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

[TSwizzle]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Mr Keyon responded with information, rather than violence. Kudos to him.
If he'd punched the attacker I'd think he responded badly. A little. But he didn't. She attacked his kid, he didn't respond with violence, he did very well here.

Under very trying circumstances.
If a guy punches out an attacker so hard they wind up in the hospital I'd totally get it. She was the perp and he was protecting his child. Sorry if he didn't do it perfectly, but neither would I. He didn't have the clarity of hindsight to guide him when some bitch attacked his kid.

"some bitch" ? Very telling.

 

[TSwizzle]

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on Monday said the viral incident in which a woman falsely accused a black 14-year-old boy of stealing her cellphone was “Racism. Plain and simple.” The mayor’s comments came as Manhattan prosecutors said they were “thoroughly investigating” the disturbing Saturday encounter at the Arlo Hotel in SoHo.

Meanwhile a totally not disturbing encounter on Fifth Ave;

An SUV driver and his mother say they thought they were going to be killed after a gang of teenagers surrounded their car and began smashing it up in New York City. The shocking incident occurred in broad daylight in the heart of Manhattan on Tuesday - evidence that Big Apple officials are failing to protect residents amid surging rates of violent crime. Max Torgovnick, 36, was driving in the BMW with his mom when they encountered the large group of youngsters biking up Fifth Avenue near 21st Street. The pair had just dropped off a holiday donation to a local charity when their vehicle was viciously set upon. According to eyewitnesses, the teens began blocking traffic and started to attack the luxury car. Shocking video shows several teens punching the BMW's windows and stomping on its hood.

DailyMail

Rest assured, Karen is being "thoroughly investigated" for her heinous rudeness.

 

[TomC]

Keyon senior is a weapons grade prick and that's about all there is to this non story. b

Why do you believe this?
A dad protected his kid from a crazy person. Without violence.
How is he a "weapons grade prick"?

I see him as a top shelf parent, in a tough situation.
Tell me why you think I'm wrong.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Mr Keyon responded with information, rather than violence. Kudos to him.
If he'd punched the attacker I'd think he responded badly. A little. But he didn't. She attacked his kid, he didn't respond with violence, he did very well here.

Under very trying circumstances.
If a guy punches out an attacker so hard they wind up in the hospital I'd totally get it. She was the perp and he was protecting his child. Sorry if he didn't do it perfectly, but neither would I. He didn't have the clarity of hindsight to guide him when some bitch attacked his kid.

"some bitch" ? Very telling.

Telling?
Telling of what?
The bitch attacked a kid. She had other options, but that's the one she chose.

Telling of what? Exactly?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Nah. Recording makes sense so that there is a visual record of events. She'd already made one unfounded allegation against his son. He didn't capture everything, but seeing as things did get at least a little physical, he has a record that she came after them and not the other way around.

If the father had a phone and his son had a phone, simply calling his son would have worked too instead of prolonging the drama. Yes, the teen has no need to have given her the phone based on her lack of any right to look at it... but there were other options.

 

[TomC]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Nah. Recording makes sense so that there is a visual record of events. She'd already made one unfounded allegation against his son. He didn't capture everything, but seeing as things did get at least a little physical, he has a record that she came after them and not the other way around.

If the father had a phone and his son had a phone, simply calling his son would have worked too instead of prolonging the drama. Yes, the teen has no need to have given her the phone based on her lack of any right to look at it... but there were other options.

With the clarity of hindsight, this is obvious.

But at the time, a dude and his kid were being attacked. I think that they behaved very well, given the circumstances.
Do you disagree?
Tom

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Nah. Recording makes sense so that there is a visual record of events. She'd already made one unfounded allegation against his son. He didn't capture everything, but seeing as things did get at least a little physical, he has a record that she came after them and not the other way around.

If the father had a phone and his son had a phone, simply calling his son would have worked too instead of prolonging the drama. Yes, the teen has no need to have given her the phone based on her lack of any right to look at it... but there were other options.

The drama was instigated and prolonged by the woman's inappropriate actions. Calling his son's phone would have been a good move had he thought of it, but it still comes back to this having to prove your innocence against a wild and bullshit allegation. Personally, I'd have preferred to have it all recorded instead because I'd want it clear how my son was being treated in this situation so that first and foremost, he is covered as best as I can manage.

