Should this "Karen" be locked up for falsely accusing an innocent Black?

[Rhea]

^^ This past behavior, along with her Soho incident tells me she's just a "bad seed". Which is why I tend get pretty annoyed when the race card comes out before we really know who she really is.

Wouldn’t a “bad seed” (I assume you mean a pugnacious person with entitlement issues) be quite likely to use prejudices, including racial prejudices in selecting victims? They would have a well developed sense of who they can get away with bullying and who they can’t.

”She wouldn’t even look your way if she thought you weren’t important or if you didn’t have money,” said the ex-student, Vannessa Stoerchle, now of Phoenix.

The former classmate seems to relay that SOHO Miya knew perfectly who would be the victim least likely to be supported by bystanders. Racism plugs squarely into that.

I would posit that “bad seeds” are MOST likely to use racism, ableism, homophobia as metrics to decide on victims.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

New details emerge about ‘Soho Karen’ Miya Ponsetto’s penchant for going berserk in hotels

I'd note, doing something stupid in another hotel lobby doesn't make it a penchant.

Emphasis added.

Seems to be very superficial when you see this but also in concert with all her Kardashian and Trump following on social media.

I think she was taught to be a narcissist.

There is a big difference between being a self-entitled snob and a narcissist. She could be one, but we don't have anywhere near the data required to say so. She is of money, therefore she matters.

 

[WAB]

^^ This past behavior, along with her Soho incident tells me she's just a "bad seed". Which is why I tend get pretty annoyed when the race card comes out before we really know who she really is.

Wouldn’t a “bad seed” (I assume you mean a pugnacious person with entitlement issues) be quite likely to use prejudices, including racial prejudices in selecting victims? They would have a well developed sense of who they can get away with bullying and who they can’t.

”She wouldn’t even look your way if she thought you weren’t important or if you didn’t have money,” said the ex-student, Vannessa Stoerchle, now of Phoenix.

The former classmate seems to relay that SOHO Miya knew perfectly who would be the victim least likely to be supported by bystanders. Racism plugs squarely into that.

I would posit that “bad seeds” are MOST likely to use racism, ableism, homophobia as metrics to decide on victims.

Rhea,

Sorry in advance if I am misreading you:

Are you suggesting that a person loses their phone, becomes panicked, then runs around looking for someone who might be carrying it, and THEN makes a calculated decision to attack a young black male, based (at least in part) on her racist feelings and beliefs?

I find that highly unlikely. Isn't it far more likely that the phone the kid had looked like hers, and that that was the main reason she assaulted him?

---

On a side note, to all: I find it sad that we live in a world where such an incident makes front page news, and worse, that a person's entire life and character are put in the spotlight, for the world to see, because of unproven suspicions and speculations of racist feelings and intentions.

The Orwellian dystopia is upon us. This is not a sign of progress. That technology and quickly transmitted information are used to identify wrongdoing and criminal activity is progress, I readily agree; but this specific incident - and it is only one of many, is disturbing.

I do agree that she was in the wrong and should probably face assault charges.

HOWEVER, because of this exposure, and because many will assume her actions were racially motivated, if she does jail time for this - and she very well might - then she stands a good chance of being attacked and beaten, maybe even killed. County jails can be just as dangerous as prisons.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

New details emerge about ‘Soho Karen’ Miya Ponsetto’s penchant for going berserk in hotels

I'd note, doing something stupid in another hotel lobby doesn't make it a penchant.

I agree and I think that the author of the article knows that but wants to relay that it happened more than once which one can see when they read the article. I find the assault on the police officer at a hotel to be relevant more interesting than this happened at a hotel, though. That's because assault on a cop is a felony. She hasn't had her court date yet. It will be Jan 21st and presumably we would know more at that time.

 

[Rhea]

Are you suggesting that a person loses their phone, becomes panicked, then runs around looking for someone who might be carrying it, and THEN makes a calculated decision to attack a young black male, based (at least in part) on her racist feelings and beliefs?

I find that highly unlikely. Isn't it far more likely that the phone the kid had looked like hers, and that that was the main reason she assaulted him?

