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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I have complete confidence in Monique’s journalistic integrity and am sure she will check facts, remain impartial, not lead the mom, et cetera.

/s

You don't find it interesting she's only telling one side of the story and not both sides?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I have complete confidence in Monique’s journalistic integrity and am sure she will check facts, remain impartial, not lead the mom, et cetera.

/s

You don't find it interesting she's only telling one side of the story and not both sides?

She should definitely keep doing that, so she increases the payout for the PA. 👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I have complete confidence in Monique’s journalistic integrity and am sure she will check facts, remain impartial, not lead the mom, et cetera.

/s

You don't find it interesting she's only telling one side of the story and not both sides?

DP, but when poster puts “/s” at the end of a comment, it means the comment is said in sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Many states will treat a statement accusing someone of a crime as defamatory on its face, if they can prove they didn’t commit the crime. Not sure in NY is one of them.

This is why news orgs will often say “allegedly” even when reporting on crimes they know in fact took place. It’s crazy to me how many supposed journalists didn’t bother with that in this case. They just took it on faith she was stealing the bike and printed it as fact with no effort to confirm or hedge that statement! Bananas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I want to see the interview…but I’ll wait until my blood pressure is super super low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I have complete confidence in Monique’s journalistic integrity and am sure she will check facts, remain impartial, not lead the mom, et cetera.

/s

You don't find it interesting she's only telling one side of the story and not both sides?

DP, but when poster puts “/s” at the end of a comment, it means the comment is said in sarcasm.

Pp here. Yes, I was being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incoming, Monique Judge says she interviewed the kid and his mom.

Fabulous. I’m sure this will be very measured with very few references to tragic historical violence.

I want to see the interview…but I’ll wait until my blood pressure is super super low.

+1. I’m dreading watching too because it promises to be a factually biased, emotionally manipulative sh!tshow. The only upside is that every segment that makes you cringe gives more fuel to the libel suit against Judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that all of those kids are laughing right now because you guys have your panties in a bunch over their little prank.

No those kids are mad she's got a gofundme over $120K and they have.... nothing.

120k!!! Are you serious? According to a DCUM poster, her life was ruined and she was an assault victim. It sounds like she is actually doing pretty good!

It's all going to go to her lawyer for multiple lawsuits. Have you ever had to retain a lawyer?

Not for a BS case that has little chance of panning out. If she was smart, she would just pocket the Gofundme cash. I'm kind of jealous!

Have you learned nothing? Let’s see how it plays out. The Covington kid did well and people said he’d lose too.

The particulars of this case are different, but maybe you aren't aware. Also, 99.99999% of people don't know this ladies name and wouldn't recognize her if they saw her walking down the street, so the libel/reputation angle is going to be a major stretch.

False accusations of committing a felony are libel per se. And of course, there’s no requirement of name recognition for libel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that all of those kids are laughing right now because you guys have your panties in a bunch over their little prank.

No those kids are mad she's got a gofundme over $120K and they have.... nothing.

120k!!! Are you serious? According to a DCUM poster, her life was ruined and she was an assault victim. It sounds like she is actually doing pretty good!

It's all going to go to her lawyer for multiple lawsuits. Have you ever had to retain a lawyer?

Not for a BS case that has little chance of panning out. If she was smart, she would just pocket the Gofundme cash. I'm kind of jealous!

Have you learned nothing? Let’s see how it plays out. The Covington kid did well and people said he’d lose too.

The particulars of this case are different, but maybe you aren't aware. Also, 99.99999% of people don't know this ladies name and wouldn't recognize her if they saw her walking down the street, so the libel/reputation angle is going to be a major stretch.

False accusations of committing a felony are libel per se. And of course, there’s no requirement of name recognition for libel.

She's can sue and win like the kid sandmann kid that was smeared by cnn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per the sister, it sounds like he rented the bike and used it. He then docked it and after 5-6 minutes, she approached him to use it, he declined (but he wasn't renting/paying for the bike), she asked again, he declined, and she then overrode his no and rented the bike. He was holding the bike, but hadn't paid for it and wasn't paying for it.

If he was holding it but hadn't yet paid for it, and she rented it out from underneath him, isn't that exactly what some posters here had thought he did to her, and argued that the bike belonged to the person sitting on it, before they paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the sister, it sounds like he rented the bike and used it. He then docked it and after 5-6 minutes, she approached him to use it, he declined (but he wasn't renting/paying for the bike), she asked again, he declined, and she then overrode his no and rented the bike. He was holding the bike, but hadn't paid for it and wasn't paying for it.