 

[Gospel]

Woman: He stole my phone!
Hotel Worker: What is your phone number?
Woman: *gives him number*
Hotel Worker: *Pulls out his phone, calls number*
*teen's phone doesn't ring*

END OF FUCKING STORY! Least evasive way to address the situation.

I'm curious how she thought he stole it in the first place. Black teen with a nice phone sort of issue?

Nope. Nice phone had little to do with it if any. It was the black part mostly. We are well known for being sketchy thanks to news from the ghetto. American history has little to do with it either because she clearly is no scholar. We as black folks also portray ourselves VIA main stream Rap in wonderful ways that assisted her. Hollywood helped out with that too (though they're acting like the godfather of change these days). It's also the kids fault for not knowing what he signed up for when God asked him what nationality he would like to be on earth prior to his birth.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've been watching the footage again, and........I think she might counterclaim that the old dad's camera phone was aimed at her (rather nice, it must be admitted) young legs, bum and crotch a little bit too much of the time.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I've been watching the footage again, and........I think she might counterclaim that the old dad's camera phone was aimed at her (rather nice, it must be admitted) young legs, bum and crotch a little bit too much of the time.

You may be confusing where your eyes were focused with where the phone camera was focused.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't appreciate your sarcastic hash tags, but I do agree with you Derec.

I saw that video on another site and I couldn't understand why so many people were insisting that the woman was over-reacting and/or racist. She MAY be racist, but it is just as likely that she is merely wrong or confused.

It IS quite easy to show someone that your phone is yours. It's a heck of a lot easier than getting into an argument. She told the kid to take off the phone case; I suspect that was to verify some identifying characteristic on the phone. Depending on the phone case, that can be usually be accomplished in less than 1 second. But this confrontation allegedly took more than 5 minutes. Why would you subject yourself to that instead of quickly and easily proving your innocence?

I am not sure if you are right. First, does a reasonable person assume someone guilty? It seems like one would think about crime demographics and stereotypes together with the missing phone and an apparent one like it observed to conclude the two are the same phone. I can't say with certainty that she included stereotypes in her method of jumping conclusions and am open-minded to being wrong if she gave an explanation in the viral video--I haven't seen it. Second, asking to remove the case seems an aspect of the unreasonable conclusion. Does she think he is a scammer who runs around with different iphone cases to trick people after he steals their phones? Maybe she is mentally ill but it seems racist stereotypes are more common than paranoia. Does she explain the phone case thing in the video?

Regarding his lack of proving innocence, I am guessing he is trying to teach her not to jump to conclusions. If someone insisted their generically cased phone was not my phone and wasn't trying to run from a crime, I'd begin retracing my steps mentally to consider other possibilities. If I had just travelled around in an uber but I called the uber with my phone, I'd conclude a reasonable alternative explanation was I left my phone in my uber.

A young black person is another human and someone else doesn't have an entitlement to assault them, if suspecting them of theft of some minor item. Where does that entitlement come from?

If it was you looking for your phone, what would you say? I'd say something like, "Look man, I'm not trying to be a dick. It seems like my phone has just disappeared. I now need to retrace my steps. You are the first person I see in proximity to where I think it disappeared and your phone looks like mine. I would like to eliminate this possibility before I move on to retrace my steps and you leave. Could you please remove the case or let me see it. Please." Then, if he said no, I'd ask my son to take a photo of him and I'd move on to retrace my steps. If I did not find my phone otherwise, I'd head to hotel security to ask them to review their camera footage. His photo would be an investigative option if my phone was not found.

Maybe. It's easy to think you can do a better job than someone else who gets caught on video. It's easy to get caught up in emotional thinking...too. But I stand by my questions as discussion points. Why not be nicer, why not begin to doubt herself, where does the entitlement come from?

 

[ruby sparks]

I've been watching the footage again, and........I think she might counterclaim that the old dad's camera phone was aimed at her (rather nice, it must be admitted) young legs, bum and crotch a little bit too much of the time.

You may be confusing where your eyes were focused with where the phone camera was focused.

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Check out the footage:

 

[Gospel]

I don't appreciate your sarcastic hash tags, but I do agree with you Derec.

I saw that video on another site and I couldn't understand why so many people were insisting that the woman was over-reacting and/or racist. She MAY be racist, but it is just as likely that she is merely wrong or confused.

