Current Events > Black guys try to steal citi bike from white woman

(+) Yeah! (+)

InfinityMonster posted...

You're not understanding. You're implying the lawyer provided fake receipts. Otherwise, what the lawyer provided is enough.

X8Azazel8X posted...

I agree they partially confirmed.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/5/4/AAL4LyAAEfwe.jpg

They tried to do a complete verification and weren't able to. It may be all to the story but we don't know for sure.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/5/5/AAL4LyAAEfwf.jpg

That's not what that says....implying or literally. So again show me where that is posted.

InfinityMonster posted...

Citi confirming it is just an additional step. What I said was that these news outlets confirmed seeing the receipts with the serial #.

The other guy hasn't provided anything and I'm pretty sure he's aware of all of this and could do it anytime.

Um no all this is still in question which talking to the company would clear up:

X8Azazel8X posted...

Show where I ever mentioned the lawyer was lying.

InfinityMonster posted...
It's not possible to book the same bike twice. We hear the bike dock in the video. You get a few minutes grace period in case if you undock a bad bike, you can dock it and and choose another.

They tried to confirm that actually and didn't get to.

InfinityMonster posted...
The guy could still have a receipt, and which is why they haven't revealed a timestamp to the public. In case this guy fabricates something and posts it on social media, which is unverifiable, but will definitely get idiots riled. His real receipt, if he has one, likely shows the timestamp after hers.

Again they tried to verify that and weren't able to with the company so until they can we don't know. We also haven't heard from the guy either.

They locked it back in the station as you said...and you have to pay or reserve it again to unlock it I assume, strange to do if they were just trying to take it from her it seems to me.

InfinityMonster posted...
Not sure what "she took the second bike without incident" means. Yeah, we saw her eventually give into 5 guys accosting her.

Meaning she reserved a bike instantly and took it right there. Not sure where the reserved it is coming from in her statement. You rent it instantly it seems.

InfinityMonster posted...

Also, it's not strange because it's obvious the guy didn't notice it get docked, which is why he refused when the other guy told him to just dock it and take it again. It would be a win-win, but he refused. If it's hers, he gets it. If it's his, he still gets it. But he refused because he probably wanted a free ride on her dime.

Reserving means paying for the bike on the app.

It's obvious in your opinion. They locked it back in place clearly and then refused to let her have it beyond that. And again probably is not confirming.

I'm not sure why you double responded to the same posts again especially when the response completely ignored most of my last post.

Once it was docked, it was nobody's. So the guy refusing to to dock it again is, yes, extremely weird. It wasn't hers or his at that point. So why not actually claim it for himself?

InfinityMonster posted...

I'm not sure why you double responded to the same posts again especially when the response completely ignored most of my last post.

You seem to have a problem reading then. I reposted the part where I talked about the lawyer and asked you to point out where i said he was lying.....becauae that isn't what i posted... implying...ltterally...or otherwise.

InfinityMonster posted...

Once it was docked, it was nobody's. So the guy refusing to to dock it again is, yes, extremely weird. It wasn't hers or his at that point. So why not actually claim it for himself?

Well considering your evaluation of my posts I don't find your opinions and evaluations of his actions in the situation credible....verifying with the company is though.

There is zero reason to question the receipts. Period.

That's all there is to say about this. There is zero proof from the other side. When they provide anything credible, I will be glad to change my tune to reflect that.

Otherwise, there's no reason to assume some a 6 months pregnant woman coming off a 12 hour shift in fucking Manhattan tried to take a bike from 5 grown ass teens. I was born and raised here and know how shitty teens can be because I saw it all firsthand.

InfinityMonster posted...

There is zero reason to question the receipts. Period.

That's all there is to say about this. There is zero proof from the other side. When they provide anything credible, I will be glad to change my tune to reflect that.

Otherwise, there's no reason to assume some a 6 months pregnant woman coming off a 12 hour shift in fucking Manhattan tried to take a bike from 5 grown ass teens. I was born and raised here and know how shitty teens can be because I saw it all firsthand.

