spread a lie and a bunch of unthinking users spread it as truth.

I think this is a feature not a bug. They have Judge an opportunity to stand down. If people are willing to delete I think that’s actually fine with them. It’s the people who are twisting themselves up in knots to keep defaming her who are the twitter targets I think.

He's trying to find some deleted media, specifically from a local news affiliate, see his tweet copied above. I don't know if he's going to go after every deleted tweet, like ThatDaneshGuy. Or maybe he already has copies of some of that stuff--Twitter banned Danesh for doxxing Sarah but I think I saw a copy, not the original, of Danesh's tweet yesterday.

Media orgs are different than individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this man is in the right, why not come forward with your receipt as everything is online and he clearly has a phone and speak the truth.

Don’t worry. They’ll be subpeonaed for discovery in the PA’s lawsuits.

Only if the PA pays to find them. So far the police haven't acknowledged anything needing their involvement, and the perpetrators are in hiding.

Citibike has the records and can easily be subpeonaed. And she’s raised all she needs for legal expenses. Not that subpeonaing these records is an expensive task.

I understand you don’t know how litigation and discovery works but feel free to ask questions instead of showing off your ignorance.

Thanks for the offer. Here's my question: what do the terms "pay" and "legal expenses" means, and how do they release to each other?

Are you asking me what the target of a 3rd party subpoena can recover in terms of expenses from a subpeonaing party? Sorry I’m really struggling to understand what you’re confused about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

I think it’s the people who know them protecting them.

But I truly believe if they were actually the ones wronged, they would have (activist) lawyers by now. The fact they don’t speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

I think it’s the people who know them protecting them.

But I truly believe if they were actually the ones wronged, they would have (activist) lawyers by now. The fact they don’t speaks volumes.

+1. Ben Crump would be all over this if given the chance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marino on Twitter:

“
@AttorneyJMarino
·
8h
I created this account so individuals can tag me as to defamatory statements/videos made against Ms. Comrie. I'm looking for comments labeling Ms. Comrie a: 1) Karen; 2) racist; and/or 3) thief. Also, videos referencing a third party doing the foreging is also actionable.”

Monique judge has already been tagged.

This is fantastic, though I do think he probably missed the boat by a few days -- a lot of people appear to have deleted tweets at this point.

But I would love if this case actually addressed the question of social media bullying/defamation. There could be implication, for instance, for teenagers who get harassed by peers online. It feels like for some time the attitude has simply been "oh well people can say whatever they want about you online, try not to make yourself a target," but what if this case forced social media platforms and users to face consequences for spreading lies and defamatory statements online. This PA is far from the first person to experience serious reputational destruction because a few bad actors spread a lie and a bunch of unthinking users spread it as truth.

I think this is a feature not a bug. They have Judge an opportunity to stand down. If people are willing to delete I think that’s actually fine with them. It’s the people who are twisting themselves up in knots to keep defaming her who are the twitter targets I think.

He's trying to find some deleted media, specifically from a local news affiliate, see his tweet copied above. I don't know if he's going to go after every deleted tweet, like ThatDaneshGuy. Or maybe he already has copies of some of that stuff--Twitter banned Danesh for doxxing Sarah but I think I saw a copy, not the original, of Danesh's tweet yesterday.

Media orgs are different than individuals.

Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Are you trying to trash the thread now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My, the people trying to malign the PA are salty AF. Seethe!

They are struggling with their own internal misogyny.

They aren’t. They don’t see it as misogyny. Pointing it out changes nothing.

I suppose that is true. Typically progressives deny misogyny on the left exists.

and there it is...

There's always one that has to drag everything back to politics.

God forbid there's ever a discussion where politics isn't mentioned, rest assured the trolls like pp will pathetically insert it in.

+1, complete with lies about the entire Dem leadership calling all white women Karen or something. Sick of that poster, who is probably also the dog whistle poster .

+1 Everything is about politics for them. Have you seen Twitter? Do you know who are obsessed with this case? MAGA crazy people, they are using it to justify their racism. Rational people can understand and acknowledge what happened here without this level of obsession.

The desperate scrambling away from facing reality is noted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marino on Twitter:

“
@AttorneyJMarino
·
8h
I created this account so individuals can tag me as to defamatory statements/videos made against Ms. Comrie. I'm looking for comments labeling Ms. Comrie a: 1) Karen; 2) racist; and/or 3) thief. Also, videos referencing a third party doing the foreging is also actionable.”

Monique judge has already been tagged.

This is fantastic, though I do think he probably missed the boat by a few days -- a lot of people appear to have deleted tweets at this point.

But I would love if this case actually addressed the question of social media bullying/defamation. There could be implication, for instance, for teenagers who get harassed by peers online. It feels like for some time the attitude has simply been "oh well people can say whatever they want about you online, try not to make yourself a target," but what if this case forced social media platforms and users to face consequences for spreading lies and defamatory statements online. This PA is far from the first person to experience serious reputational destruction because a few bad actors spread a lie and a bunch of unthinking users spread it as truth.

I think this is a feature not a bug. They have Judge an opportunity to stand down. If people are willing to delete I think that’s actually fine with them. It’s the people who are twisting themselves up in knots to keep defaming her who are the twitter targets I think.

He's trying to find some deleted media, specifically from a local news affiliate, see his tweet copied above. I don't know if he's going to go after every deleted tweet, like ThatDaneshGuy. Or maybe he already has copies of some of that stuff--Twitter banned Danesh for doxxing Sarah but I think I saw a copy, not the original, of Danesh's tweet yesterday.

Media orgs are different than individuals.

Yes I know, Captain Obvious. Are you trying to trash the thread now?

Calm down. I am simply saying that there seems to be a 2 prong strategy. Full court press against corporate actors, more conciliatory stance against individual twitter accounts if they are willing to stand down.

[Anonymous]

Bringin this forward from earlier in the thread.

Factual information as presented by her lawyer in the interview I listened to yesterday. I am using his terminology and language.

The lawyer says it was "simple" situation. The specific bike was unattended and so she mounted the bike and then started to pay for the bike and that as she was doing this, individuals were telling her that they had paid for that bike and that this was their bike. She was tired and just wanted to go home. She finished paying and 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.

Neither the lawyer nor 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 (and he re-emphasized that these were ‘young’ men).

Her lawyer has said they are going after media sources that fanned the flames and led to the witchhunt of her and her family. The woman is currently in hiding with her family due to the death threats and doxxing that took place.

The lawyer said his client 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) and he mentioned sources that used the words their and racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it strange that there is nothing on the internet about the 5 men (or boys) harassing her. Nothing.

Like Google is protecting them.

As it should be. There is absolutely no need to ruin more lives over a misunderstanding. One person being treated this way is too many.

And if this wasn't a misunderstanding, but a deliberate effort to find a white woman to harass (and cause the internet to also harass) as an exercise in "punching up" (a.k.a. channeling rage upon the head of a convenient scapegoat)? Still ok for these guys to face zero consequences, and for others to know they can continue to target women without censure?