It IS quite easy to show someone that your phone is yours. It's a heck of a lot easier than getting into an argument. She told the kid to take off the phone case; I suspect that was to verify some identifying characteristic on the phone. Depending on the phone case, that can be usually be accomplished in less than 1 second. But this confrontation allegedly took more than 5 minutes. Why would you subject yourself to that instead of quickly and easily proving your innocence?

I am not sure if you are right. First, does a reasonable person assume someone guilty? It seems like one would think about crime demographics and stereotypes together with the missing phone and an apparent one like it observed to conclude the two are the same phone. I can't say with certainty that she included stereotypes in her method of jumping conclusions and am open-minded to being wrong if she gave an explanation in the viral video--I haven't seen it. Second, asking to remove the case seems an aspect of the unreasonable conclusion. Does she think he is a scammer who runs around with different iphone cases to trick people after he steals their phones? Maybe she is mentally ill but it seems racist stereotypes are more common than paranoia. Does she explain the phone case thing in the video?

Regarding his lack of proving innocence, I am guessing he is trying to teach her not to jump to conclusions. If someone insisted their generically cased phone was not my phone and wasn't trying to run from a crime, I'd begin retracing my steps mentally to consider other possibilities. If I had just travelled around in an uber but I called the uber with my phone, I'd conclude a reasonable alternative explanation was I left my phone in my uber.

A young black person is another human and someone else doesn't have an entitlement to assault them, if suspecting them of theft of some minor item. Where does that entitlement come from?

If it was you looking for your phone, what would you say? I'd say something like, "Look man, I'm not trying to be a dick. It seems like my phone has just disappeared. I now need to retrace my steps. You are the first person I see in proximity to where I think it disappeared and your phone looks like mine. I would like to eliminate this possibility before I move on to retrace my steps and you leave. Could you please remove the case or let me see it. Please." Then, if he said no, I'd ask my son to take a photo of him and I'd move on to retrace my steps. If I did not find my phone otherwise, I'd head to hotel security to ask them to review their camera footage. His photo would be an investigative option if my phone was not found.

Maybe. It's easy to think you can do a better job than someone else who gets caught on video. It's easy to get caught up in emotional thinking...too. But I stand by my questions as discussion points. Why not be nicer, why not begin to doubt herself, where does the entitlement come from?

When you've dealt with false accusations enough at some point you're just not willing to entertain them anymore. Please note that It's the father that wasn't having it not the son.

 

[Gospel]

I've been watching the footage again, and........I think she might counterclaim that the old dad's camera phone was aimed at her (rather nice, it must be admitted) young legs, bum and crotch a little bit too much of the time.

You may be confusing where your eyes were focused with where the phone camera was focused.

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Check out the footage:

Put your mouse pointer in the center of the video and watch again. It's your eyes. It also doesn't help the cause that the camera has that downward angle the whole time (even when she is not in view). I look forward to the Feminists rally against your posts,

 

[ruby sparks]

It also doesn't help the cause that the camera has that downward angle the whole time (even when she is not in view).

Nope. It doesn't.

But thank you for giving me another excuse to review the footage again.

Ok, I'm done. I wasn't being entirely serious.

 

[TSwizzle]

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Yeah but look what she was wearing. She was asking for it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Yeah but look what she was wearing. She was asking for it.

Phew. I'm glad I dropped out and that now you're the one who's gonna get in trouble by going into dangerous territory.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I've been watching the footage again, and........I think she might counterclaim that the old dad's camera phone was aimed at her (rather nice, it must be admitted) young legs, bum and crotch a little bit too much of the time.

You may be confusing where your eyes were focused with where the phone camera was focused.

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Check out the footage:

I watched the footage he posted: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJR6LviHFkd/?utm_source=ig_embed

The joke just doesn't fit what he posted.

I don't really get why you're trying to take a pot shot at feminists at the moment. Isn't that conversation already burdened with enough noise? And it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. I get shit goes off topic frequently, but don't you feel you're pushing a derail with a contrivance?

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe.

But I thought of that, and then I re-watched the footage (I'm thorough like that when there's potential camel toe sightings involved). I think maybe Dad was doing it a bit too, or at least that it could be alleged by a sleazy defence lawyer.

Watch out for the headline, 'Feminists rally to cause of young woman subjected to Male Gaze of leery middle-aged man in public'. And then he went and put it online? Without her permission?

Check out the footage:

I watched the footage he posted: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJR6LviHFkd/?utm_source=ig_embed

The joke just doesn't fit what he posted.