No, nothing deliberate. What I mean is that there are some people who, when they lose their phone say, “Oh, crap where did I leave it now?” And some people who never assume the fault is their own and assume something was done TO them. Their instinct, not planned, is to look for who did something to them. Of those people, there are some who will blame anyone nearby, and there are some who will fall into creating a spectacle. And THOSE people tend to have an affinity for knowing who is a “sympathetic” target that will make them look bad (they HATE to look bad) and who is unlikely to have supporters and are low risk to draw into the drama. They don’t do this consciously, usually, they create their reality as they go. Those people are much more likely to subconsciously use stereotypes to judge whether those around them will aroue sympathy or apathy. They will choose in a split second based on that judgment.

On a side note, to all: I find it sad that we live in a world where such an incident makes front page news, and worse, that a person's entire life and character are put in the spotlight, for the world to see, because of unproven suspicions and speculations of racist feelings and intentions.

If you are only thinking of the feelings of the drama-instigator, and not the young teen whom she targeted in public putting HIS character in the spotlight, this is true.

My reaction was how terrible it is that she publicly impugned him, not how terrible it is that her public display resulted in her public rebuke.

HOWEVER, because of this exposure, and because many will assume her actions were racially motivated, if she does jail time for this - and she very well might - then she stands a good chance of being attacked and beaten, maybe even killed. County jails can be just as dangerous as prisons.

And because of her action, that boy was exposed to possible harm and death in a public altercation. I think it is useful to talk that through and make sure that people like her know the danger of behaving like she did. She may have caused harm to that boy.

 

[TomC]

It is not fair to attribute an extreme emotional outburst to drug use, especially among inexperienced youth.

Nothing to do with fairness. It's about plausible explanations for bizarrely antisocial behaviour.

I've got a brother-in-law who could easily do something similar. He's a self centered asshole who likes getting attention by acting out in public, then complaining about how "nobody understands him". I won't even go out to eat with him anymore. I doubt he's ever "used" beyond a glass of champagne at a wedding. But, yeah, he's a lot like this.

Around here, though, meth is a huge problem. People who exhibit this sort of behavior are commonly high.
Tom

 

[WAB]

No, nothing deliberate. What I mean is that there are some people who, when they lose their phone say, “Oh, crap where did I leave it now?” And some people who never assume the fault is their own and assume something was done TO them. Their instinct, not planned, is to look for who did something to them. Of those people, there are some who will blame anyone nearby, and there are some who will fall into creating a spectacle. And THOSE people tend to have an affinity for knowing who is a “sympathetic” target that will make them look bad (they HATE to look bad) and who is unlikely to have supporters and are low risk to draw into the drama. They don’t do this consciously, usually, they create their reality as they go. Those people are much more likely to subconsciously use stereotypes to judge whether those around them will aroue sympathy or apathy. They will choose in a split second based on that judgment.




If you are only thinking of the feelings of the drama-instigator, and not the young teen whom she targeted in public putting HIS character in the spotlight, this is true.

My reaction was how terrible it is that she publicly impugned him, not how terrible it is that her public display resulted in her public rebuke.

HOWEVER, because of this exposure, and because many will assume her actions were racially motivated, if she does jail time for this - and she very well might - then she stands a good chance of being attacked and beaten, maybe even killed. County jails can be just as dangerous as prisons.

And because of her action, that boy was exposed to possible harm and death in a public altercation. I think it is useful to talk that through and make sure that people like her know the danger of behaving like she did. She may have caused harm to that boy.

I have thought of the boy. In fact I wrote that the young woman probably should face assault charges. Let the authorities and the professionals take it from here. I hope the boy will not be scarred because of this. But that facts are: he's already world-famous, and for the immediate future multitudes of people will go out of their way to help him get through the problems he might face.

We are talking this through. I decided to explain what I think might be a better explanation for what happened, for the benefit of everyone, not just the young woman, or the young man.

May I ask, and please be aware that I make no assumptions about you:

Do you think that it would be better (for everyone, and for the victim) if no-one stood up to defend the young lady? If the entire world thought of her as a racist, that everyone believed they knew what her reasons were for her behavior?

