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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

I agree with all of this. But at the end of the day, they lied about her. She wasn’t trying to steal. They tried to snake her bike.

Why did they lie?!

This. It's very clear that he rents the bike after she is already sitting on it. She didn't try to steal it.

So why did this video ever even wind up on the internet? The guy who took it knows what actually happened, and is perpetuating a narrative that she "stole" the bike from him.

The posted this video knowing it would go viral and that she would be attacked. She's been doxed, she's on leave from work, and a bunch of people online are calling her a racist and a thief.

It's very troubling. This could happen to anyone.

She’s being doxed bc the video is showing what she did and how she is acting. If she was innocent the way DCUM seems to think she is, she wouldn’t be getting doxed.

It’s only troubling to people who act like her. So it couldn’t happened to anyone.

Are you kidding?!? You don’t need to be innocent to be doxxed. Just do something that could possibly be interpreted as racist and you’re screwed. No one waits for the full story to come out - it’s instant mobs and pitchforks. It’s the current American way.

Like the woman in Central Park? Or the woman calling the police on the 8 yr old selling lemonade? Or the woman calling the police on kids at the pool? Or the woman claiming burglary in a AIRBNB house? Or the woman claiming a black kid stole her phone? Yeah, they were innocent.

None of what you said invalidates my comment.

Bc you think they were innocent. Not surprising.

Not one person has suggested that people in OTHER videos are innocent.

Many posters have calmly explained why the woman in THIS video is innocent of what she is accused of. She does not attempt to steal this bike. She does not fake cry. She does not sic the cops on these boys. She is forced off a bike she is clearly trying to rent and she does so with only a minutes worth of resistance before calmly moving on. She's not a saint, but she's done nothing wrong.

I actually do think she’s fake crying.

But she’s NOT stealing and they ARE trying to take a bike by preventing her from renting it.

No one is a saint here. She could have backed off sooner. But it’s not what people are saying. Very clearly not.

I find this take fascinating because if you agree that they are trying to prevent her from renting the bike, does she not have a reason to be upset? Then why is she "fake crying"? If she has a reason to be upset, why can't she just be upset. That's the face she makes when someone is being unfair to her and no one is listening. It's not "fake". It's real.

Also, why should she have backed off sooner? Because I agree with you, but the reason I think she should have backed off sooner is to protect herself and her reputation from exactly what has happened, which is that this video has been posted online and a bunch of people have accused her of doing something she didn't do and now she is humiliated even though I don't really think she did anything wrong.

Like we're basically saying she should have backed off and given up the bike sooner to avoid being publicly slandered. That's interesting, right?

The lunatics screaming about how the woman is clearly in the wrong want to destroy her life at this point just because. It’s sport to them. It’s an inchoate anger, very much a part of their character but unanchored to facts or even to their locked-in view of what the video ‘proves.’

It’s not surprising, and it can’t be discussed honestly. The point is not the video. The point is that the boys are necessarily 2023 Emmitt Tills, and the woman is necessarily a villain because she’s necessarily a Karen. You can’t change their minds, and it’s funny at this point.

It may be true that some of them are malicious and want to destroy her, but it doesn't take that much for some people to deny facts despite all evidence. Most people I've known like that are just embarrassed that they got it wrong, so they need to cling to wrong no matter what. They equate being wrong with being stupid. Also they don't care about honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges 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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

I agree with all of this. But at the end of the day, they lied about her. She wasn’t trying to steal. They tried to snake her bike.

Why did they lie?!

This. It's very clear that he rents the bike after she is already sitting on it. She didn't try to steal it.

So why did this video ever even wind up on the internet? The guy who took it knows what actually happened, and is perpetuating a narrative that she "stole" the bike from him.

The posted this video knowing it would go viral and that she would be attacked. She's been doxed, she's on leave from work, and a bunch of people online are calling her a racist and a thief.

It's very troubling. This could happen to anyone.

She’s being doxed bc the video is showing what she did and how she is acting. If she was innocent the way DCUM seems to think she is, she wouldn’t be getting doxed.

It’s only troubling to people who act like her. So it couldn’t happened to anyone.

Are you kidding?!? You don’t need to be innocent to be doxxed. Just do something that could possibly be interpreted as racist and you’re screwed. No one waits for the full story to come out - it’s instant mobs and pitchforks. It’s the current American way.

Like the woman in Central Park? Or the woman calling the police on the 8 yr old selling lemonade? Or the woman calling the police on kids at the pool? Or the woman claiming burglary in a AIRBNB house? Or the woman claiming a black kid stole her phone? Yeah, they were innocent.