So basically you are saying you are biased from your experiences and refuse to wait for confirmation from the company to clear up the other questions forming your judgement with out all the facts.

X8Azazel8X posted...

So basically you are saying you are biased from your experiences and refuse to wait for confirmation from the company to clear up the other questions forming your judgement with out all the facts.

No, I'm saying I'm open to being proven wrong, but so far the evidence shows I will not. Citi will probably not confirm, but I'm confident that the lawyer is not BSing and if they do confirm, it will be in line with the lawyer said.

I'm always open to being wrong because you never know. But so far, nothing shows I will actually be proven wrong, so the point is irrelevant. You can still be open to all this and be pretty confident in something.

InfinityMonster posted...

No, I'm saying I'm open to being proven wrong, but so far the evidence shows I will not. Citi will probably not confirm, but I'm confident that the lawyer is not BSing and if they do confirm, it will be in line with the lawyer said.

I'm always open to being wrong because you never know. But so far, nothing shows I will actually be proven wrong, so the point is irrelevant. You can still be open to all this and be pretty confident in something.

Eh this says differently:

InfinityMonster posted...

I was born and raised here and know how shitty teens can be because I saw it all firsthand.

And yes again I reserve judgement until they can further verify all this with the company than resting on your assumptions.

I'm not sure why you double responded earlier then edited it, which I just saw, and then tried to pin it on my reading comprehension.

You clearly repeated the same response in the original post before the edit.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/2/0/AAebl6AAEfxg.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/2/1/AAebl6AAEfxh.jpg
Two different posts.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Eh this says differently:

And yes again I reserve judgement until they can further verify all this with the company than resting on your assumptions.

You can reserve judgement all you like. What me and others are saying is that it's extremely unlikely given the evidence and that you're holding your breath.

X8Azazel8X posted...

So basically you are saying you are biased from your experiences and refuse to wait for confirmation from the company to clear up the other questions forming your judgement with out all the facts.

What other questions? The only thing in doubt is whether the man had reserved the citibike at some point before the woman he tried to prevent from taking it reserved it. The receipt alone is all the proof we need that the woman had properly reserved the bike and was not stealing it.

And given how the docking mechanisms work, it's extremely suspicious that the man refused to dock the bike when the woman insisted she had paid for it. Perhaps he was ignorant of how it works and he really had reserved the bike before someone docked it making it anyone's bike, but it's not looking good for him currently and he's undeniably in the wrong.

InfinityMonster posted...

I'm not sure why you double responded earlier then edited it, which I just saw, and then tried to pin it on my reading comprehension.

You clearly repeated the same response in the original post before the edit.

Two different posts.

The only thing I edited is closing the quote on the part you weren't even talking about. I clearly put this is all in question right before that which did not change:

X8Azazel8X posted...

Um no all this is still in question which talking to the company would clear up:

InfinityMonster posted...

You can reserve judgement all you like. What me and others are saying is that it's extremely unlikely given the evidence and that you're holding your breath.

Them confirming with the company is important factually. Whether you or others think otherwise or not.

videospirit posted...

What other questions? The only thing in doubt is whether the man had reserved the citibike at some point before the woman he tried to prevent from taking it reserved it. The receipt alone is all the proof we need that the woman had properly reserved the bike and was not stealing it.

All this is still in question:

X8Azazel8X posted...

InfinityMonster posted...
It's not possible to book the same bike twice. We hear the bike dock in the video. You get a few minutes grace period in case if you undock a bad bike, you can dock it and and choose another.

They tried to confirm that actually and didn't get to.

InfinityMonster posted...
The guy could still have a receipt, and which is why they haven't revealed a timestamp to the public. In case this guy fabricates something and posts it on social media, which is unverifiable, but will definitely get idiots riled. His real receipt, if he has one, likely shows the timestamp after hers.

Again they tried to verify that and weren't able to with the company so until they can we don't know. We also haven't heard from the guy either.

They locked it back in the station as you said...and you have to pay or reserve it again to unlock it I assume, strange to do if they were just trying to take it from her it seems to me.