In our justice system, accused people are allowed to be defended by an attorney, even at no cost to themselves, because that is the way things ought to be. We have these systems for reasons that are tried and true. Of course you know that, and I am not implying that you said anything to suggest otherwise. What I mean to say is: while an accused person ought to be defended, in any case, at the very least by an attorney, that in a case like this, which is not cut and dry, and wherein the bare facts do not as yet clearly indicate that the perpetrator acted out of feelings of racism (which could get her killed even in county jail), that the most prudent thing to do is give her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Mumbles]

Wouldn’t a “bad seed” (I assume you mean a pugnacious person with entitlement issues) be quite likely to use prejudices, including racial prejudices in selecting victims? They would have a well developed sense of who they can get away with bullying and who they can’t.



The former classmate seems to relay that SOHO Miya knew perfectly who would be the victim least likely to be supported by bystanders. Racism plugs squarely into that.

I would posit that “bad seeds” are MOST likely to use racism, ableism, homophobia as metrics to decide on victims.

Rhea,

Sorry in advance if I am misreading you:

Are you suggesting that a person loses their phone, becomes panicked, then runs around looking for someone who might be carrying it, and THEN makes a calculated decision to attack a young black male, based (at least in part) on her racist feelings and beliefs?

I find that highly unlikely. Isn't it far more likely that the phone the kid had looked like hers, and that that was the main reason she assaulted him?

Her demand that he take the case off his phone eliminates this possibility.

On a side note, to all: I find it sad that we live in a world where such an incident makes front page news, and worse, that a person's entire life and character are put in the spotlight, for the world to see, because of unproven suspicions and speculations of racist feelings and intentions.

I don't see why it's such a stretch that someone would immediately point to an obvious stereotype to attack someone who, apparently, they had never so much as seen before of grabbing something from their person. We're again left with the Magic Black Man (No, not the Magical Negro media trope) who simply summoned the phone from her, as well as a case from the same place as Jordan Davis' dissappearing shotgun or the vanished criminal tools Trayvon Martin had when Zimmerman killed him, I suppose.

The Orwellian dystopia is upon us. This is not a sign of progress. That technology and quickly transmitted information are used to identify wrongdoing and criminal activity is progress, I readily agree; but this specific incident - and it is only one of many, is disturbing.

People who accuse her of racism are...being reprogrammed by the state? No, people mean it in the usual way - she thinks of people as inherently worth less or more based on their race - in this case, inventing an impossible pickpocketing by a black teen due to her belief in stereotypes.

HOWEVER, because of this exposure, and because many will assume her actions were racially motivated, if she does jail time for this - and she very well might - then she stands a good chance of being attacked and beaten, maybe even killed. County jails can be just as dangerous as prisons.

Not too likely - but in any event, "don't fabricate reasons to attack kids based on stereotypes" is the lesson to be learned here.

 

[zorq]

Her demand that he take the case off his phone eliminates this possibility.

Wrong. You are perhaps presuming that the phones looked different and she anticipated that the phone would look more like her phone with the case removed. But I think it is just as likely that the phones looked identical with the cases on and that she was anticipating identifying some distinguishing characteristic that she remembers from her phone that is hidden behind the case. Perhaps her phone has a decorative sticker, a custom enclosure, a scratch or other distinctive damage that might have been hidden behind the case.

 

[zorq]

Showing a nutcase the phone risks her snatching it.

For most of the video, the "nutcase" had one protective father, one hotel clerk, and at least 12 feet of distance between herself and the phone she was interested in. The risk of her snatching the phone were minimal. The dad certainly didn't have a problem holding a phone up within arm's reach of her.

Besides, every single potential action carries risks. You can never eliminate risk entirely.

 

[WAB]

Her demand that he take the case off his phone eliminates this possibility.

On a side note, to all: I find it sad that we live in a world where such an incident makes front page news, and worse, that a person's entire life and character are put in the spotlight, for the world to see, because of unproven suspicions and speculations of racist feelings and intentions.