None of what you said invalidates my comment.

Bc you think they were innocent. Not surprising.

Not one person has suggested that people in OTHER videos are innocent.

Many posters have calmly explained why the woman in THIS video is innocent of what she is accused of. She does not attempt to steal this bike. She does not fake cry. She does not sic the cops on these boys. She is forced off a bike she is clearly trying to rent and she does so with only a minutes worth of resistance before calmly moving on. She's not a saint, but she's done nothing wrong.

I actually do think she’s fake crying.

But she’s NOT stealing and they ARE trying to take a bike by preventing her from renting it.

No one is a saint here. She could have backed off sooner. But it’s not what people are saying. Very clearly not.

I find this take fascinating because if you agree that they are trying to prevent her from renting the bike, does she not have a reason to be upset? Then why is she "fake crying"? If she has a reason to be upset, why can't she just be upset. That's the face she makes when someone is being unfair to her and no one is listening. It's not "fake". It's real.

Also, why should she have backed off sooner? Because I agree with you, but the reason I think she should have backed off sooner is to protect herself and her reputation from exactly what has happened, which is that this video has been posted online and a bunch of people have accused her of doing something she didn't do and now she is humiliated even though I don't really think she did anything wrong.

Like we're basically saying she should have backed off and given up the bike sooner to avoid being publicly slandered. That's interesting, right?

The lunatics screaming about how the woman is clearly in the wrong want to destroy her life at this point just because. It’s sport to them. It’s an inchoate anger, very much a part of their character but unanchored to facts or even to their locked-in view of what the video ‘proves.’

It’s not surprising, and it can’t be discussed honestly. The point is not the video. The point is that the boys are necessarily 2023 Emmitt Tills, and the woman is necessarily a villain because she’s necessarily a Karen. You can’t change their minds, and it’s funny at this point.

It may be true that some of them are malicious and want to destroy her, but it doesn't take that much for some people to deny facts despite all evidence. Most people I've known like that are just embarrassed that they got it wrong, so they need to cling to wrong no matter what. They equate being wrong with being stupid. Also they don't care about honesty.

You don’t see the proud trolling here? I think they really do want to destroy her. The ‘netizen’ horde initially misidentified her and went after a completely different person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would he have to have THAT bike, in particular, if there’s already someone on it? How long could she possibly have been on it, given that she still had a bag in her hand and hadn’t gotten her phone out? You can’t even tell she’s pregnant and he didn’t do anything rough with her, so why did she claim he was hurting her fetus?

She claims he's hurting her fetus because he's reaching across her body to block the reader with his hand, and in so doing his arm is against her stomach. Somewhat hilariously, when she says this to him and tells him to stop touching her stomach with his arm, he tells her to stop touching his arm with her stomach. It has the energy of a child running into his sister and then telling her to stop hitting him. It's childish.

I land on her side because she's on the bike, and because he reaches across her to block the reader. This indicates to me that she reached the bike first, and the fact that his only possession of the bike is the hand blocking her ability to rent it is a huge mark against him.

She's not behaving brilliantly here but she's also not incorrect. She's on the bike, he is not. I don't know why he think he can take the bike she is on, it's weird. Just get another bike, dude.

The guy already had a friend recording. That’s the point. Create a viral Karen moment, the particulars don’t matter. The reaction across the internet and the reaction here are the least surprising thing ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry to say that I initially believed the title of this thread and watched the video thinking that woman was the worst and deserved to be named and shamed. I'm very happy I followed up on this thread and read the post with the detailed explanation of the video and rewatched with that information, hearing the clunk and ding indicating that the man rented the bike after she was already sitting on it. Now, I don't know what happened before the video started, but I feel as though I've learned my lesson and will no longer make gross assumptions to fit any sort of narrative.

If I were in that woman's situation, I don't know how I would have reacted. If it turns out that she was sitting on the bike before he made any indication that he wanted to rent it (I don't know this was the case), and then he prevented her from renting it, as was clear in the video, I can understand her acting out of frustration. I myself would probably have been cussing like a sailor.

What is obvious is that too many of us are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of assuming the worst in people, myself included sadly.

This post makes me feel hopeful. A rational person who can admit they messed up. More of these please.

[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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

I agree with all of this. But at the end of the day, they lied about her. She wasn’t trying to steal. They tried to snake her bike.

Why did they lie?!

