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

[Anonymous]

Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

Standing next to a bike does not mean its your bike. Having rented it means its your bike. These joyriders shouldn't be dominating these bikes for fun when others need them.

They clearly have nothing else to do.

Why we can't have nice things in a nutshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Monique is vile but also stupid. My guess is she truly believes that the interview disproved the nurse’s story and demonstrated she was “weaponizing white women tears.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole "weaponizing white women's tears" and "white women aren't allowed to call for help" thing takes a hit with this. The guys in the video were clearly mocking her, calling her baby r***d, and they even admit to (a) not having the e-bike checked out when she got on it, (b) hoarding a rare e-bike, and (c) pushing the e-bike back into the dock with her on it.

Sure, not everybody wants to understand these behaviors were wrong. But some will certainly see that she felt threatened and had as much right to the e-bike as they did.

The PA is the one who instigated the whole situation. She has no one to blame but herself.

You’re so right. She shouldn’t have attempted to rent an unrented bike that belonged to no one. What a moron she is!

The guy specifically told her that he was getting ready to ride the bike back to the Bronx.

So why did not he? Why didn’t he ride back to the Bronx? He is a liar.

He did eventually (I think - not so familiar with the addresses):
After the 6 minute checkout at the same station 7:25-7:31
He took at trip from 7:59-8:41pm
Then a third trip from 9:48-10:12pm
Same bike - so he was basically hoarding the bike all evening...

It sounds like this group of young men have an informal riding club where they regularly scout out the brand new ebikes and take very long joy rides. It would be more impressive if they used a regular bike doing what they are doing. The bike rental company should not allow you to rent the same bike twice.

No, that's garbage. If a bike is available for rent, then anyone should be allowed to rent it. If someone wants a guarantee that an ebike will be available for them to ride, they need to just go ahead and buy their own ebike.

I mean, it's up to the bikeshare company to decide what behaviors they are going to encourage and what they will discourage.

Citibike already discourages people from monopolizing bikes for long periods of time by starting to charge a by-the-minute fee after 45 minutes, and instituting a waiting period before you can re-rent a bike you just docked. They are obviously trying to discourage people from camping on bikes all day.

And to your point that if someone wants to guarantee themselves an e-bike, they should buy their own, why wouldn't that apply to these kids who spend the whole day camping on e-bikes and re-renting them over and over again? Why should someone who wants the bike for a 20 minute ride home have to buy their own bike but someone who wants to spend 6 hours riding around on an e-bike buy their own bike?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Also the boy and his family may not recognize this, but she's just exploiting them for clicks. Without this interview, what else does she have to say on the matter? Nothing. But with it, she can sell another article to a website.

The kid was still anonymous before his family came forward. Now they are complaining about him being criticized online, but unlike the PA, he wasn't doxed and didn't deal with any personal threats before CHOOSING to tell people his name and his story. But now he likely will be subjected to racist attacks online (the actual white supremacists love an excuse to attack a black person online) all so Monique Judge can make a bit more money and get more eyeballs on her Twitter feed.

He will wind up with nothing at all while Monique profits off his story. But he thinks she's his ally. It's sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Monique is vile but also stupid. My guess is she truly believes that the interview disproved the nurse’s story and demonstrated she was “weaponizing white women tears.”

Not clicking on her social media to find out….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Also the boy and his family may not recognize this, but she's just exploiting them for clicks. Without this interview, what else does she have to say on the matter? Nothing. But with it, she can sell another article to a website.

The kid was still anonymous before his family came forward. Now they are complaining about him being criticized online, but unlike the PA, he wasn't doxed and didn't deal with any personal threats before CHOOSING to tell people his name and his story. But now he likely will be subjected to racist attacks online (the actual white supremacists love an excuse to attack a black person online) all so Monique Judge can make a bit more money and get more eyeballs on her Twitter feed.

He will wind up with nothing at all while Monique profits off his story. But he thinks she's his ally. It's sad.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

Standing next to a bike does not mean its your bike. Having rented it means its your bike. These joyriders shouldn't be dominating these bikes for fun when others need them.

I don't disagree with the larger point. I do disagree with the certainty of "He wasn't holding it."

Can you (or the other PP, if not you) explain that, or can we chalk it up to wishful thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

IT WAS NOT “HIS” TO HOLD.

I’m sure you have owned nothing at any point and never will, so maybe take a crash-course in property and contracts when you finish being completely wrong about 1A.

Okay. So you just want to talk about a different point. Fair enough, and carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

Standing next to a bike does not mean its your bike. Having rented it means its your bike. These joyriders shouldn't be dominating these bikes for fun when others need them.

I don't disagree with the larger point. I do disagree with the certainty of "He wasn't holding it."

Can you (or the other PP, if not you) explain that, or can we chalk it up to wishful thinking?

If he had been, she wouldn’t have been able to get on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Monique is vile but also stupid. My guess is she truly believes that the interview disproved the nurse’s story and demonstrated she was “weaponizing white women tears.”

She’s using her racism to make money. No one was naming the young man but her.

His story validates they both handled things poorly but he’s at fault for it being online and the bike company needs to limit the e-bikes to one ride a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

Standing next to a bike does not mean its your bike. Having rented it means its your bike. These joyriders shouldn't be dominating these bikes for fun when others need them.

I don't disagree with the larger point. I do disagree with the certainty of "He wasn't holding it."

Can you (or the other PP, if not you) explain that, or can we chalk it up to wishful thinking?

If he had been, she wouldn’t have been able to get on it.

He was probably close by eating a snack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Monique is vile but also stupid. My guess is she truly believes that the interview disproved the nurse’s story and demonstrated she was “weaponizing white women tears.”

She’s using her racism to make money. No one was naming the young man but her.

His story validates they both handled things poorly but he’s at fault for it being online and the bike company needs to limit the e-bikes to one ride a day.

I don’t think she acted poorly at all. I believe her account that the bike was unoccupied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is that certainty coming from, PP?

He certainly didn't pay for it so he has no right to claim it forever and ever because he's thinking about using it later. That's not how life works.

So you get from that to "he wasn't holding it?"

Standing next to a bike does not mean its your bike. Having rented it means its your bike. These joyriders shouldn't be dominating these bikes for fun when others need them.

I don't disagree with the larger point. I do disagree with the certainty of "He wasn't holding it."

Can you (or the other PP, if not you) explain that, or can we chalk it up to wishful thinking?

If he had been, she wouldn’t have been able to get on it.

He was probably close by eating a snack.

Wasn’t he eating ice cream? Not clicking on OneNews to check my memory, though.

Anyway, close is not the same as next to. She can be forgiven for thinking nobody was using the bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Monique doesn't give a cr@p about the family. She's just using them to make more money. Otherwise she wouldn't have let the family basically validate the PA's story while adding context that only made the boys look worse.

The family should be directing their ire at Monique. Sure, the boys shouldn't have filmed it in the first place, and we don't know who edited the video to put "Karen" all over it. But Monique is the one who made them the subject of viral reprobation.

Monique is vile but also stupid. My guess is she truly believes that the interview disproved the nurse’s story and demonstrated she was “weaponizing white women tears.”

She’s using her racism to make money. No one was naming the young man but her.

His story validates they both handled things poorly but he’s at fault for it being online and the bike company needs to limit the e-bikes to one ride a day.

I don’t think she acted poorly at all. I believe her account that the bike was unoccupied.

Guessing pp was referring to Monique (“naming the young man”).