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:

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.

STFU. The problem is calling men boys, not calling a boy a boy.

[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.

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.

His version directly contradicts hers. He claims he had his hands on the bike and she “pushed” her way onto it. He claims that she was faking being upset. The main ways that his version aligns with hers absolutely supports that she was genuinely upset (that he pushed her into the dock forcibly).

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

But for the boys making and posting the video nobody would know about this.

[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 doesn't truly believe anything. Thats not how her mind operates. I've known people like this. They "believe" whatever is convenient to them in the moment, with no concern for truth or even consistency.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

You mean Monique. Because he would be completely anonymous if she hadn't given his sister/mom/etc. a platform. She is the one doing the exploiting. Not to mention - the boys/young men posting of the video is what blew the whole thing up in the first place.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

He’s a young man. He’s turning 18 soon and graduating high school this year. I don’t necessarily think he was immature. They do these bike rides regularly per the statement. Just no one ever wanted the bike before so it was never an issue. Neither should have their lives ruined over this.

[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:

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” :shock:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

You mean Monique. Because he would be completely anonymous if she hadn't given his sister/mom/etc. a platform. She is the one doing the exploiting. Not to mention - the boys/young men posting of the video is what blew the whole thing up in the first place.

Monique and her ilk made this go viral in the first place. Without her spamming it the young men’s (mean) video would have remained pretty obscure.

Monique did it for the clicks and ensuing money. He can blame her for the calling the racists out of the woodwork.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

If he was receiving positive attention, he’d almost certainly be called a "young man"; anyone calling him a "boy" would be accused of infantilizing him. "Teen" would be an example of a more neutral tone. Particularly for someone in their late teens, the term "boy" is really only used in situations where the speaker is trying to engender sympathy after the subject has misbehaved.

[Anonymous]

Does the 17 yr old have a college gofundme? I’d throw $$$ at that.

[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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

If he was receiving positive attention, he’d almost certainly be called a "young man"; anyone calling him a "boy" would be accused of infantilizing him. "Teen" would be an example of a more neutral tone. Particularly for someone in their late teens, the term "boy" is really only used in situations where the speaker is trying to engender sympathy after the subject has misbehaved.

It looks like he has a summer or fall birthday as he's graduating high school this year so while technically he's a teen, he's a high school graduate which is why young man is more appropriate. He is a boy to his mom and will always be her child. Either way, it's semantics. He's not a child anymore and is responsible for this behavior. However, he may not have been the one to post the video and he didn't take 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:

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.

Oh please. People have been calling them “boys” throughout as a way to give them the benefit of the doubt that their bad behavior was immature. It would have been a very different story if they turned out to be 25.

What are you prattling on about?

His own mother calls him a boy. Get lost.

He IS a boy. That’s why the people blowing this up and exploiting him are unconscionable.

He’s a young man. He’s turning 18 soon and graduating high school this year. I don’t necessarily think he was immature. They do these bike rides regularly per the statement. Just no one ever wanted the bike before so it was never an issue. Neither should have their lives ruined over this.

No, you do not get to take the bike I paid for out of my hands and go for a joy ride on me. Especially after a long work day, yet alone while pregnant. No, he needs to feel the pain of his choices. I am personally glad he's being strung out to dry. Probably the most punishment he's every had in his life. If I were her, I'd be going after his family to pay for my trauma from this incident.