InfinityMonster posted...
Not sure what "she took the second bike without incident" means. Yeah, we saw her eventually give into 5 guys accosting her.

Meaning she reserved a bike instantly and took it right there. Not sure where the reserved it is coming from in her statement. You rent it instantly it seems.

videospirit posted...

And given how the docking mechanisms work, it's extremely suspicious that the man refused to dock the bike when the woman insisted she had paid for it. Perhaps he was ignorant of how it works and he really had reserved the bike before someone docked it making it anyone's bike, but it's not looking good for him currently and he's undeniably in the wrong.

They pushed it back into the dock and locked. She took his cell phone from him for no reason and he asked for it back after she yells help. The man then says why not reset it and choose another bike. He says he isn't resetting it because its his. Far from he refused to dock it and as I said earlier:

X8Azazel8X posted...

Again they tried to verify that and weren't able to with the company so until they can we don't know. We also haven't heard from the guy either.

They locked it back in the station as you said...and you have to pay or reserve it again to unlock it I assume, strange to do if they were just trying to take it from her it seems to me.

X8Azazel8X posted...

The only thing I edited is closing the quote on the part you weren't even talking about. I clearly put this is all in question right before that which did not change:

So the original did make it like you repeated yourself? Not really my problem.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Them confirming with the company is important factually. Whether you or others think otherwise or not.

Sure, only if you assume the lawyer is lying to ruin his career.

X8Azazel8X posted...

All this is still in question:

Nope. I explained all that already.

X8Azazel8X posted...

They pushed it back into the dock and locked. She took his cell phone from him for no reason and he asked for it back after she yells help. The man then says why not reset it and choose another bike. He says he isn't resetting it because its his. Far from he refused to dock it and as I said earlier:

You reset it by docking it. It had already been docked. So why the fuck was he refusing?

InfinityMonster posted...

So the original did make it like you repeated yourself? Not really my problem.

I reposted not repeated. I reposted asking you where in my post I implied, literally said, or anything close that the lawyer is lying.

From you crickets and pretense of not understanding the difference between repeating and reposting it.

You have yet to show where I said anything about the lawyer lying which you are desperate to bury....but have not found it like you claim.

InfinityMonster posted...

Sure, only if you assume the lawyer is lying to ruin his career.

Sure....in your opnion. But confirming witht he company would answer wether there were other recepts of the bike, how the bike works in reseting it such as your point of some kind of grace period where you can choose another bike. among other things I never saw mentioned in articles.

InfinityMonster posted...

Nope. I explained all that already.

No you didn't because they tried to ask the company and they didn't get a response. Your opinions are not facts.

InfinityMonster posted...

You reset it by docking it. It had already been docked. So why the fuck was he refusing?

The man asked him why not reset it? Maybe the man was confused and didn't know its reset by docking it not in how you pay/rent it? Maybe they didn't know or were confused about alot of things.

Maybe is not a fact though and verifying it with the company would clear that up.

X8Azazel8X posted...

I reposted not repeated. I reposted asking you where in my post I implied leterally said or anything close that the lawyer is lying.

From you crickets and pretense of not understanding the difference between repeating and reposting it.

You have yet to show where I said anything about the lawtyer lying which you are desperate to bury....but have not found it like you claim.

I don't know how they do it on the politics board, but over here, you use quotes and not just straight up repeat the reply.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Sure....in your opnion. But confirming witht he company would answer wether there were other recepts of the bike, how the bike works in reseting it such as your point of some kind of grace period where you can choose another bike. among other things I never saw mentioned in articles.

I've used these bikes myself. As I said, you're free to reserve judgements forever, but for now, it's pretty clear what happened and it's pretty safe to land on a conclusion, as opposed to the idiots who watched a video and landed immediately. By not believing the receipts, you are implying they're fake. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

X8Azazel8X posted...

The man asked him why not reset it? Maybe the man was confused and didn't know its reset by docking it not in how you pay/rent it? Maybe they didn't know or were confused about alot of things.