I don't really get why you're trying to take a pot shot at feminists at the moment. Isn't that conversation already burdened with enough noise? And it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread. I get shit goes off topic frequently, but don't you feel you're pushing a derail with a contrivance?

As I said, I'm done.

That said, the way lawyers operate, I would not be completely and utterly surprised if her defence lawyer dreamt this allegation up, just to stir the pot. I admit I am not up to speed on privacy laws. My only relevant experience is of having had a few midlife crises myself, so I would have sympathhies.

 

[thebeave]

It also doesn't help the cause that the camera has that downward angle the whole time (even when she is not in view).

Nope. It doesn't.

But thank you for giving me another excuse to review the footage again.

Ok, I'm done. I wasn't being entirely serious.

Dude, I do pray that someone on Tinder swipes right for you soon.

 

[ruby sparks]

Dude, I do pray that someone on Tinder swipes right for you soon.

Thank you.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

An interesting choice of words.
Well, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Rhea]

Why are people here so adverse to helping out a confused stranger especially when it benefits YOU as well in an instant and tangible way?

I feel like the century-long practice of stopping black people and bullying them because you can, demanding that they display that you are in power, it feels like this is sufficient reason to say that a youn black man does not again have to prove his right to be in public owning things.

 

[ZiprHead]

call out douchebaggery when I see it. I won't indulge the prick like you and the MSM hacks that eat this shit up. #TeamKaren.

Vacuous.

You misspelled tedious.

 

[zorq]

Why are people here so adverse to helping out a confused stranger especially when it benefits YOU as well in an instant and tangible way?

I feel like the century-long practice of stopping black people and bullying them because you can, demanding that they display that you are in power, it feels like this is sufficient reason to say that a youn black man does not again have to prove his right to be in public owning things.

I'm not saying that this kid or anyone should be compelled to "prove his right to be in public owning things." This doesn't have to be about forcing people to submit to oppression. This could be about the death of the good Samaritan. This could be about the virtue of de-escalation of conflict over conflict escalation. This could be about simple practicality.

I have never advocated that strangers have the right to make demands of other strangers. I am advocating for compassion, practical self preservation, and peaceful conflict resolution! I'm okay with heaping criticism on people who CHOOSE the path that leads to greater conflict even if that path is legally and morally justifiable.

When confronted with distressed strangers (even rude ones) making trivial demands of us, it is smart and compassionate to comply with those trivial demands! Not imperative. Not obligatory. Just the better choice.

 

[Arctish]

Why are people here so adverse to helping out a confused stranger especially when it benefits YOU as well in an instant and tangible way?

I feel like the century-long practice of stopping black people and bullying them because you can, demanding that they display that you are in power, it feels like this is sufficient reason to say that a youn black man does not again have to prove his right to be in public owning things.

I'm not saying that this kid or anyone should be compelled to "prove his right to be in public owning things." This doesn't have to be about forcing people to submit to oppression. This could be about the death of the good Samaritan. This could be about the virtue of de-escalation of conflict over conflict escalation. This could be about simple practicality.

I have never advocated that strangers have the right to make demands of other strangers. I am advocating for compassion, practical self preservation, and peaceful conflict resolution! I'm okay with heaping criticism on people who CHOOSE the path that leads to greater conflict even if that path is legally and morally justifiable.

When confronted with distressed strangers (even rude ones) making trivial demands of us, it is smart and compassionate to comply with those trivial demands! Not imperative. Not obligatory. Just the better choice.

In a more perfect world perhaps. But in this one, that distressed stranger could be a scammer trying to trick someone into handing over their phone or a mentally ill person experiencing delusions. Sometimes the wisest course of action is to refuse to participate in their drama.

The woman wasn't just having a bad day, she was accusing and assaulting a teenager. Why she thought he had stolen her phone isn't exactly clear. Apparently she demanded he remove the phone case which suggests the phone in his hand didn't look just like hers. Did she glom onto him because he was holding a phone, or was it because he was a black male teenager holding a phone?

I can understand why she was upset but I don't condone her actions. She was entirely in the wrong and IMO owes that teenager and his father a public apology.

 

[zorq]

I'm not saying that this kid or anyone should be compelled to "prove his right to be in public owning things." This doesn't have to be about forcing people to submit to oppression. This could be about the death of the good Samaritan. This could be about the virtue of de-escalation of conflict over conflict escalation. This could be about simple practicality.

