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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So he was basically scamming then... yeah. Whether or not that's normalized in NYC it's not looking good for this group of losers. The more information that comes out the more it's obvious they were in the wrong

Living in NYC is all about playing the system to your advantage. There's a reason why the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" was coined by a modern philosopher from Jersey.

She violated the rules of the street. He violated the rules of polite society. There's no Good Guy here.

I actually do think there's a "Good Guy" here because I subscribe to the rules of polite society and don't care about the rules of the street when the come into conflict.

Like the rules of the street might dictate that you can kill someone if they steal from you, but if I'm on a jury for that case, I don't really care -- murder is morally wrong and also illegal and you don't get to make up different rules because you want to.

There's a lot of people from NYC who would disagree with you and would argue that she "started it." I know, it's all very juvenile.

I'd want to know more about how close he was to the bike. If it was obvious to her that the kids were taking a break and waiting for the bikes, she's pretty snake-like to try to take it. You don't do that in NYC, there's unwritten codes of conduct that apply in NYC (and don't make sense elsewhere). Scarcity mindset is for real in NYC.

Where I come from, if I'm laying about with my friends and a pregnant nurse walks out of a hospital, I get off the bike I paid for and give it to her. Because I have a shred of decency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So he was basically scamming then... yeah. Whether or not that's normalized in NYC it's not looking good for this group of losers. The more information that comes out the more it's obvious they were in the wrong

Living in NYC is all about playing the system to your advantage. There's a reason why the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" was coined by a modern philosopher from Jersey.

She violated the rules of the street. He violated the rules of polite society. There's no Good Guy here.

I actually do think there's a "Good Guy" here because I subscribe to the rules of polite society and don't care about the rules of the street when the come into conflict.

Like the rules of the street might dictate that you can kill someone if they steal from you, but if I'm on a jury for that case, I don't really care -- murder is morally wrong and also illegal and you don't get to make up different rules because you want to.

There's a lot of people from NYC who would disagree with you and would argue that she "started it." I know, it's all very juvenile.

I'd want to know more about how close he was to the bike. If it was obvious to her that the kids were taking a break and waiting for the bikes, she's pretty snake-like to try to take it. You don't do that in NYC, there's unwritten codes of conduct that apply in NYC (and don't make sense elsewhere). Scarcity mindset is for real in NYC.

Where I come from, if I'm laying about with my friends and a pregnant nurse walks out of a hospital, I get off the bike I paid for and give it to her. Because I have a shred of decency.

Welcome to NYC!

[Anonymous]

The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I have this straight:

The white woman is presumed to have malicious intent even if she did not do anything harmful, no one was hurt, and her behavior makes sense in context.

The young black men are deemed to have no malicious intent even if we have video of them pushing, harassing, and jeering at the other party, and their own version of events confirms what the woman says happened.

Right? Just checking.

You perfectly illustrate the inherent embedded racism so common to white people with this sarcastic crap here. You really are shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if I have this straight:

The white woman is presumed to have malicious intent even if she did not do anything harmful, no one was hurt, and her behavior makes sense in context.

The young black men are deemed to have no malicious intent even if we have video of them pushing, harassing, and jeering at the other party, and their own version of events confirms what the woman says happened.

Right? Just checking.

You perfectly illustrate the inherent embedded racism so common to white people with this sarcastic crap here. You really are shameful.

And, you dismiss the crap women put up with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

She didn't yell and scream and stop making it about those men as the victim when they aren't. She grabbed his phone to see the receipt. If they are such fine men, why not stand up and say your side. The sisters side makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I have this straight:

The white woman is presumed to have malicious intent even if she did not do anything harmful, no one was hurt, and her behavior makes sense in context.

The young black men are deemed to have no malicious intent even if we have video of them pushing, harassing, and jeering at the other party, and their own version of events confirms what the woman says happened.

Right? Just checking.

Question is what if the races were reversed, when what would people say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So he was basically scamming then... yeah. Whether or not that's normalized in NYC it's not looking good for this group of losers. The more information that comes out the more it's obvious they were in the wrong

Living in NYC is all about playing the system to your advantage. There's a reason why the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" was coined by a modern philosopher from Jersey.

She violated the rules of the street. He violated the rules of polite society. There's no Good Guy here.

I actually do think there's a "Good Guy" here because I subscribe to the rules of polite society and don't care about the rules of the street when the come into conflict.

Like the rules of the street might dictate that you can kill someone if they steal from you, but if I'm on a jury for that case, I don't really care -- murder is morally wrong and also illegal and you don't get to make up different rules because you want to.

There's a lot of people from NYC who would disagree with you and would argue that she "started it." I know, it's all very juvenile.

