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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course his sister supports him. Her affect and shaping of this indicated the casual complete selfishness of this young man and his family and his circle of friends. Her details confirm the PA’s but he remained entitled to the bike he wasn’t paying for. What a complete POS he, his friends excepting the one telling them to give up the bike, his family, and that ahole Monique Judge all are.

It’s one thing to get a story wrong or not be able to see things from another side. This is doubling and then tripling down. This twunt sister sneering about “defamation” like the not-lawyer she is just chefs kiss perfect.

It’s got to be hideously stressful but the PA should see any litigation through at this point because a variety of parties clearly want to ruin her.

It seems like someone else might be an angling for a sweet, sweet gofundme.

Ding ding ding!

[Anonymous]

Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

I agree it’s a mess all around. Although her lawyer’s statement said there was nobody near the bike when she got on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

Even if all of this is true she’s still not a thief or racist. So her defamation case is as good as ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

If races/genders were switched, there would be no online mob against the person who yelled for help. If anything the online mob would come for the white woman in the scenario anyway!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

I agree it’s a mess all around. Although her lawyer’s statement said there was nobody near the bike when she got on it.

Yeah that is the only real factual dispute in my mind - was he touching the bike when she got on it, making clear he was about to rent it again? Even if that is the case it doesn’t excuse the rest of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

If races/genders were switched, there would be no online mob against the person who yelled for help. If anything the online mob would come for the white woman in the scenario anyway!

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Extreme injustices occur thousands of times a day throughout the world and you clowns are hyper focused on a video you saw on Twitter of two people arguing LMFAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extreme injustices occur thousands of times a day throughout the world and you clowns are hyper focused on a video you saw on Twitter of two people arguing LMFAO

But there’s so much more at stake. It’s about Twitter mobs rushing to judgment, and it’s about whether white women are allowed to call for help ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

If races/genders were switched, there would be no online mob against the person who yelled for help. If anything the online mob would come for the white woman in the scenario anyway!

Exactly.

The mob would be shrieking about the entitlement and audacity of a white woman holding on to or guarding a bike she hadn't paid for and wasn't using. What else would you call that behavior? Doesn't it also apply to the boy who wasn't using the bike at the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sister’s video makes a big deal about there being other bikes, but perhaps this was the only electric bike there, which is why she told them she was pregnant before the video starts.

But yeah, why would he ride a bike he intended to keep using up to the docks and actually dock it?

Because with a Citibike membership, you get the first 45 minutes for free. Look at his sister's receipt she posted - he had the e-bike for 47 minutes, with a charge of $0.37 for the two minutes over the 45 minutes. I've seen this a lot in NYC with kids, they will use the bike for 45 minutes, let it sit in the rack for a bit, and then take it out again for another 45 minute ride.

Lyft/Citibike just launced the new e-bikes in late April, so they are rare and very desirable to get: https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/lyft-has-unveiled-new-electric-citi-bikes-in-nyc-042922-1

These teens likely got some e-bikes and were planning on riding them around the city for the evening. As I understood it, they may have had some special promotional codes to use the e-bikes for free. Here's the Citibike charge rates for annual members:

The first 45 minutes of each ride on a classic Citi Bike are included in the annual membership price.

When you upgrade your ride to an ebike, it will be an extra $0.17/min, capped at $3 for rides 45 minutes or less that enter or exit Manhattan.

If you keep a bike out for longer than 45 minutes at a time, regardless of the type, it's $0.17 per minute.

If you incur any extra time or ebike upgrade fees, your card on file will be charged. The fee for a lost or stolen bike is $1200 (+ tax).

If you take an e-bike in/out of Manhattan, you can use it for 45 minutes for only $3. My guess is that they were probably going to take the bikes further down into lower Manhattan after "resetting" the bikes at this docking station to get another fresh 45 minutes of use. Then maybe cross the bridge into Brooklyn for a $3 ride.

With a group of kids, they could probably all dock at the same time and then switch bikes with each other, so it's a new 45 minute ride. They may have been taking a rest at these docks before starting their new ride.