Maybe is not a fact though and verifying it with the company would clear that up.

You can speculate improbable shit endlessly. There is no other reset option or anything. It's reset by docking it and everybody that uses these bike knows this. The guy could have been confused, but there's nothing to support this thus far.

Edit: Older bikes do have the option to lock the bike if you think it's been taken, but the new grey ebikes don't.

InfinityMonster posted...

I don't know how they do it on the politics board, but over here, you use quotes and not just straight up repeat the reply.

Right....did you find where i said he was lying yet? No? Yes?

InfinityMonster posted...

I've used these bikes myself. As I said, you're free to reserve judgements forever, but for now, it's pretty clear what happened and it's pretty safe to land on a conclusion, as opposed to the idiots who watched a video and landed immediately. By not believing the receipts, you are implying they're fake. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Okay so there is a grace period then and just having a reciept doesn't seem to be enough to claim the bike if you can just choose another it seems to me.

Either way guess what clears up that confusion? Verifying with the company, your personal experience doesn't clear it up.

InfinityMonster posted...

You can speculate improbable shit endlessly. There is no other reset option or anything. It's reset by docking it and everybody that uses these bike knows this. The guy could have been confused, but there's nothing to support this thus far.

Right.....what ends speculation is verifying with the company.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Right....did you find where i said he was lying yet? No? Yes?

Not believing the receipts is implying he's lying. How many times do I have to repeat that?

X8Azazel8X posted...

Okay so there is a grace period then and just having a reciept doesn't seem to be enough to claim the bike if you can just choose another it seems to me.

Either way guess what clears up that confusion? Verifying with the company, your personal experience doesn't clear it up.

She has two receipts because it doesn't charge you for the first, so you can initiate another bike. It doesn't mean you're now free to take any bike, wtf.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Right.....what ends speculation is verifying with the company.

It's probably never going to happen unless the hospital or news outlets she's sues subpoena the records. So far, it's safe to say she got it first. You can continue thinking she might have been the aggressor, but the video alone is not enough to prove it. So unless the guy steps up, it's irrelevant and pretty much settled.

InfinityMonster posted...

Not believing the receipts is implying he's lying. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Okay where do I say "I don't believe the receipt"?

InfinityMonster posted...

She has two receipts because it doesn't charge you for the first, so you can initiate another bike. It doesn't mean you're now free to take any bike, wtf.

Wtf indeed. You said there was a grace period where you can just choose another bike.

InfinityMonster posted...

It's probably never going to happen unless the hospital or news outlets she's sues subpoena the records. So far, it's safe to say she got it first. You can continue thinking she might have been the aggressor, but the video alone is not enough to prove it. So unless the guy steps up, it's irrelevant and pretty much settled.

We don't know if its going to happen or not. Yes that would be what the lawyer would do in the lawsuit. Its a common occurrence.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Okay where do I say "I don't believe the receipt"?

The entire back and forth and insisting Citi has to confirm.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Wtf indeed. You said there was a grace period where you can just choose another bike.

Yes, and the receipt shows that the grace period results in a zero charge and if you read the articles, it says the second receipt shows her ride home. Don't be obtuse.

X8Azazel8X posted...

We don't know if its going to happen or not. Yes that would be what the lawyer would do in the lawsuit. Its a common occurrence.

Thus, till further evidence comes out to counter what's been shown so far, it's safe to say she had it first and got fucked by these guys.

If people can watch a video and assume a million things, the amount of actual evidence shown is more than enough for now to assume she was the victim.

InfinityMonster posted...

The entire back and forth and insisting Citi has to confirm.

Right....confirming the receipt is not believing the reciept. So you are assuming. Which is not a fact.

This is true everywhere.



InfinityMonster posted...

Yes, and the receipt shows that the grace period results in a zero charge and if you read the articles, it says the second receipt shows her ride home. Don't be obtuse.

Lol I'm being obtuse? Okay....joke posts?

What you describe doesn't seem to be how it works to me.

InfinityMonster posted...