I'd want to know more about how close he was to the bike. If it was obvious to her that the kids were taking a break and waiting for the bikes, she's pretty snake-like to try to take it. You don't do that in NYC, there's unwritten codes of conduct that apply in NYC (and don't make sense elsewhere). Scarcity mindset is for real in NYC.

Stop trying to say it's a NY thing and accept it's simply a racial and possibly gendered thing. If it was a large group of white women who had rented/used bikes, returned them and were no longer using them, and were standing around, bullying and blocking anyone from accessing them, you're telling me New Yorkers would back them up?! Please. They would be called "entitled" until the cows came home. This is about a kid who was being a jerk and a woman who got attacked and dragged through the mud without a second thought

Sadly, this.

Can you just imagine the visuals of a large group of white women pushing around a smaller black man, taunting him, saying "oh look, don't cry now!" I mean it would literally be an absolute meltdown on twitter. But in this case, not only did this woman NOT get sympathy, she actually got vilified and her life destroyed! I mean, at a certain point we have to reframe "white privilege" if this is the scenario...

Exactly! Ticks me off. I was assaulted by 2 AA men when I was a 16 year old virgin. Never got one dime nor any tears from the city.

Ben Crump, " civil rights" lawyer took this story about the bikes off his website.

I'm so, so sorry that happened to you. I'm wishing you healing and happiness. That is truly horrifying.

Yeah, this vilification of white women, removal of empathy for what white women go through, is sick and disgusting and needs to stop.

Yes, one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century.

DP. Nobody said that; your dramatics just underscore your bitterness.

This is, however, one issue that we need to deal with.

Project much, drama queen? Not sure what you can to to solve this problem that is only a problem to you? Have you donated to the GoFundMe account yet?

Are you the angry troll who is trying to disrupt the thread out of spite? And no, I haven't donated to the GoFundMe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it’s starting to add up. With the info that a PP provided, it seems like the people filming were gaming the bike rental system by docking their bike after 45 minutes so they didn’t have to pay a fee, then waiting however long (5 minutes? 10 minutes?) for the free rental period to reset. In that time the PA came up and tried to rent the bike which she thought was not in use per the availability on the bike rental app. And it, indeed, was not in use as it was docked and available to take out. Before the video started, the other group of individuals were likely on a bench somewhere near by and she didn’t see them, then when she tried to take out the bike during the free rental cooldown window is when they approached. And she probably hesitated instead of just riding off, and that’s when the whole thing started.

The group is still in the wrong, of course. You can try to hack the system, but it doesn’t always work.

But other bikes were available. Why did they want that specific one?

Was it the last e-bike? I couldn’t tell … or maybe they were just “going to” reserve that one but they were sitting around for awhile and then stepped up when the PA came by to legitimately rent it to go home.

DP. There was apparently another e-bike that she rented and took home. Unless she pedaled a regular bike home pregnant.

Why the guys couldn’t have rented it is unknown.

But of course she, not they, needed to change bikes. And she’s still a racist. SMH.

What does this have anything to do with race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now it’s starting to add up. With the info that a PP provided, it seems like the people filming were gaming the bike rental system by docking their bike after 45 minutes so they didn’t have to pay a fee, then waiting however long (5 minutes? 10 minutes?) for the free rental period to reset. In that time the PA came up and tried to rent the bike which she thought was not in use per the availability on the bike rental app. And it, indeed, was not in use as it was docked and available to take out. Before the video started, the other group of individuals were likely on a bench somewhere near by and she didn’t see them, then when she tried to take out the bike during the free rental cooldown window is when they approached. And she probably hesitated instead of just riding off, and that’s when the whole thing started.

The group is still in the wrong, of course. You can try to hack the system, but it doesn’t always work.

But other bikes were available. Why did they want that specific one?

Was it the last e-bike? I couldn’t tell … or maybe they were just “going to” reserve that one but they were sitting around for awhile and then stepped up when the PA came by to legitimately rent it to go home.

DP. There was apparently another e-bike that she rented and took home. Unless she pedaled a regular bike home pregnant.

Why the guys couldn’t have rented it is unknown.

The sister specifically says they were docking it and waiting for it to reset so they could rent it again without incurring extra charges.

It doesn’t make sense that she would choose a bike that a bunch of guys were near/on if there were others available. So either it was the last e-bike and that’s what triggered the conflict, or the guys weren’t near the bike and she thought it was free.

It simply doesn’t make sense that she went spoiling fur a fight given how outnumbered she was and the fact that she is pregnant.

Perhaps he wasn't that close to the bike so she didn't know his intent. So, she walked up and rented it. He was hanging out with his friends, then realized she rented it, grabbed it from her to stop her from taking it, and that's when the drama started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

She didn't yell and scream and stop making it about those men as the victim when they aren't. She grabbed his phone to see the receipt. If they are such fine men, why not stand up and say your side. The sisters side makes sense.