I have never advocated that strangers have the right to make demands of other strangers. I am advocating for compassion, practical self preservation, and peaceful conflict resolution! I'm okay with heaping criticism on people who CHOOSE the path that leads to greater conflict even if that path is legally and morally justifiable.

When confronted with distressed strangers (even rude ones) making trivial demands of us, it is smart and compassionate to comply with those trivial demands! Not imperative. Not obligatory. Just the better choice.

In a more perfect world perhaps. But in this one, that distressed stranger could be a scammer trying to trick someone into handing over their phone or a mentally ill person experiencing delusions. Sometimes the wisest course of action is to refuse to participate in their drama.

No, in ANY world performing trivial tasks that have a good chance at preventing conflict escalation is ALWAYS the better choice.

He didn't have to hand the phone over to her. She didn't even make that demand. She wanted to SEE the phone, either unlocked or uncovered. Indulging in her demands was simultaneously safe, easy, and quick.

The woman wasn't just having a bad day, she was accusing and assaulting a teenager. Why she thought he had stolen her phone isn't exactly clear. Apparently she demanded he remove the phone case which suggests the phone in his hand didn't look just like hers. Did she glom onto him because he was holding a phone, or was it because he was a black male teenager holding a phone?

I can understand why she was upset but I don't condone her actions. She was entirely in the wrong and IMO owes that teenager and his father a public apology.

She does owe them an apology and I don't condone her actions either, especially the eventual assault. That said, I don't have enough information to judge weather the ACCUSATION was unjustified. As I have mentioned in earlier posts in this thread I can imagine some very good reasons for a person to suspect another person has stolen or merely acquired their property. Did she have one of those reasons? We don't know, and until we do, it is presumptuous (or perhaps prejudicial) to assume that her accusation was out of line.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have finally reviewed the video. I think it's important to distinguish the father and son's actions. The son appears to have not done that much one way or another. The father was being very protective in telling the woman to go away and to get the son out of the situation. He was trying to argue with the woman, be dismissive, use his expected status as a guest at the hotel--don't forget he's a Grammy award winning trumpeter--and most importantly he was trying to get his son OUT of danger. Accusing a young black male of stealing can quickly escalate to security, then police. The woman provided no rational justification to anyone that it was her phone. She sinply relied on her status to make an accusation and the father questioned that it could be racism before he tried to get out of there and she rushed them. Like I said, I'd try to be polite and explain myself and if he didn't comply, I'd begin to doubt myself, retrace my steps, [have someone] take a photo of him, rely on hotel cameras, police, and retracing my steps. For some reason she irrationally concluded the boy stole instead and the father justifiably was angry and tried to get his son away. Based on previous discussions with one African American here, it is safer to get away than wait for security and police when you are Black. As a White person, I may operate on different expectations based on experience and cultural learning.

 

[zorq]

I am not sure if you are right. First, does a reasonable person assume someone guilty? It seems like one would think about crime demographics and stereotypes together with the missing phone and an apparent one like it observed to conclude the two are the same phone. I can't say with certainty that she included stereotypes in her method of jumping conclusions and am open-minded to being wrong if she gave an explanation in the viral video--I haven't seen it.

You haven't seen the video but you are presuming that she assumed the kid was guilty? If she was jumping to the assumption of guilt, she wouldn't be demanding more evidence from the kid. She was suspicious. So suspicious she made an accusation. That suspicion was wrong but it might not have been unjustified. We don't know what drew her suspicion.

Second, asking to remove the case seems an aspect of the unreasonable conclusion.

As I pointed out you have imagined this "unreasonable conclusion" as her demands don't align with an assumption of guilt.

Does she think he is a scammer who runs around with different iphone cases to trick people after he steals their phones? Maybe she is mentally ill but it seems racist stereotypes are more common than paranoia. Does she explain the phone case thing in the video?

I agree that it is more likely that she is racist than mentally ill, but I still think the most probable diagnosis is agitated and panicked.

Regarding his lack of proving innocence, I am guessing he is trying to teach her not to jump to conclusions. If someone insisted their generically cased phone was not my phone and wasn't trying to run from a crime, I'd begin retracing my steps mentally to consider other possibilities.

But you see, the dad and son were actively trying to leave the situation, "run from the crime." It was when they actually started moving to the door that she "assaulted" the kid after saying, "I'm not going to let him walk away with my phone!"

If I had just travelled around in an uber but I called the uber with my phone, I'd conclude a reasonable alternative explanation was I left my phone in my uber.