If he was holding it but hadn't yet paid for it, and she rented it out from underneath him, isn't that exactly what some posters here had thought he did to her, and argued that the bike belonged to the person sitting on it, before they paid?

Also, she says he wasn’t near the bike, so that part is in dispute

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the sister, it sounds like he rented the bike and used it. He then docked it and after 5-6 minutes, she approached him to use it, he declined (but he wasn't renting/paying for the bike), she asked again, he declined, and she then overrode his no and rented the bike. He was holding the bike, but hadn't paid for it and wasn't paying for it.

If he was holding it but hadn't yet paid for it, and she rented it out from underneath him, isn't that exactly what some posters here had thought he did to her, and argued that the bike belonged to the person sitting on it, before they paid?

There is no evidence he was "holding it." In fact, evidence is against this -- by his own receipts, he had docked the bike more than 5 minutes prior, and the PA says there was no one near the bike when she approached. Now, you can believe the PA or not, but to the average person, the fact that he'd docked it 5 minutes would indicate it was NOT in his possession.

She rents the bike, per her receipt, and sits on it. According to both the PA and the guy's sister, she is then redocked by the guy and his friends. Then the video starts.

There is no interpretation events that would say he was in possession of the bike. He had docked it. She rented it. She was sitting on it. He might feel that in his head, the bike was "his", but according the law and common sense, it was not.

She wasn't stealing the bike, and anyone who printed that she was stealing or was a thief may be liable for defamation. That's actually a pretty easy to prove case and I could see it be won on summary judgment based just on the facts as they have been presented by BOTH parties. You can't just go online and accuse someone of a felony because you feel like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that all of those kids are laughing right now because you guys have your panties in a bunch over their little prank.

No those kids are mad she's got a gofundme over $120K and they have.... nothing.

120k!!! Are you serious? According to a DCUM poster, her life was ruined and she was an assault victim. It sounds like she is actually doing pretty good!

It's all going to go to her lawyer for multiple lawsuits. Have you ever had to retain a lawyer?

Not for a BS case that has little chance of panning out. If she was smart, she would just pocket the Gofundme cash. I'm kind of jealous!

Have you learned nothing? Let’s see how it plays out. The Covington kid did well and people said he’d lose too.

The particulars of this case are different, but maybe you aren't aware. Also, 99.99999% of people don't know this ladies name and wouldn't recognize her if they saw her walking down the street, so the libel/reputation angle is going to be a major stretch.

False accusations of committing a felony are libel per se. And of course, there’s no requirement of name recognition for libel.

She's can sue and win like the kid sandmann kid that was smeared by cnn

Well Sandmann didn’t actually win in court so we don’t know how his case would play out legally with the “opinion” exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The funny thing is that all of those kids are laughing right now because you guys have your panties in a bunch over their little prank.

No those kids are mad she's got a gofundme over $120K and they have.... nothing.

120k!!! Are you serious? According to a DCUM poster, her life was ruined and she was an assault victim. It sounds like she is actually doing pretty good!

It's all going to go to her lawyer for multiple lawsuits. Have you ever had to retain a lawyer?

Not for a BS case that has little chance of panning out. If she was smart, she would just pocket the Gofundme cash. I'm kind of jealous!

Have you learned nothing? Let’s see how it plays out. The Covington kid did well and people said he’d lose too.

The particulars of this case are different, but maybe you aren't aware. Also, 99.99999% of people don't know this ladies name and wouldn't recognize her if they saw her walking down the street, so the libel/reputation angle is going to be a major stretch.

False accusations of committing a felony are libel per se. And of course, there’s no requirement of name recognition for libel.

She's can sue and win like the kid sandmann kid that was smeared by cnn

Well Sandmann didn’t actually win in court so we don’t know how his case would play out legally with the “opinion” exception.

He basically did- he got a fat settlement and an apology. That's winning by any measure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per the sister, it sounds like he rented the bike and used it. He then docked it and after 5-6 minutes, she approached him to use it, he declined (but he wasn't renting/paying for the bike), she asked again, he declined, and she then overrode his no and rented the bike. He was holding the bike, but hadn't paid for it and wasn't paying for it.

If he was holding it but hadn't yet paid for it, and she rented it out from underneath him, isn't that exactly what some posters here had thought he did to her, and argued that the bike belonged to the person sitting on it, before they paid?

He wasn’t holding it.