I don't see why it's such a stretch that someone would immediately point to an obvious stereotype to attack someone who, apparently, they had never so much as seen before of grabbing something from their person. We're again left with the Magic Black Man (No, not the Magical Negro media trope) who simply summoned the phone from her, as well as a case from the same place as Jordan Davis' dissappearing shotgun or the vanished criminal tools Trayvon Martin had when Zimmerman killed him, I suppose.

The Orwellian dystopia is upon us. This is not a sign of progress. That technology and quickly transmitted information are used to identify wrongdoing and criminal activity is progress, I readily agree; but this specific incident - and it is only one of many, is disturbing.

People who accuse her of racism are...being reprogrammed by the state? No, people mean it in the usual way - she thinks of people as inherently worth less or more based on their race - in this case, inventing an impossible pickpocketing by a black teen due to her belief in stereotypes.

HOWEVER, because of this exposure, and because many will assume her actions were racially motivated, if she does jail time for this - and she very well might - then she stands a good chance of being attacked and beaten, maybe even killed. County jails can be just as dangerous as prisons.

Not too likely - but in any event, "don't fabricate reasons to attack kids based on stereotypes" is the lesson to be learned here.

That is the lesson you would like to be learned, and me too actually, since it's a good one.

But the reason I entered the thread is to make an argument for cool-headedness and reason, and to make cautionary remarks.

You asked above: "People who accuse her of racism are...being reprogrammed by the state?"

No, not necessarily. And anyway, I didn't say that, did I? Admit that I didn't. Nah, you won't.

The Orwellian state was upon us long before this incident. It's been getting worse and worse. But since you asked, I believe people are being, at least in some sense and to some degree, programmed. It has always been the case (religion programs, grooms, manipulates people), but technology has made it more widespread, and easier, and has made myriads of people much more vulnerable to groupthink then ever before.

You also wrote: "she thinks of people as inherently worth less or more based on their race". Now explain how you know that. Sure, some idiots think that way. I say fuck 'em all. But how do you know this young woman believes that?

 

[Playball40]

Yes, she should be charged with assault. If a young black male teenager attacked HER the way she attacked him, he would have been immediately arrested.

 

[ZiprHead]

Her demand that he take the case off his phone eliminates this possibility.

The kid just happened to be carrying an empty phone case that matches up with her phone model.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where did I say we really know who she is?

The part where you called her a 'bad seed.'

Who someone is is not merely what their name, address, SS# are.

We think we know who someone is by a single incident, filled in by someone who knew her in high school?

I can tell you for certain that if you polled my high school, among those who knew me back then or 'knew me' you'd get a vastly different take on who I was/what kind of person I was. Mostly you'd get Who??????

You're missing the fact that he's basing that "bad seed" on more than just this one incident.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Showing a nutcase the phone risks her snatching it.

For most of the video, the "nutcase" had one protective father, one hotel clerk, and at least 12 feet of distance between herself and the phone she was interested in. The risk of her snatching the phone were minimal. The dad certainly didn't have a problem holding a phone up within arm's reach of her.

Besides, every single potential action carries risks. You can never eliminate risk entirely.

There wasn't a problem as the situation stood. Showing her the phone requires getting close and thus removes those protections, though.

 

[zorq]

There wasn't a problem as the situation stood. Showing her the phone requires getting close and thus removes those protections, though.

No, it doesn't. We don't know what kind of distinguishing aspect she was looking for.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There wasn't a problem as the situation stood. Showing her the phone requires getting close and thus removes those protections, though.

No, it doesn't. We don't know what kind of distinguishing aspect she was looking for.

You assume that he approached it with a premise she was acting in earnest. Reacall this is a person lying about him or at a minimum acting irrationally. He cannot infer such person is definitely and merely looking for a phone pattern with information he has. He already complied by showing his phone. She is a person who had designer phone cases on her social media before it started getting scrubbed. So she has a designer phone case and believes he altered the phone including the case at a minimum. She may very well next demand to see the contents of the phone or she may be a scammer who gets the phone and runs. She also hasn't argued reasonably to anyone it was her phone. She didn't describe her own phone so the hotel manager had an onjective way to test phones as hers. She just asserted her self and constant status into the situation. Now do this...now do that based on her believability without evidence or even data.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Miya and her mother refused to leave a hotel while publicly drunk previously. Now additionally we have more info on subsequent crimes.