She claims that before this incident she has asked to review the hotel security tapes and interrogated one other bystander. Accusing the teen of having her phone was not her first course of action.

A young black person is another human and someone else doesn't have an entitlement to assault them, if suspecting them of theft of some minor item. Where does that entitlement come from?

Citizen's arrest is a thing that exists for crimes in progress. If you notice someone stealing something from you, in that moment, you are entitled to both prevent the thief from escaping and recovering your stolen property. A citizen's arrest will always involve actions that would under other circumstances qualify as assault.

You asked where that "entitlement" comes from and THAT is where it comes from. But... I'm not making that argument. I think her assault was out of line and in hindsight it is crystal clear that she didn't have enough evidence to make a citizen's arrest.

If it was you looking for your phone, what would you say? I'd say something like, "Look man, I'm not trying to be a dick. It seems like my phone has just disappeared. I now need to retrace my steps. You are the first person I see in proximity to where I think it disappeared and your phone looks like mine. I would like to eliminate this possibility before I move on to retrace my steps and you leave. Could you please remove the case or let me see it. Please." Then, if he said no, I'd ask my son to take a photo of him and I'd move on to retrace my steps. If I did not find my phone otherwise, I'd head to hotel security to ask them to review their camera footage. His photo would be an investigative option if my phone was not found.

Maybe. It's easy to think you can do a better job than someone else who gets caught on video. It's easy to get caught up in emotional thinking...too. But I stand by my questions as discussion points. Why not be nicer, why not begin to doubt herself, where does the entitlement come from?

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You haven't seen the video but you are presuming that she assumed the kid was guilty? If she was jumping to the assumption of guilt, she wouldn't be demanding more evidence from the kid. She was suspicious. So suspicious she made an accusation. That suspicion was wrong but it might not have been unjustified. We don't know what drew her suspicion.

As I pointed out you have imagined this "unreasonable conclusion" as her demands don't align with an assumption of guilt.

Does she think he is a scammer who runs around with different iphone cases to trick people after he steals their phones? Maybe she is mentally ill but it seems racist stereotypes are more common than paranoia. Does she explain the phone case thing in the video?

I agree that it is more likely that she is racist than mentally ill, but I still think the most probable diagnosis is agitated and panicked.

Regarding his lack of proving innocence, I am guessing he is trying to teach her not to jump to conclusions. If someone insisted their generically cased phone was not my phone and wasn't trying to run from a crime, I'd begin retracing my steps mentally to consider other possibilities.

But you see, the dad and son were actively trying to leave the situation, "run from the crime." It was when they actually started moving to the door that she "assaulted" the kid after saying, "I'm not going to let him walk away with my phone!"

If I had just travelled around in an uber but I called the uber with my phone, I'd conclude a reasonable alternative explanation was I left my phone in my uber.

She claims that before this incident she has asked to review the hotel security tapes and interrogated one other bystander. Accusing the teen of having her phone was not her first course of action.

A young black person is another human and someone else doesn't have an entitlement to assault them, if suspecting them of theft of some minor item. Where does that entitlement come from?

Citizen's arrest is a thing that exists for crimes in progress. If you notice someone stealing something from you, in that moment, you are entitled to both prevent the thief from escaping and recovering your stolen property. A citizen's arrest will always involve actions that would under other circumstances qualify as assault.

You asked where that "entitlement" comes from and THAT is where it comes from. But... I'm not making that argument. I think her assault was out of line and in hindsight it is crystal clear that she didn't have enough evidence to make a citizen's arrest.

If it was you looking for your phone, what would you say? I'd say something like, "Look man, I'm not trying to be a dick. It seems like my phone has just disappeared. I now need to retrace my steps. You are the first person I see in proximity to where I think it disappeared and your phone looks like mine. I would like to eliminate this possibility before I move on to retrace my steps and you leave. Could you please remove the case or let me see it. Please." Then, if he said no, I'd ask my son to take a photo of him and I'd move on to retrace my steps. If I did not find my phone otherwise, I'd head to hotel security to ask them to review their camera footage. His photo would be an investigative option if my phone was not found.

Maybe. It's easy to think you can do a better job than someone else who gets caught on video. It's easy to get caught up in emotional thinking...too. But I stand by my questions as discussion points. Why not be nicer, why not begin to doubt herself, where does the entitlement come from?