Thus, till further evidence comes out to counter what's been shown so far, it's safe to say she had it first and got fucked by these guys.

If people can watch a video and assume a million things, the amount of actual evidence shown is more than enough for now to assume she was the victim.

Sure if you want to assume this. But actually verifying it with the company is wayyyy better.

X8Azazel8X posted...

What you describe doesn't seem to be how it works to me.

Please explain how it does work then.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Sure if you want to assume this. But actually verifying it with the company is wayyyy better.

Yes, you can't 100% rule in favor of one side or another.

I don't think you get what I'm saying though. So far, it's fine to believe the woman given the evidence. It's that simple.

If something else comes out, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong.

InfinityMonster posted...

Please explain how it does work then.

I don't know I would have to....confirm do with the company....not you.

InfinityMonster posted...

Yes, you can't 100% rule in favor of one side or another.

I don't think you get what I'm saying though. So far, it's fine to believe the woman given the evidence. It's that simple.

If something else comes out, I'll be glad to admit I was wrong.

Again in your opinion. Factually verifying with the company would actually and factually settle it.

X8Azazel8X posted...

I don't know I would have to....confirm do with the company....not you.

Why don't you explain why there would be a receipt with matching serial numbers. You're now going into conspiracy territory that she took that bike, docked it and then took another bike during the grace period, and then docked that too and then took a third bike to get a second receipt. Because if my explanation doesn't work, that's the only other one.

Now I get why the politics board was shut down. It must have been full of this type of pedantic circular BS.

InfinityMonster posted...

Why don't you explain why there would be a receipt with matching serial numbers. You're now going into conspiracy territory that she took that bike, docked it and then took another bike during the grace period, and then docked that too and then took a third bike to get a second receipt. Because if my explanation doesn't work, that's the only other one.

Now I get why the politics board was shut down. It must have been full of this type of pedantic circular BS.

I'm not doing anything. You said there is a grace period...and you have first hand knowledge. And you can choose another bike.

That isn't what the lawyer or any other article described.

What is in the article is they tried to verify with the company and couldn't so it's still up for questioning

I don't speak for whole boards and my behavior is not more indicative of yours representing the whole current events board. But again you seem to love to assume....ill post it again

X8Azazel8X posted...

Right....confirming the receipt isn't not believing the reciept. So you are assuming. Which is not a fact.

This is true everywhere.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Lol I'm being obtuse? Okay....joke posts?

What you describe doesn't seem to be how it works to me.

Yes, you take out a bike and it doesn't work or something and you dock it back quick, it results in a zero charge because that is the grace period.

Now that you weren't charged, you are free to start a new reservation. It's pretty basic. Also, some people have different memberships and are just not charged at all. It still doesn't explain two receipts.

I want you to explain how it would work otherwise and stop hiding behind "Citi has to confirm it". How would she end up with 2 receipts, with two different serial numbers, one with a $0 charge if she just piggybacked off the first?

The reason I'm bringing up the politics board is because I've been seeing tons of you guys going in these weird circular arguments that are stuck on some silly or pedantic point.

Like, I even relented that if something else comes out to counter the current evidence, I will admit I was wrong. Even said you're free to be skeptical. It's safe to always leave room for something else.

Yet you keep insisting it means nothing till Citi explicitly confirms. That's now how shit works. We can make educated and logical judgements till more information comes out.

Two dingbats fighting while everyone looks on baffled.

InfinityMonster posted...

Yes, you take out a bike and it doesn't work or something and you dock it back quick, it results in a zero charge because that is the grace period.

Now that you weren't charged, you are free to start a new reservation. It's pretty basic. Also, some people have different memberships and are just not charged at all. It still doesn't explain two receipts.

I want you to explain how it would work otherwise and stop hiding behind "Citi has to confirm it". How would she end up with 2 receipts, with two different serial numbers, one with a $0 charge if she just piggybacked off the first?

The reason I'm bringing up the politics board is because I've been seeing tons of you guys going in these weird circular arguments that are stuck on some silly or pedantic point.