But, THE DAY AFTER Miya was charged, cops spotted her in Malibu driving erratically and pulled her over.

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ ... Miya copped to being in an altered state, saying she had taken a Xanax and had some wine. Cops asked her to step out of her Range Rover, and that's when the craziness began.

We're told when she got out, cops said they wanted to perform a field sobriety test, which she flat out refused and cops say she was downright belligerent. Our sources say cops tried slapping handcuffs on her, but she resisted and they then took her to the ground.

At that point, cops say Miya threw a tantrum, kicking the ground, thrashing her body and even knocking her head on the pavement.

As we reported, she was taken to jail and booked for DUI. She pled no contest and received 3 years probation, 30 hours of community service and she's required to take a 9-month alcohol/drug counseling program.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/04/soho-karen-miya-ponsetto-busted-dui-may-uncooperative/

Emphasis added.

Previously I wrote she should be in a program. Apparently, she's already in one.

I don't know if she can ever be rehabilitated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

TMZ obtained court records of Ponsetto's DUI arrest from October 3 in Ventura County -- she was charged with DUI, resisting arrest and obstructing or delaying a peace officer or EMT.

She's entered a not guilty plea for that arrest, but the details sound eerily similar to her previous DUI bust. As we first reported, Ponsetto was stopped on May 28 in Malibu and law enforcement sources told us she went wild on cops during the arrest.

Now, on September 28, she ended up pleading no contest, and a judge gave her 3 years probation ... the terms of which call for her to stay out of further legal trouble. So, getting arrested just 5 days later for a 2nd DUI is a serious problem for her.

According to court records, a letter of a possible probation violation has already been sent to L.A. County where she's on probation. It'll be up to the D.A.'s Office and a judge, but Ponsetto's now looking at the possibility of doing time for the violation.

She's due back in court Jan. 28, for the 2nd DUI. She also has a pretrial hearing that same day for a drunk in public arrest from last February in Bev Hills -- and of course, NYPD still wants to talk to her about the iPhone incident.

https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/04/soho-karen-miya-ponsetto-dui-arrest-probation-hard-time-prison/

 

[zorq]

There wasn't a problem as the situation stood. Showing her the phone requires getting close and thus removes those protections, though.

No, it doesn't. We don't know what kind of distinguishing aspect she was looking for.

You assume that he approached it with a premise she was acting in earnest. Reacall this is a person lying about him or at a minimum acting irrationally.

An accusation of a suspected misdeed isn't a "lie" and neither is it an irrational act if she has reasons that inform her suspicion. The dad doesn't know her reasons, and we don't either. We can't evaluate the rationality of a stranger's behavior until we understand the foundations of their motivations.

He cannot infer such person is definitely and merely looking for a phone pattern with information he has. He already complied by showing his phone.

What are you talking about? When a person insists they want to see the phone uncovered it is easy to infer that this person wants to SEE THE PHONE UNCOVERED. Because we can not easily determine the reasons for the behavior of strangers, it is both magnanimous and practical to play the odds and give them the benefit of the doubt.

She is a person who had designer phone cases on her social media before it started getting scrubbed. So she has a designer phone case and believes he altered the phone including the case at a minimum.

It's you making assumptions now. You don't know what she was looking for on the phone. You don't know what her phone looked like on the day in question. You don't even know if the kid had a "designer phone case" on his phone too.

She may very well next demand to see the contents of the phone or she may be a scammer who gets the phone and runs. She also hasn't argued reasonably to anyone it was her phone. She didn't describe her own phone so the hotel manager had an onjective way to test phones as hers. She just asserted her self and constant status into the situation. Now do this...now do that based on her believability without evidence or even data.

Showing her the phone was easy fast and safe. When she starts making demands that are not fast easy and safe, I don't recommend complying without further consideration of the details.