And yeah, a lot of NY'ers will support his actions because there's an unwritten code about not snaking a Citibike for someone waiting for reset of the 45 minutes. Similarly, you don't snake any empty spot on a full Citibike dock if other people are already waiting to return the bike in their possession. The PA likely violated the social code of the Citibikes, but then he escalated by forcing her back onto the dock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extreme injustices occur thousands of times a day throughout the world and you clowns are hyper focused on a video you saw on Twitter of two people arguing LMFAO

But there’s so much more at stake. It’s about Twitter mobs rushing to judgment, and it’s about whether white women are allowed to call for help ever.

Get off of Twitter then. Why waste your time and energy on these losers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

If races/genders were switched, there would be no online mob against the person who yelled for help. If anything the online mob would come for the white woman in the scenario anyway!

Exactly.

Well…right. That’s why it’s called “weaponizing white tears”, because black men often get shot by cops with little justification, and at first people thought she was pretending to be in danger from these guys when she was the aggressor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sister’s video makes a big deal about there being other bikes, but perhaps this was the only electric bike there, which is why she told them she was pregnant before the video starts.

But yeah, why would he ride a bike he intended to keep using up to the docks and actually dock it?

Because with a Citibike membership, you get the first 45 minutes for free. Look at his sister's receipt she posted - he had the e-bike for 47 minutes, with a charge of $0.37 for the two minutes over the 45 minutes. I've seen this a lot in NYC with kids, they will use the bike for 45 minutes, let it sit in the rack for a bit, and then take it out again for another 45 minute ride.

Lyft/Citibike just launced the new e-bikes in late April, so they are rare and very desirable to get: https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/lyft-has-unveiled-new-electric-citi-bikes-in-nyc-042922-1

These teens likely got some e-bikes and were planning on riding them around the city for the evening. As I understood it, they may have had some special promotional codes to use the e-bikes for free. Here's the Citibike charge rates for annual members:

The first 45 minutes of each ride on a classic Citi Bike are included in the annual membership price.

When you upgrade your ride to an ebike, it will be an extra $0.17/min, capped at $3 for rides 45 minutes or less that enter or exit Manhattan.

If you keep a bike out for longer than 45 minutes at a time, regardless of the type, it's $0.17 per minute.

If you incur any extra time or ebike upgrade fees, your card on file will be charged. The fee for a lost or stolen bike is $1200 (+ tax).

If you take an e-bike in/out of Manhattan, you can use it for 45 minutes for only $3. My guess is that they were probably going to take the bikes further down into lower Manhattan after "resetting" the bikes at this docking station to get another fresh 45 minutes of use. Then maybe cross the bridge into Brooklyn for a $3 ride.

With a group of kids, they could probably all dock at the same time and then switch bikes with each other, so it's a new 45 minute ride. They may have been taking a rest at these docks before starting their new ride.

And yeah, a lot of NY'ers will support his actions because there's an unwritten code about not snaking a Citibike for someone waiting for reset of the 45 minutes. Similarly, you don't snake any empty spot on a full Citibike dock if other people are already waiting to return the bike in their possession. The PA likely violated the social code of the Citibikes, but then he escalated by forcing her back onto the dock.

This makes a lot of sense. But also, more questions. The receipts show the bike wasn’t used for 5-6 minutes, how long does it take to reset the free 45 mins? If they switch riders, then is the reset almost immediate? Did they need to be hanging around an unrented bike (she says they weren’t even close to it) for 6 mins?

There may be good answers to these questions, but it doesn’t completely work for me yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tbh this is a mess. No judge would find more/less fault on either of these people.

-She tried to take a bike someone else was holding onto, after she asked to use it and he told her no, he was about to use it.

-he was guarding a bike he wasn’t ready to use yet.

They were both wrong. I don’t know why anyone is taking either side here, since they were both wrong, except pure tribalism. I think if races/genders were flipped all of you would be flipping sides too.

If races/genders were switched, there would be no online mob against the person who yelled for help. If anything the online mob would come for the white woman in the scenario anyway!

Exactly.

Well…right. That’s why it’s called “weaponizing white tears”, because black men often get shot by cops with little justification, and at first people thought she was pretending to be in danger from these guys when she was the aggressor.

And this whole situation shows why that phrase is so ridiculous, dangerous, and pernicious. Hopefully people have learned their lesson and realizing what a truly damaging phrase it is and how foolish they sound when they use it.