Wrong "Store" Shooting

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

That's the only conclusion I cab reach from the information available. If the bike is docked it's available, I assume. It was docked for 6 mins...

Not that this was claimed, but I can come up with a plausible scenario that fits the facts:

Guy rented this bike. Maybe it's a particularly nice/newer one. He sees some buddies and docks it to stop the meter while he talks with them, with his hands still on the bike he was riding, as he expects to continue riding in a few minutes (thus saving a couple rental bucks).

Nurse sees the docked bike that is newer/nicer than the others available and wants it to ride home. She's pregnant and tired, so wants the most comfortable ride. She thinks the guy is just casually leaning on it, not securing it.

The guy feels like she is ripping it out of his hands, and objects. She feels like he is being an entitled jerk, blocking off a bike without paying. And the rest of the story plays out with each spinning their version in their favor.

I'd bet that's damn close to what happened.

[Thermal]

Seems that NYC just rolled out a new fleet of 1500 higher performance E-bikes this month, with the older model still in circulation. Anyone taking bets on the bike in question being one of the new ones, which is why the guy was trying to hold on to it and the nurse wanting that one above the others on the rack?

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a3994...nyc-bikeshare/

[sackett]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Understand? What are you talking about? I understand the issue perfectly from a non US perspective. One side loves them guns and will do nothing to change things, one side hates them guns and will do nothing to change things but jaw. Somewhere in the middle is a bunch of people who seem to think they have the answer but prefer to do nothing of any substance while chastising both sides.

I'm waiting on you demonstrating your understanding and putting together a cogent and incisive response to any of Bogatives attempts to explain how to deal with the issue of gun control in the US. I'm waiting on you showing me how you put him in his place with laser guided reason and fact, free of emotive response.

I'll not hold my breath but I'm here....... waiting.

While I wait, what, demonstrable, real world, positive steps have you actually taken to attempt, in some small way, to help resolve the issue of too many guns in the hands of too many of the wrong people in the US?

And there, by god, is a full-throated response, pointed (if in the wrong direction), coherent (though uncomprehending), and fearless (even if there's nothing to be afraid of). I like it.

Hey, Bogative, bluesjnr has showed us his tits. When can't you?

Thank you for your reply, blues. I mean that.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not that this was claimed, but I can come up with a plausible scenario that fits the facts:

Guy rented this bike. Maybe it's a particularly nice/newer one. He sees some buddies and docks it to stop the meter while he talks with them, with his hands still on the bike he was riding, as he expects to continue riding in a few minutes (thus saving a couple rental bucks).

Nurse sees the docked bike that is newer/nicer than the others available and wants it to ride home. She's pregnant and tired, so wants the most comfortable ride. She thinks the guy is just casually leaning on it, not securing it.

The guy feels like she is ripping it out of his hands, and objects. She feels like he is being an entitled jerk, blocking off a bike without paying. And the rest of the story plays out with each spinning their version in their favor.

I'd bet that's damn close to what happened.

Should be easy enough to prove, but I have a hunch we won't see it.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Read this, very last, part of Thermals post;

"The guys who started the **** storm, despite being clearly visible in the video, continue to enjoy complete anonymity".

... and tell me why you opted to completely ignore the fact that my reply was obviously to that sentence and, instead, misrepresented my post to put your moral compass on a pedestal. You then doubled down and denigrated me with a made up fantasy of my motivation.

You know what would have made that clear? Quoting that sentence alone, or at the very least highlighting it. Otherwise we've just got you quoting the entire post, including the part about the woman, and now her husband, being publicly identified and receiving threats. That's a pretty major theme in that post, if not the actual focus of it. So what, linguistically, do you think makes it obvious that it was that final sentence to which you were responding?

Quote:

Y'know, right up until that moment I was impressed by your responses to Bogative in this thread. They seemed the most balanced and well thought out readings and certainly provoked some thought.

Then you stoop to this vituperative nonsense. You calling me smug after writing that is laughable.