There is a double standard in your analysis. No woman should assault a man by grabbing at his phone to get her way. If this had been reversed, a man doing this to a group of women, there would be outcry. She should keep her hands to herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

She didn't yell and scream and stop making it about those men as the victim when they aren't. She grabbed his phone to see the receipt. If they are such fine men, why not stand up and say your side. The sisters side makes sense.

There is a double standard in your analysis. No woman should assault a man by grabbing at his phone to get her way. If this had been reversed, a man doing this to a group of women, there would be outcry. She should keep her hands to herself.

I thought she grabbed his phone to stop him scanning the QR code

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

She was outnumbered and assaulted. The gang of larger men harassing her made a much larger scene.

She tried not to yell -- her not yelling enough was one of the reasons trolls accused her of faking being upset!

It's quite telling that you prioritize a criminal's fear of being harmed by police, over a woman's fear of being beaten or raped by men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So he was basically scamming then... yeah. Whether or not that's normalized in NYC it's not looking good for this group of losers. The more information that comes out the more it's obvious they were in the wrong

Living in NYC is all about playing the system to your advantage. There's a reason why the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" was coined by a modern philosopher from Jersey.

She violated the rules of the street. He violated the rules of polite society. There's no Good Guy here.

I actually do think there's a "Good Guy" here because I subscribe to the rules of polite society and don't care about the rules of the street when the come into conflict.

Like the rules of the street might dictate that you can kill someone if they steal from you, but if I'm on a jury for that case, I don't really care -- murder is morally wrong and also illegal and you don't get to make up different rules because you want to.

There's a lot of people from NYC who would disagree with you and would argue that she "started it." I know, it's all very juvenile.

I'd want to know more about how close he was to the bike. If it was obvious to her that the kids were taking a break and waiting for the bikes, she's pretty snake-like to try to take it. You don't do that in NYC, there's unwritten codes of conduct that apply in NYC (and don't make sense elsewhere). Scarcity mindset is for real in NYC.

Stop trying to say it's a NY thing and accept it's simply a racial and possibly gendered thing. If it was a large group of white women who had rented/used bikes, returned them and were no longer using them, and were standing around, bullying and blocking anyone from accessing them, you're telling me New Yorkers would back them up?! Please. They would be called "entitled" until the cows came home. This is about a kid who was being a jerk and a woman who got attacked and dragged through the mud without a second thought

Sadly, this.

Can you just imagine the visuals of a large group of white women pushing around a smaller black man, taunting him, saying "oh look, don't cry now!" I mean it would literally be an absolute meltdown on twitter. But in this case, not only did this woman NOT get sympathy, she actually got vilified and her life destroyed! I mean, at a certain point we have to reframe "white privilege" if this is the scenario...

Exactly! Ticks me off. I was assaulted by 2 AA men when I was a 16 year old virgin. Never got one dime nor any tears from the city.

Ben Crump, " civil rights" lawyer took this story about the bikes off his website.

I'm so, so sorry that happened to you. I'm wishing you healing and happiness. That is truly horrifying.

Yeah, this vilification of white women, removal of empathy for what white women go through, is sick and disgusting and needs to stop.

Yes, one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century.

DP. Nobody said that; your dramatics just underscore your bitterness.

This is, however, one issue that we need to deal with.

Project much, drama queen? Not sure what you can to to solve this problem that is only a problem to you? Have you donated to the GoFundMe account yet?

Are you the angry troll who is trying to disrupt the thread out of spite? And no, I haven't donated to the GoFundMe.

Why are you complaining about this white women racism problem yet you aren't even willing to do anything to solve the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The larger issue here is that she yelled and screamed bloody murder over a bike, which could have ended up causing a much more dangerous situation for the young men. This is why people are upset!!! Even if the teens had the bike, and then redocked it in order to reset the system. While she might have assumed it was free, the way she carried on over a bike is absurd.

In the video we see her attempting to snatch his phone, yell her head off and then carry on about him touching her stomach, even though he narrates to her to stop touching him, she continues to touch him and then make it about her unborn baby.

This is why people are outraged.

She didn't yell and scream and stop making it about those men as the victim when they aren't. She grabbed his phone to see the receipt. If they are such fine men, why not stand up and say your side. The sisters side makes sense.

There is a double standard in your analysis. No woman should assault a man by grabbing at his phone to get her way. If this had been reversed, a man doing this to a group of women, there would be outcry. She should keep her hands to herself.

She was wrong to grab the phone but she was also probably trying to get her to let her go and he's basically restraining her. If he wanted that bike, his rear end should have been on it holding it. She was probably trying to look at the receipt.