This. It's very clear that he rents the bike after she is already sitting on it. She didn't try to steal it.

So why did this video ever even wind up on the internet? The guy who took it knows what actually happened, and is perpetuating a narrative that she "stole" the bike from him.

The posted this video knowing it would go viral and that she would be attacked. She's been doxed, she's on leave from work, and a bunch of people online are calling her a racist and a thief.

It's very troubling. This could happen to anyone.

She’s being doxed bc the video is showing what she did and how she is acting. If she was innocent the way DCUM seems to think she is, she wouldn’t be getting doxed.

It’s only troubling to people who act like her. So it couldn’t happened to anyone.

Are you kidding?!? You don’t need to be innocent to be doxxed. Just do something that could possibly be interpreted as racist and you’re screwed. No one waits for the full story to come out - it’s instant mobs and pitchforks. It’s the current American way.

Like the woman in Central Park? Or the woman calling the police on the 8 yr old selling lemonade? Or the woman calling the police on kids at the pool? Or the woman claiming burglary in a AIRBNB house? Or the woman claiming a black kid stole her phone? Yeah, they were innocent.

None of what you said invalidates my comment.

Bc you think they were innocent. Not surprising.

Not one person has suggested that people in OTHER videos are innocent.

Many posters have calmly explained why the woman in THIS video is innocent of what she is accused of. She does not attempt to steal this bike. She does not fake cry. She does not sic the cops on these boys. She is forced off a bike she is clearly trying to rent and she does so with only a minutes worth of resistance before calmly moving on. She's not a saint, but she's done nothing wrong.

The poster claimed innocent people are doxed.

The woman in this video is innocent of what she is being accused of (she didn't steal the bike, she doesn't weaponize tears) and she has been doxxed online.

If she was innocent she wouldn’t have been doxed.

The initial misidentification and doxxing of a woman with a totally different name really did happen. Why are you so wedded to 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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

I get people are conceding she’s a jerk because it feels more even that way, but I’m uncomfortable calling someone a jerk based on a 90 second video in which someone forced her off a bike she is renting while his friends back him up. She’s in a really crappy situation, just got off work, and is pregnant.

Maybe she’s actually a perfectly cool person and this was a bad moment for her. I would not want to be judged based on my actions in the same situation.

[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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with 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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

I agree with all of this. But at the end of the day, they lied about her. She wasn’t trying to steal. They tried to snake her bike.

Why did they lie?!

This. It's very clear that he rents the bike after she is already sitting on it. She didn't try to steal it.

So why did this video ever even wind up on the internet? The guy who took it knows what actually happened, and is perpetuating a narrative that she "stole" the bike from him.

The posted this video knowing it would go viral and that she would be attacked. She's been doxed, she's on leave from work, and a bunch of people online are calling her a racist and a thief.

It's very troubling. This could happen to anyone.

She’s being doxed bc the video is showing what she did and how she is acting. If she was innocent the way DCUM seems to think she is, she wouldn’t be getting doxed.

It’s only troubling to people who act like her. So it couldn’t happened to anyone.

Are you kidding?!? You don’t need to be innocent to be doxxed. Just do something that could possibly be interpreted as racist and you’re screwed. No one waits for the full story to come out - it’s instant mobs and pitchforks. It’s the current American way.

Like the woman in Central Park? Or the woman calling the police on the 8 yr old selling lemonade? Or the woman calling the police on kids at the pool? Or the woman claiming burglary in a AIRBNB house? Or the woman claiming a black kid stole her phone? Yeah, they were innocent.

None of what you said invalidates my comment.

Bc you think they were innocent. Not surprising.

Not one person has suggested that people in OTHER videos are innocent.

Many posters have calmly explained why the woman in THIS video is innocent of what she is accused of. She does not attempt to steal this bike. She does not fake cry. She does not sic the cops on these boys. She is forced off a bike she is clearly trying to rent and she does so with only a minutes worth of resistance before calmly moving on. She's not a saint, but she's done nothing wrong.

The poster claimed innocent people are doxed.

The woman in this video is innocent of what she is being accused of (she didn't steal the bike, she doesn't weaponize tears) and she has been doxxed online.

If she was innocent she wouldn’t have been doxed.

The initial misidentification and doxxing of a woman with a totally different name really did happen. Why are you so wedded to this?

Did that woman lose her job or placed on leave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are really twisting yourself into knots trying to defend her. I’m sorry but if the races and genders were switched you would not be doing so. And I feel sorry for you because your racism makes you incredibly gullible.