Back to my insistence that many members here are happy that the perpetrators remain anonymous. I'm happy with my assessment, it comes from reading the many, many threads on matters of colour and the disparity between POC and whites. It comes from the tenor of discourse. You might not identify as one of those I disparage and that's completely fine by me.

Fine. Show me many posts where you think members of this forum have taken delight in someone getting away with unfairly turning a woman into a trendy media piñata, resulting in her family receiving death threats.

And your indignation might not ring so hollowly if you hadn't already denigrated other members of this forum by claiming that they were taking delight in the situation. The fact that you haven't pointed to any posts by people either taking delight in the woman's misfortune, or taking delight in the person responsible for it remaining anonymous would seem to prove my original point.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

You know what would have a the made that clear?

Yes, you not falling over yourself.

Quote:

Show me many posts where you think members of this forum have taken delight in someone getting away with unfairly turning a woman into a trendy media piñata, resulting in her family receiving death threats.

Still not a claim I've made despite your repeated insistence to the contrary, even after I've cleared things up for you.

Quote:

And your indignation might not ring so hollowly if you hadn't already denigrated other members of this forum by claiming that they were taking delight in the situation.

Where did I do that? I've claimed that many members may be happy that the boys remain anonymous, that's it. To claim any more beyond that is frankly.... mental

Quote:

The fact that you haven't pointed to any posts by people either taking delight in the woman's misfortune, or taking delight in the person responsible for it remaining anonymous would seem to prove my original point.

I never claimed..... look mate, I've explained this three times now. Jog on and flaunt your morality in somebody else's face.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Bogative

So I went back and read all of my posts in this thread I have come to the conclusion you are completely full of ****. At no time have I implied that whites are more likely to be assaulted by blacks than they are whites.

I believe you were unaware of the disparity between interracial violence between blacks and whites and your knee-jerk reaction was to call me out because you thought I was lying. When I posted the actual numbers (instead of what I had misremembered), you tried to shift the argument from interracial violence to intra-racial violence. That's not what I was discussing then and it's not what I'm discussing now as much as you would like to shift the discussion away from interracial violence.

You can flail and flounder all you like but the fact is that 87% of interracial violence is black on white.

Oh come off it. All you do is try to shift the discussion to "black culture/culture of violence", which you use like they're interchangeable. Even this thread, as made clear by its parody title, is a response to a thread started discussing another issue of which the first example happened to be about a panicky white man shooting a black teenager who knocked on his door by mistake. Apparently you felt that this needed to be countered by an anecdote about a black person murdering a white person. Hell, even your avatar is a racist caricature.

I'm by no means the only person who has seen this and called you out on it. You keep trying to walk people up to the edge of the line of calling black people more intrinsically violent than other ethnic groups without actually crossing yourself. But you sure motion your hand invitingly for them to step over it themselves.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Still not a claim I've made despite your repeated insistence to the contrary, even after I've cleared things up for you.

Yes, you did.

I said:

Quote:

Show me many posts where you think members of this forum have taken delight in someone getting away with unfairly turning a woman into a trendy media piñata, resulting in her family receiving death threats.

And you said:

Quote:

Back to my insistence that many members here are happy that the perpetrators remain anonymous. I'm happy with my assessment...

Quote:

Where did I do that?

Post #177.

Quote:

I've claimed that many members may be happy that the boys remain anonymous, that's it. To claim any more beyond that is frankly.... mental

That's exactly what you just insisted you didn't say. You do understand that "remaining anonymous" and "getting away with" mean the same thing in this context, yes?

Quote:

I never claimed..... look mate, I've explained this three times now. Jog on and flaunt your morality in somebody else's face.

But you did claim. Your real problem seems to be that I asked you to back claim up with some evidence, and you can't do that. Your snarky quip about "many" members of this forum was just empty words.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

One side loves them guns and will do nothing to change things, one side hates them guns and will do nothing to change things but jaw. Somewhere in the middle is a bunch of people who seem to think they have the answer but prefer to do nothing of any substance while chastising both sides.

