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

[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.

Whatever of Danesh’s content has been deleted from Twitter, he’s going HAM on TikTok. I caught him absolutely going off on a Live 2 days ago. I’d guess he’s going to be a defendant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but this is what the Democrats get for tolerating racially toxic language. Which they have been doing for a long time.

Do we need to state the obvious for you? The people spewing the term Karen at every opportunity are MAGAs, Incels, and some POC women.

While a Venn diagram might show some overlap between these groups and political affiliations, that's not what's driving this. What's driving it is misogyny and racism.

It was the progressive left that took “Karen” out of Reddit incel forums and popularized it. MAGA doesn’t use “Karen” for the most part, they go straight to the b-word for all women. The POCs that use the term are typically far-left.

In the end, when we look at the history of the rise of a new misogynist slur, “Karen” is a term championed and normalized by the left, and we all know it. You are trying to rewrite history now because you are seeing the result of the casual and open use of the term by progressives, but we all know the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Personally, as a woman, I'm ok with the boys not facing consequences. They are kids. It appears that they were looking to stir up trouble with this woman and film it, as evidenced by the friend in the hoodie who seemed disinterested and willing to walk away. This was, at most, a misunderstanding between regular people that should have ended when the parties went their separate ways. It doesn't matter what happens to the boys because they don't have the power to correct the wrong that has been done (assuming that one has been done). It's far more important to address this through the channels that caused this story to blow up. I agree with others that there need to be major changes to the restrictions for online platforms to prevent regular people's lives from being unfairly ruined by an internet mob. It's one thing if you are a public figure, but regular people should not have their careers ruined and their families' safety threatened as a result of an out-of-context two-minute video clip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP again. Yes, Marino has said that this is his strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but this is what the Democrats get for tolerating racially toxic language. Which they have been doing for a long time.

Do we need to state the obvious for you? The people spewing the term Karen at every opportunity are MAGAs, Incels, and some POC women.

While a Venn diagram might show some overlap between these groups and political affiliations, that's not what's driving this. What's driving it is misogyny and racism.

It was the progressive left that took “Karen” out of Reddit incel forums and popularized it. MAGA doesn’t use “Karen” for the most part, they go straight to the b-word for all women. The POCs that use the term are typically far-left.

In the end, when we look at the history of the rise of a new misogynist slur, “Karen” is a term championed and normalized by the left, and we all know it. You are trying to rewrite history now because you are seeing the result of the casual and open use of the term by progressives, but we all know the truth.

Do you write historical fiction for a living? Just because some otherwise progressive POC women use the term doesn't mean The Left has adopted and promulgated the term. Go back to your MAGA chat rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You telling people to calm down doesn’t mean they were ever agitated.

Your points are not sophisticated, so you don’t need to try to walk anyone else through your zero-dimension thinking.

There’s nothing you can do to obscure the fact that her lawyer is pursuing this in a calm, methodical, rational way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Personally, as a woman, I'm ok with the boys not facing consequences. They are kids. It appears that they were looking to stir up trouble with this woman and film it, as evidenced by the friend in the hoodie who seemed disinterested and willing to walk away. This was, at most, a misunderstanding between regular people that should have ended when the parties went their separate ways. It doesn't matter what happens to the boys because they don't have the power to correct the wrong that has been done (assuming that one has been done). It's far more important to address this through the channels that caused this story to blow up. I agree with others that there need to be major changes to the restrictions for online platforms to prevent regular people's lives from being unfairly ruined by an internet mob. It's one thing if you are a public figure, but regular people should not have their careers ruined and their families' safety threatened as a result of an out-of-context two-minute video clip.

I think I'm OK with this too. The only lingering doubt I have is that it sends a message that if you're small potatoes, or you've deleted your libelous tweets, you can get away with it. I suppose this approach de-platforms these people, so maybe that's enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True, but this is what the Democrats get for tolerating racially toxic language. Which they have been doing for a long time.

Do we need to state the obvious for you? The people spewing the term Karen at every opportunity are MAGAs, Incels, and some POC women.