Like, I even relented that if something else comes out to counter the current evidence, I will admit I was wrong. Even said you're free to be skeptical. It's safe to always leave room for something else.

Yet you keep insisting it means nothing till Citi explicitly confirms. That's now how shit works. We can make educated and logical judgements till more information comes out.

Dude you are done. I'm not going to continuously brow beat you over and over. Refer to the pasts posts for any further thought on this everything is hashed out as much as it's going to get.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Two dingbats fighting while everyone looks on baffled.

I wasn't trying to fight him. Just asking someone to explain their logic.

X8Azazel8X posted...

Dude you are done. I'm not going to continuously brow beat you over and over. Refer to the pasts posts for any further thought on this everything is hashed out as much as it's going to get.

You're still unable to explain what I've asked several times now. If you want to bow out because you're unable to explain it, just say so. Acting like you won the argument when you refuse to explain yourself is just embarrassing lol.

There's still no solid proof though, it could have been that the bike app glitched and both customers thought they had rented the bike

Her and her people are being shady as fuck.

Here is a good run down.

https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits/status/1660008601031770113

The twitter industry of judging people because they "overreact" to situations is unimaginably cancerous.

If she's in the right, knows she's in the right and a bunch of men come up to her, do whatever interaction happened before they started filming, whip out their camera phone, intentionally antagonize her, prevent her from leaving with her bike.

You don't have to think you'd have had the same reaction as her to not unreasonably say she's sus because she reacted "too harshly" to a minor altercation.

You don't know anything about her. Some people don't engage well with strangers forcefully coming

You also have no clue about the intents of the people filming.

If she was stealing their bike, which seems unlikely and always seemed unlikely, then she's obviously faking her reaction and she's the baddie.

If she wasn't stealing it insane overanalysis of her "response" to getting accosted makes you look like a sausage person.

cjsdowg posted...

Her and her people are being shady as fuck.

Here is a good run down.

https://twitter.com/Imposter_Edits/status/1660008601031770113

That thread is basically the Charlie meme, except Charlie at least goes outside and is from Philly. This is a bunch of people that have never been outside.

"Heavily redacted"

Yeah, this is "heavily redacted"

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/9/AAebl6AAEfy5.jpg

Also, no news outlets have claimed that what they actually saw was edited, even the timestamp. Just random people on Twitter

it turns out everyone is a piece of shit

VampireCoyote posted...

it turns out everyone is a piece of shit

Except for the victim, correct.

I don't understand why this is a big deal. Over... A rental bike? No one seemed like they were in any danger, either.

InfinityMonster posted...

That thread is basically the Charlie meme, except Charlie at least goes outside and is from Philly. This is a bunch of people that have never been outside.

"Heavily redacted"

Yeah, this is "heavily redacted"

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/0/9/AAebl6AAEfy5.jpg

Also, no news outlets have claimed that what they actually saw was edited, even the timestamp. Just random people on Twitter

Interesting. Maybe the news outlets can now sue HER

Sansoldier posted...

I don't understand why this is a big deal. Over... A rental bike? No one seemed like they were in any danger, either.

My understanding is that someone is bound to lose $1,200 if things weren't resolved properly.

BurmesePenguin posted...

Did people really assume she was a thief just because the people filming her said so?

I can understand why this was the initial reaction.

After encounters like BBQ Becky, the woman who wouldn't leash her dog and threatened a black guy who was birdwatching, and a call to 911 over a black "woman" who was an 8-yo girl spraying lantern flies, there's little expectation anymore of black people being allowed to exist in public without harassment by white people.

A lot of the benefit of the doubt has been eroded.

As a result, you can see how assumptions were made under similar circumstances.

St0rmFury posted...

My understanding is that someone is bound to lose $1,200 if things weren't resolved properly.

A white woman weaponized her tears against a black man who posed no danger to her. If there wasn't video there's a very good chance this man might be fucking dead right now.

MistyKnight posted...

A white woman weaponized her tears against a black man who posed no danger to her. If there wasn't video there's a very good chance this man might be fucking dead right now.