I don't think you understand the reality of the situation at all.

There is definitely a far right element that loves guns and wants nothing to change regarding gun laws. That's because having (other people's) children gunned down in their schools is just a price they're willing to pay to have completely unregulated access to all manner of firearms, even ones designed specifically for killing people on masse. Sometimes they'll try to mask their callousness by offering "alternative" solutions like "y'all just need Jesus". But they are unwilling to consider stopping the sale of military weapons because they want them more than they want to protect children and shoppers and concert attendees and church goers etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... And they don't even want to consider having serious background checks for the purchase of other firearms because "mah freedoms!".

The "middle" that you describe, which includes many gun owners and law enforcement officers, would very much like to do more than talk about solutions. They'd like to see tighter controls implemented on who can purchase firearms, and many of them would like to see a ban on the sale of military style rifles like AR-15s, because they serve no legitimate function other than to shoot as many people as possible in the shortest time with the greatest lethality. They're as ridiculous as owning a 20 mm auto cannon or a MANPADS. But the problem is that they can't do anything about it, because too many politicians refuse to do anything about it. This is because the gun manufacturing industry has turned the NRA into its political lobby, using it to make clear to any politician who even thinks about enacting any reasonable controls that they will put all their considerable resources toward ending that politician's career with a concentrated smear campaign.

Quote:

I'm waiting on you demonstrating your understanding and putting together a cogent and incisive response to any of Bogatives attempts to explain how to deal with the issue of gun control in the US. I'm waiting on you showing me how you put him in his place with laser guided reason and fact, free of emotive response.

Has Bogative actually done that? Maybe I missed it, but could you point to these attempts of his to explain how to deal with gun violence?

Quote:

While I wait, what, demonstrable, real world, positive steps have you actually taken to attempt, in some small way, to help resolve the issue of too many guns in the hands of too many of the wrong people in the US?

I'll bet, like so many others, he's voted for candidates who support better (or any) gun control measures. But there's only so much people can do when the firearms industry has control of a ruling party whose only solution is more thoughts and prayers.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Thermal

And the Citi Bike Karen saga continues to get weirder:

Now the sister of the guy who restrained CBKaren has produced receipts, too. The guy was riding that bike seconds earlier, and apparently planned to continue using that bike. He had his hands still on it when the nurse hopped on and commandeered it.

This is unconfirmed, but explains the calm demeanor of the guy repeatedly saying it was his bike. It does not explain why she would go up to this one bike when there were others available, and mount it and secure it on her app while the guy stood there holding the handlebars. No solid proof yet, but seems a brazen claim to make up out of the blue.

https://www.tiktok.com/@tizzyent/vid...70046410870059

ETA: Cliff Notes version: she says her brother's app receipts show that he had the bike for like a half hour, and docked it at 7:19 (note- she goes far out of her way to make sure the app is not clearly readable, jerking the camera around and superimposing other images over it). The nurse starts her ride at 7:25. So the guy clocks out on the bike, but thinks he still claims it although he is not riding it or paying for its rental? He's just standing there not allowing anyone else to use the bike, but not paying for it?

Yeah, that doesn't sound very convincing.

The sad thing is that this whole event should be such a non-event. Even if one side was clearly wrong, no one got hurt, or even said anything particularly inflammatory. Such interactions must happen at least a thousand times a day in NYC.

But even if it could be proved that the woman was wrong, what's happened to her has been completely unwarranted and utterly appalling.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Yes, you did.

No, I didn't and any claim otherwise is bogus.

Quote:

You do understand that "remaining anonymous" and "getting away with" mean the same thing in this context, yes?

No they don't. They mean exactly what they say.

Quote:

But you did claim. Your real problem seems to be that I asked you to back claim up with some evidence, and you can't do that. Your snarky quip about "many" members of this forum was just empty words.

I can't help you, I'm not gonna explain it for the 4th time.

