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:

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.

Or, he's extremely bright and graduating early.

[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:

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.

Both are in the wrong. If he said he was using the bike, it wasn't ok for her to take it (assuming his description is accurate). However, it wasn't his bike as he hadn't renewed the rental and it was up for grabs. He was probably waiting till he was ready given the time limitations. It sounds like he and his friends regularly did long rides on the ebikes. If she needed the bike and he wasn't renting it, so technically she was in the right to rent it. He was wrong to redock it with her on it. This could have been handled so much better on multiple levels by both of them. Also, the bike company should not allow these regular joy rides given the limited bikes so they are partly to blame as well.

Question is who took the video, posted the video and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting a lot of media isn't covering the story anymore.

I had the same thought. I think if there is any silver lining, it’s that the bigger publications have learned their lesson over viral videos and cancellations.

+2. The bigger media outlets are learning that somebody shouting "Karen!" isn't enough to run with a story, instead they need to nail down all the facts or they could be hit with a lawsuit.

The general public that's still following is learning that the Moniques of the world sometimes cry wolf about "Karen!" just to make money. They're learning not to cancel anybody until you have all the sides of a story. Which isn't to say there aren't racists out there, just that only sucky human beings apply blanket assumptions to anybody.

It’s not just “sucky.” It’s validating treating a group of women and girls like absolute garbage and treating another group of women and girls like wise sages and it is bullshit. Monique has her younger mirror in the sister. It has no end.

This.

[Anonymous]

Him trying to take it with her on it is not a fact.
The way they're awkwardly lined up makes his story make sense. It looks like she stuck her leg over the bar and tried to gain possession of it while his hands were already on it. It also males sense why he says she's putting her stomach on him and why he is so calmly holding his ground.
She's like that person who hops in your cab while you're opening the door.

A joy ride? You mean ride home. It's not a stolen car. People are allowed to go home and it's not a negative thing. The rarity of these e bikes means that she is likely use to pedaling a bike home.

"Probably the most punishment he's had in his life"
Yeah ok. Tell me you don't know immigrant parents w/o telling me.

[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:

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.

Both are in the wrong. If he said he was using the bike, it wasn't ok for her to take it (assuming his description is accurate). However, it wasn't his bike as he hadn't renewed the rental and it was up for grabs. He was probably waiting till he was ready given the time limitations. It sounds like he and his friends regularly did long rides on the ebikes. If she needed the bike and he wasn't renting it, so technically she was in the right to rent it. He was wrong to redock it with her on it. This could have been handled so much better on multiple levels by both of them. Also, the bike company should not allow these regular joy rides given the limited bikes so they are partly to blame as well.

Question is who took the video, posted the video and why.

Why wasn’t it OK for her to take a bike that was available for rental?

[Anonymous]

Future criminal and or rapist is more appropriate for that monster bike thief who gets his jollies ha ganging up in pregnant women.

He is a sexist racist bike thief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Him trying to take it with her on it is not a fact.
The way they're awkwardly lined up makes his story make sense. It looks like she stuck her leg over the bar and tried to gain possession of it while his hands were already on it. It also males sense why he says she's putting her stomach on him and why he is so calmly holding his ground.
She's like that person who hops in your cab while you're opening the door.

A joy ride? You mean ride home. It's not a stolen car. People are allowed to go home and it's not a negative thing. The rarity of these e bikes means that she is likely use to pedaling a bike home.

"Probably the most punishment he's had in his life"
Yeah ok. Tell me you don't know immigrant parents w/o telling me.

Nice bit of fiction you got there. Maybe you can publish a short story?

[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:

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.

Both are in the wrong. If he said he was using the bike, it wasn't ok for her to take it (assuming his description is accurate). However, it wasn't his bike as he hadn't renewed the rental and it was up for grabs. He was probably waiting till he was ready given the time limitations. It sounds like he and his friends regularly did long rides on the ebikes. If she needed the bike and he wasn't renting it, so technically she was in the right to rent it. He was wrong to redock it with her on it. This could have been handled so much better on multiple levels by both of them. Also, the bike company should not allow these regular joy rides given the limited bikes so they are partly to blame as well.

Question is who took the video, posted the video and why.

Why wasn’t it OK for her to take a bike that was available for rental?

Because the rules in NYC are once you touch something, it is yours until you publicly announce that you no longer using it. I believe it's in the muni code. New Yorkers are polite like that.

[Anonymous]

Would you hire this guy. I can imaging home rubbing pregnant women bellies at work and think if I touch it first o own 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: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?

+1 Seriously. We can all see that he is a young Black man. That's one reason the encounter is surprising.

[Anonymous]

His family has started a GoFundMe.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-family-of-the-young-man-in-citi-bike-incident?member=27119691&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Him trying to take it with her on it is not a fact.
The way they're awkwardly lined up makes his story make sense. It looks like she stuck her leg over the bar and tried to gain possession of it while his hands were already on it. It also males sense why he says she's putting her stomach on him and why he is so calmly holding his ground.
She's like that person who hops in your cab while you're opening the door.

A joy ride? You mean ride home. It's not a stolen car. People are allowed to go home and it's not a negative thing. The rarity of these e bikes means that she is likely use to pedaling a bike home.

"Probably the most punishment he's had in his life"
Yeah ok. Tell me you don't know immigrant parents w/o telling me.

Wrong. Both of their accounts agree that she was on the bike and had rented it, and he pushed her back into the dock. Then we see on the video that he forcibly prevents her from renting it again by covering the QR code and renting it himseld.

[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?

NP. Yes, a minor male is a boy. A minor female is a girl. Isn’t language amazing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His family has started a GoFundMe.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-family-of-the-young-man-in-citi-bike-incident?member=27119691&sharetype=teams&utm_campaign=p_na+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer

Of course.

[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?

NP. Yes, a minor male is a boy. A minor female is a girl. Isn’t language amazing?

Homeboy