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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would assume the boys could not afford to buy but storage would be and issue as well as theft. I don’t have an issue with the boys renting bike for hours but taking the limited e-bikes is crummy.

Both handled it poorly. He should not have been holding the bike without renting it and should have given it to a pregnant to get home and she should not have taken the bike after they said no as it’s not worth the drama. Neither seems to be a bad person or trying to harm the other. I doubt either posted the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would assume the boys could not afford to buy but storage would be and issue as well as theft. I don’t have an issue with the boys renting bike for hours but taking the limited e-bikes is crummy.

Both handled it poorly. He should not have been holding the bike without renting it and should have given it to a pregnant to get home and she should not have taken the bike after they said no as it’s not worth the drama. Neither seems to be a bad person or trying to harm the other. I doubt either posted the video.

It’s not proven she took the bike after they said no. She says that the bike was unoccupied when she scanned it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

You have no intent what his actions were intended to be towards her, but the video points towards wanting to irritate and f with a white woman. Racist hate crime.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

You have no intent what his actions were intended to be towards her, but the video points towards wanting to irritate and f with a white woman. Racist hate crime.

This has nothing to do with race and he wasn’t looking to harm her if you look at the video.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

You have no intent what his actions were intended to be towards her, but the video points towards wanting to irritate and f with a white woman. Racist hate crime.

This has nothing to do with race and he wasn’t looking to harm her if you look at the video.

He absolutely was looking to harm her by putting the video online.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

He did not take that video. Someone else did. We don’t know who released it or why. I don’t think it was him. This is a dumb situation blown out of proportion. Both accounts from him and her state that. His version seems truthful and not out of alignment with her version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I would assume the boys could not afford to buy but storage would be and issue as well as theft. I don’t have an issue with the boys renting bike for hours but taking the limited e-bikes is crummy.

Both handled it poorly. He should not have been holding the bike without renting it and should have given it to a pregnant to get home and she should not have taken the bike after they said no as it’s not worth the drama. Neither seems to be a bad person or trying to harm the other. I doubt either posted the video.

It’s not proven she took the bike after they said no. She says that the bike was unoccupied when she scanned it in.

It’s not proven but it makes sense. It was not being used by him at the time. He states that. He planned to use it.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

You have no intent what his actions were intended to be towards her, but the video points towards wanting to irritate and f with a white woman. Racist hate crime.

This has nothing to do with race and he wasn’t looking to harm her if you look at the video.

He absolutely was looking to harm her by putting the video online.

We don’t know if he posted it. He may not have known it was posted.

[Anonymous]

193 pages?!! 😳

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

the “boy”?

Did you seriously just refer to a young Black man as a “boy”

WTF is wrong with you?

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

the “boy”?

Did you seriously just refer to a young Black man as a “boy”

WTF is wrong with you?

He's 17. What are we allowed to call minors who aren't full fledged adults?

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

the “boy”?

Did you seriously just refer to a young Black man as a “boy”

WTF is wrong with you?

DP, but Monique is making a big deal about him being a minor (17-year-old about to graduate from HS). Agree "young man" would have been a better word choice, although it goes back to the "man" thing.

[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: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.

No one using the bike is subjective. She politely asked to use it and he politely declined. It sounds like this happened twice. He had not rented it so she took it. He decided it was his and shoved it in the dock with her on it and rented it instead. He probably wasn’t thinking about he could hurt her or the baby and had no intent to harm her as she did not seem scared of him. Both handled it badly in the heat of the moment.

According to the boy. Not sure why you’re so accepting of his story when he released a misleading video.

the “boy”?

Did you seriously just refer to a young Black man as a “boy”

WTF is wrong with you?

He's 17. What are we allowed to call minors who aren't full fledged adults?

Are you a recent immigrant? Did you grow up in a different culture/country?

I ask because I’m dumbfounded that an American would even ask this. I’d understand it from a foreigner. But someone who has lived here for their whole life? Baffling.