If she was there first, why would she be just sitting on the bike with the phone in her pocket with the app not even open? You can’t ‘reserve’ a bike by sitting in it.

She’s not afraid. She is faking fear by yelling help. If she’s afraid she can walk away at any time with nothing to lose. She’s mad. She feels entitled to the bike. Maybe she didn’t know he had checked it out but she clearly didn’t care when he told her nicely it was already his. Her faking that she is under threat puts her credibility to zero.

You can't reserve a bike at all. But if you were about to rent one, you might step onto the bike so you could secure your bag to the basket and get out your phone and scan the QR code, which is located at the center of the handlebars facing the rider.

I don't think she's afraid for her life and she doesn't pretend she is. I think she's annoyed and outnumber and asking for help because these kids are gaining up on her. She doesn't walk away because she needs a bike, to get home.

But yeah, she is mad and she DOES feel entitled to the bike. Because she sat on it and prepared to rent it with her own money. The guy also feels entitled to the bike, which is why he leans over her, prevents her from accessing the scanner, and pushes into her. Why do you think he is MORE entitled than she is? I think she's more entitled because she's actually on the bike and because I think his behavior (covering the scanner) is wrong.

He didn't check it out. He literally does it during the video. It happens around the 20 second mark. He is covering the scanner while holding his phone in his other hand, to keep her from renting it, then at 20 seconds, he moves his hand briefly to scan it with his phone.

I feel crazy saying this stuff over and over but it's what happens on the video.

Oh, and if this was a video of a group of white women doing this exact same thing to a lone black man on the bike, I'd say the EXACT same thing. It's four against one and you see the guy prevent her from scanning and take the bike. It's not even a borderline situation. He just takes the bike she's sitting on. Of course I'd have the same opinion if she was a black man and they were white women.

It is crazy-making. People won’t look with their eyes and see what’s right in front of them.

Although at least in this thread people aren’t still accusing her of being a thief, just being unsympathetic, so maybe that’s progress.

They’re just going to keep moving the goalposts until they’re in another stadium. That woman is racist, dammit, and if it’s not for the first reason we thought, then it’s this one…oh no it’s this one…wait! THIS is the reason she’s a racist…

Yes.

[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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

I agree with all of this. But at the end of the day, they lied about her. She wasn’t trying to steal. They tried to snake her bike.

Why did they lie?!

This. It's very clear that he rents the bike after she is already sitting on it. She didn't try to steal it.

So why did this video ever even wind up on the internet? The guy who took it knows what actually happened, and is perpetuating a narrative that she "stole" the bike from him.

The posted this video knowing it would go viral and that she would be attacked. She's been doxed, she's on leave from work, and a bunch of people online are calling her a racist and a thief.

It's very troubling. This could happen to anyone.

She’s being doxed bc the video is showing what she did and how she is acting. If she was innocent the way DCUM seems to think she is, she wouldn’t be getting doxed.

It’s only troubling to people who act like her. So it couldn’t happened to anyone.

Are you kidding?!? You don’t need to be innocent to be doxxed. Just do something that could possibly be interpreted as racist and you’re screwed. No one waits for the full story to come out - it’s instant mobs and pitchforks. It’s the current American way.

Like the woman in Central Park? Or the woman calling the police on the 8 yr old selling lemonade? Or the woman calling the police on kids at the pool? Or the woman claiming burglary in a AIRBNB house? Or the woman claiming a black kid stole her phone? Yeah, they were innocent.

None of what you said invalidates my comment.

Bc you think they were innocent. Not surprising.

Not one person has suggested that people in OTHER videos are innocent.

Many posters have calmly explained why the woman in THIS video is innocent of what she is accused of. She does not attempt to steal this bike. She does not fake cry. She does not sic the cops on these boys. She is forced off a bike she is clearly trying to rent and she does so with only a minutes worth of resistance before calmly moving on. She's not a saint, but she's done nothing wrong.

The poster claimed innocent people are doxed.

The woman in this video is innocent of what she is being accused of (she didn't steal the bike, she doesn't weaponize tears) and she has been doxxed online.

If she was innocent she wouldn’t have been doxed.

The initial misidentification and doxxing of a woman with a totally different name really did happen. Why are you so wedded to this?

Did that woman lose her job or placed on leave?

I don’t know. A different woman’s first and last name were widely circulated and multiple people tried to contact her before a young woman with a more sizable Twitter following explained it was not the right person and to please leave her alone. Most humans wouldn’t relish being misidentified and targeted by people online, right?