While a Venn diagram might show some overlap between these groups and political affiliations, that's not what's driving this. What's driving it is misogyny and racism.

It was the progressive left that took “Karen” out of Reddit incel forums and popularized it. MAGA doesn’t use “Karen” for the most part, they go straight to the b-word for all women. The POCs that use the term are typically far-left.

In the end, when we look at the history of the rise of a new misogynist slur, “Karen” is a term championed and normalized by the left, and we all know it. You are trying to rewrite history now because you are seeing the result of the casual and open use of the term by progressives, but we all know the truth.

Do you write historical fiction for a living? Just because some otherwise progressive POC women use the term doesn't mean The Left has adopted and promulgated the term. Go back to your MAGA chat rooms.

The rest of the world is tired of your gaslighting.

You don’t want to face reality. I suppose living in an imaginary world has become the party line of the progressive left these days, so that checks out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Personally, as a woman, I'm ok with the boys not facing consequences. They are kids. It appears that they were looking to stir up trouble with this woman and film it, as evidenced by the friend in the hoodie who seemed disinterested and willing to walk away. This was, at most, a misunderstanding between regular people that should have ended when the parties went their separate ways. It doesn't matter what happens to the boys because they don't have the power to correct the wrong that has been done (assuming that one has been done). It's far more important to address this through the channels that caused this story to blow up. I agree with others that there need to be major changes to the restrictions for online platforms to prevent regular people's lives from being unfairly ruined by an internet mob. It's one thing if you are a public figure, but regular people should not have their careers ruined and their families' safety threatened as a result of an out-of-context two-minute video clip.

I think I'm OK with this too. The only lingering doubt I have is that it sends a message that if you're small potatoes, or you've deleted your libelous tweets, you can get away with it. I suppose this approach de-platforms these people, so maybe that's enough.

If precedent is set showing significant success going after bigger figures, it will only take time before small potatoes libelous posters are also facing consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You telling people to calm down doesn’t mean they were ever agitated.

Your points are not sophisticated, so you don’t need to try to walk anyone else through your zero-dimension thinking.

There’s nothing you can do to obscure the fact that her lawyer is pursuing this in a calm, methodical, rational way.

That’s actually exactly what I’m saying. Which you could probably understand if you could calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You telling people to calm down doesn’t mean they were ever agitated.

Your points are not sophisticated, so you don’t need to try to walk anyone else through your zero-dimension thinking.

There’s nothing you can do to obscure the fact that her lawyer is pursuing this in a calm, methodical, rational way.

That’s actually exactly what I’m saying. Which you could probably understand if you could calm down.

This was written by two separate posters before you acted like you needed clarification and decided to pretend to be cuter than you are. Everyone was and is calm, except for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

She's just being magnanimous. But everyone else can see there was no misunderstanding. She was minding her own business until some people started messing with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The woman who was actually present and involved has said it was a misunderstanding. While you may not respect her enough to believe her or to think she is capable of assessing the situation, her lawyer does. Dismissing what she says to make up a false narrative that is based on solely on personal assumptions and biases and not on fact to say this was a deliberate act to find a white woman to harrass is no better than making up a false narrative that she was a racist stealing a bike.

The woman has spoken through her lawyer and stated her interpretation and what she wants from this. Lets give her basic respect that she is a competent and capable woman who is able to understand and interpret the situation she was in and to state her wants and needs.

I'm pretty sure she and her attorney are describing this as a "misunderstanding" with their eyes on the more productive goal for her rehabilitation. It is the fiction everyone needs to accept in order to move forward.

But come on. We still know this was a set-up to cause trouble for a white woman.

No we don't. She was there, before, during and after. We weren't there. We see a clip of part of an interaction between people. I have no reason to think she isn't capable of understnading the situation that she was in. I don't think I know better than she does what her experience was or what the situation was. Sure, like you, I can fabricate a story about a clip of part of a sitation that I wasn't involved in but why? When teh woman who was there from beginning to end has stated what happened from her perspective (via her lawyer), I am not in any way going to think my made up view of a piece of the situation is a better interpration than hers. People doing what you are doing is the whole reason she is in the current distress and situation that she is.