It would be excusable if you were simply misreading things but given the multiple explanations, your insistence on inventing a position I haven't stated just feeds my earlier mention of the, "tenor of discourse".

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I don't think you understand the reality of the situation at all.

Funny you say that because you then go to on and elaborate on my three salient points and seem to, largely, agree.

Quote:

Has Bogative actually done that? Maybe I missed it, but could you point to these attempts of his to explain how to deal with gun violence?

You haven't missed it. What I'm doing though, is addressing and hoping to elicit some guidance from sackett who is giving me the impression that he has the answers and is just waiting for bogative to slip up. That and shout RACIST!!1!1!.

Oh, and something else about my tits?

Quote:

I'll bet, like so many others, he's voted for candidates who support better (or any) gun control measures.

I couldn't say but that doesn't sound like a bad thing. You agree?

Quote:

But there's only so much people can do when the firearms industry has control of a ruling party whose only solution is more thoughts and prayers.

Lobby, protest, use the democratic process to enforce change, hold meetings, hand out leaflets, support sympathetic candidates locally, state wide and nationally. Make SOME KIND OF FIRST STEP.........

...................... or sit on the internet and sneer and tut at people.

This, "we can't change things", mantra is old. See here.

[Thermal]

CBK keeps dishing out the hits:

Now the guy's mother has piped up to NewsOne. Under the continuing cloak of anonymity her family enjoys, she complains that no one is seeking her sons side of the story. I guess the absurdity of deliberately hiding his identity and him not being interviewed is lost on her.

So she ponies up his bike app receipts for the night. Seems he was riding that e-bike for over 5 hours and was charged only 37 cents. The what's this now, you ask? Here's how the hustle works:

There are two kinds of bike, classic and E-bikes. Joining the appy thingy for $5 /month, you get your first 45minutes of ride time free on a classic bike, but you get charged additionally for E-bikes usage. Here's the scam- if no classic bikes are available where you dock, you get that first 45 minutes free on the E-bike. So what kids with nothing better to do get into, is riding for 40 or so mins, then finding a dock with no classic bikes, dock your e-bike for a few minutes (or till the classic bikes clear out), then you get another 45 mins of free e-bike time.

So that's what this guy appears to have been doing: commandeering the bike for all evening and into the night riding without paying, by basically guarding the bike he "claimed" and not letting anyone else on it although he wasn't paying for the rental, and wasn't even going anywhere in particular. The pregnant nurse just kind of didn't want to have to pedal home (the bike she eventually took home was a classic bike).

https://newsone.com/4592993/sarah-ja...er-speaks-out/

[Thermal]

For those continuing to give a **** about the Ongoing Saga of Citi Bike Karen:

The nurse has a GoFundMe collecting around $140,000 in USD. But the guy has started his own GoFundMe for the legal costs and representation that he continues not to incur. Right now rolling around $90,000. Keep in mind: even with the GFM, he has not released his or his family's name, and to top it off, the GFM proudly states that any jingle not used for legal expense (which continue not to exist) will go as cash to the family...just because. Not to a charity or anything. Just continuing to lap up the freebies.

I mean, come on. This nurse and her husband are still receiving death threats. She is still on unpaid leave from being a goddamned nurse all because this entitled little prick literally muscled her off a bike he was not renting, forcing the pregnant nurse to pedal home, because his punk ass wanted to cruise around aimlessly for free. It's ******* disgusting.

Has he or his anonymous spokespeople come clean and admitted he was not renting the bike yet? Amazingly, they have. The mother literally says he was in the right to deny anyone else use of the bike he was not renting. She literally says her "baby" had the right to shove the nurse's bike back into the dock and intimidate her into pedaling her pregnant ass home because he wanted to cruise around without paying.

I hope the nurse sues both him, Crump, and anyone else who has slandered and libeled her into the ******* poorhouse. But I guess it will be hard to sue him while he remains under his comfy cloak of anonymity. Well, she has the death threats to keep her busy, I suppose.