[Anonymous]

Why do we need a discussion about this? If someone was being really terrible, the other would have called police.

End of story. Let it go.

[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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

[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:Not aggressive? She wouldn’t stop touching him, and snatched his phone away from him.

She snatches his phone to prevent him from using it to scan the bike, because she is on the bike. She doesn't just randomly try to steal his phone. He is in the process of taking the bike away from her and won't let her access the QR reader, so she grabs for his phone because it's the only other way to prevent him from scanning the bike.

Not saying it's okay that she tried to grab his phone (I personally wouldn't do that) but in context it matters.

Also, she is only touching him because he's invading her space. She's on the bike and he has placed himself right next to her and is physically blocking her from the QR reader. She's touching him because she is trying to get him to move back away from the bike. He isn't actually entitled to that space, but he's taking it anyway.

I feel like I’m being gaslit.

She snatched his phone. There’s no excuse for that.

She would not stop touching him, even when it was obviously unnecessary.

She faked tears with shaking, and turned it off as soon as it was obvious it wasn’t working.

You are certainly welcome to make excuses for all of that behavior, but I’m not playing along with it.

You think YOU are being gaslit? Watch the video. You don't have to "play along" with anything.

She is only touching him because she is on the bike and he is reaching across her to cover the reader and then scan it with his phone. She is touching him because he is reaching across her and trying to intimidate her off the bike.

I don't understand why you are so invested in a made up narrative. Like no one has to make up a narrative about the Central Park birder incident or the BBQ Becky incident or those videos of crazy anti-masker ripping up Walmarts when asked to put on a mask. Because it's very clear what is happening and watching the video makes it clear to people.

But with this, watching the video is immediately confusing. I saw this video posted on twitter with a caption like "watch her use fake tears to try and get these guys shot." and then I watched the video and was just confused. Because that's not what happened? At all? Like even a little? Other captions were like "she steals his bike and then cries for help omg" (that's the title of this thread!). But she doesn't steal "his" bike. It is initially no ones bike and they are having a dispute over it. Then he rents it while she's sitting on it. She calls for help because he's covering the reader on the bike and won't let her rent it.

Like, you think I'm gaslighting you, but I'm watching the actual video and describing the things happening in the video, and you are just parroting a narrative of stuff that didn't happen.

I stopped reading your long-winded response about half way through. She was touching him when it was obviously unnecessary. That’s not a narrative. It’s objective reality.

You’re right!

But not a single headline says “woman touches man for no reason.”

It says “woman accused of trying to steal bike.”

I don’t care what headlines say. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Okay then what are you talking about?

This didn’t go viral because she touched him. It went viral because she’s been accused of trying to steal a bike on someone else’s Citibike account.

I’m the poster who feels like I’m being gaslit. A lot of details are being dismissed or relabeled for your narrative, when they’re quite clearly in the video. Deal with reality if you want to be taken seriously.

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say. Was she trying to steal the bike on someone else’s account, or not?

I wasn’t trying to decide that. I was discussing details of the video to get closer to a determination, and posters kept describing things that did not happen. It’s like people are wedded to their narrative, and refuse to see any objective reality that challenges it.

I don’t see that at all. I see a lot of people who are investigating the original narrative (that she’s a thief) and challenging it, even when they initially believed that narrative.

That describes me, but a lot of other people in this thread too.

And then there’s you, who actually seems wedded to the narrative that she’s a villain, and it doesn’t matter what the “crime” actually was. The important thing is that she sucks.

Well, I think I agree with you on that. She does seem to be a jerk who dug in her heels for no real reason.

But that doesn’t make her a villain unless she actually did something wrong. And that’s what’s been pretty well disproven by this thread. Not a thief. Just a bit of a pill.

So, you’ve decided we’re not permitted to discuss her behavior at all? You’ve labeled it her being “a pill,” and that’s it?

I’m still stuck on her fake, dramatic crying that starts when she thinks she has an audience member who sees it her way. Then, instantly turns it off when she sees it isn’t working. You’re fine with that?

“Fine with that” given what consequence? Losing her job (which is what Twitter posters are calling for)? No I don’t think that’s appropriate. Criminal prosecution (also called for on twitter as linked in this thread)? Also no.

I don’t know what consequence there should be for being “fake” and “dramatic.” Probably none?

So, we can’t discuss it without you going off the deep end? Yeah, why am I not surprised.

I’m not talking about prosecution or her losing her job. I’m talking about her behavior.