Meanwhile in real life, a group of teenagers accosted a pregnant woman knowing they could get lunatics online into a frenzy by weaponizing racism. And it worked because you require nothing other than someone approaching someone with a camera and accusing them of being a racist.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Meanwhile in real life, a group of teenagers accosted a pregnant woman knowing they could get lunatics online into a frenzy by weaponizing racism. And it worked because you require nothing other than someone approaching someone with a camera and accusing them of being a racist.

Except that wasn't what happened. At all.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Meanwhile in real life, a group of teenagers accosted a pregnant woman knowing they could get lunatics online into a frenzy by weaponizing racism. And it worked because you require nothing other than someone approaching someone with a camera and accusing them of being a racist.

Do we have the facts what you claim happened actually happened either?

To clarify, I'm asking do you have proof the group of teenagers didn't actually think it was their bike through a misunderstanding, ignorantly posted something online, and social media does what it always does, jumps on a side without learning ALL the facts. Not just the facts that paints a story one is comfortable hearing. Because the woman having a receipt presented later is not a smoking gun this was a fabricated publicity stunt from the teenagers.

Because you seem to be implying you have all the facts that this was a malicious event to cry wolf.

asdf8562 posted...

Do we have the facts what you claim happened actually happened either?

To clarify, I'm asking do you have proof the group of teenagers didn't actually think it was their bike through a misunderstanding, ignorantly posted something online, and social media does what it always does, jumps on a side without learning ALL the facts. Not just the facts that paints a story one is comfortable hearing. Because the woman having a receipt presented later is not a smoking gun this was a fabricated publicity stunt from the teenagers.

Because you seem to be implying you have all the facts that this was a malicious event to cry wolf.

I mean, the receipt is a smoking gun that the men were in the wrong.

There's some wiggle room for misunderstanding vs. intentional slander, but they objectively tried to weaponize public opinion against the woman as well.

Imagine virtue signaling so hard you justify the torment of a pregnant working mom.

VirtuousWrath posted...

Imagine virtue signaling so hard you justify the torment of a pregnant working mom.

Are you not viture signaling now?

ThePrinceFish posted...

Meanwhile in real life, a group of teenagers accosted a pregnant woman knowing they could get lunatics online into a frenzy by weaponizing racism. And it worked because you require nothing other than someone approaching someone with a camera and accusing them of being a racist.

It's almost like people in general suck and appeal to ancient evils they can leverage.

One side weaponizes historical racism.
The other side weaponizes historical racism too, in a different way (eg fake tears)

both sides are bad

The_shibe posted...

It's almost like people in general suck and appeal to ancient evils they can leverage.

One side weaponizes historical racism.
The other side weaponizes historical racism too, in a different way (eg fake tears)

both sides are bad

This is really disingenuous to post here. Leads a casual reader to think the woman was in the wrong too.

MistyKnight posted...

A white woman weaponized her tears against a black man who posed no danger to her. If there wasn't video there's a very good chance this man might be fucking dead right now.

Holy Hyperbole Batman!

Noones life was in danger, but that ladies bank account was about to be minus $1,200 because that guy was trying to steal a bike under her name. It's really that simple.

videospirit posted...

This is really disingenuous to post here. Leads a casual reader to think the woman was in the wrong too.

that's your take. I never said such a thing. Stop trying to pick a fight

The_shibe posted...

that's your take. I never said such a thing. Stop trying to pick a fight

No, by using vague terms like "both sides" you leave what you're talking about open to reader interpretation. What you said IS THE PROBLEM I was pointing out, not "what I'm saying you're saying."

And even just the fact you felt compelled to speak of a societal narrative in a topic about a specific incident is you placing the blame of the entire history of "Karens" or w/e the fuck it was you were actually talking about partially on the shoulders of the pregnant woman, just for being a member of the same demographic as the actual responsible parties.

So take your victim blaming nonsense elsewhere.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I mean, we haven't heard from the woman either. We heard from her Lawyer.

The men might not have one.