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

Addressing the first part, I watched the op video and read she assaulted them. From the fact of assaulting them and what I read about her level of certainty, I reasonably concluded or interpreted she had high (irrational) confidence it was her phone. From now watching the video this information is confirmed since she says out loud they can't get away with her phone before she attacks them.

Second part, she did not retrace her steps. If she had, she'd be open to the idea she left it in the uber.

Third part, no, citizen's arrest is not a thing compatible with unecessarily attacking and scratching someone: doing things minimally necessary to block or stop them maybe. Maybe. But that also relies upon whether it's a reasonable belief. The mere claim that someone's iphone is your iphone is UNREASONABLE. There's a significant chance that if you see someone with a phone, it will be an iphone. And there's a significant chance if you see a teenager waiting in a hotel lobby for their parent that they will have their phone out. It is therefore not reasonable to try to apprehend every teenager with an iphone because you lost yours. It is up to her not to escalate the situation into assault by introducing unreasonable beliefs about people.

AND further, while citizens arrest is a thing, it's implemented a little differently in each state. In New York, there are different levels of confidence people are expected to have to forcefully hold someone. A cop can arrest on reasonable suspicion. A property owner on probable cause. But a random citizen on certainty. And this makes sense because you don't want everyone running around arresting everyone else unfairly.

Security at the hotel therefore could have held the boy if they had probable cause. They didn't and that is why he was not apprehended. The father could walk away with the boy. Now when the woman assaulted the boy and father, security then had probable cause to make a citizens arrest until police arrived.

I don't know why she wasn't arrested. She got away after the assault. She got her phone. Police have been looking for her to charge her with assault.

 

[Arctish]

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

The dad was helping his son to calmly and quietly exit the kind of situation that can turned out very badly for a black male teenager.

The woman's distress was not his priority, his son's safety was, and rightly so.

 

[zorq]

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

The dad was helping his son to calmly and quietly exit the kind of situation that can turned out very badly for a black male teenager.

The woman's distress was not his priority, his son's safety was, and rightly so.

And yet, I think it was his choices that eventually provoked this woman to escalate to physical aggression. Physical aggression is not safe! He made a bad choice that did not preserve the safety of his child and it is okay to call him out for it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

The dad was helping his son to calmly and quietly exit the kind of situation that can turned out very badly for a black male teenager.

The woman's distress was not his priority, his son's safety was, and rightly so.

And yet, I think it was his choices that eventually provoked this woman to escalate to physical aggression. Physical aggression is not safe! He made a bad choice that did not preserve the safety of his child and it is okay to call him out for it.

If they stayed, for all he knew, his son could end up in jail or dead. This seems very unlikely retrospectively with our information but also subjectively based on observations in our lives. What about if you observe Black people getting in trouble for nothing often in your life? Would you weigh risk the same way?

I will add...the father technically engaged her in debate. He refuted her claim of suspicion convincingly by asking rhetorically about anyone having an iphone. She had no answer. The son even asked her "what's your background" and she refused to answer. She claimed findyouriphone was off. She appears not to have had the hotel guy call the phone. To the hotel employees the father made a successful case, demonstrating he was a guest and she had no cause. That's when she became desperate because the hotel employees no longer had enough confidence in her story or reasoning. They had no probable cause to hold the boy. So the father and son were leaving when she attacked.

The weird thing is she kept demanding them to prove their innocence. She provided no proof of guilt...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are already laws on the books against physical violence against other people outside of legal justification. Why not apply them? You haven't given a good reason to exempt her from the legal or social consequences for her behavior.

Women are never charged for domestic violence.

And while on the subject, the real news should be all the fake domestic charges that routinely happen during divorce. Why is all that lying socially acceptable? If a women wants the guy out she fills out an order of protection even if there was never any harm done to anyone. Why is that socially acceptable to society and wrong people accused on a routine basis? But then in this case, someone not stealing a phone is some kind of big news for this story?

Its because the media has to make the news and not report it.

Never?

It was an issue in an election here a few cycles ago--big guy calls the police on his little tiny wife and got her arrested. Which is exactly what he should have done in response to domestic violence!

 

[blastula]

I totally agree, she could have and should have behaved herself much better, but it takes two to tango and the dad was not helping anyone with the choices he made in this situation.

The dad was helping his son to calmly and quietly exit the kind of situation that can turned out very badly for a black male teenager.

The woman's distress was not his priority, his son's safety was, and rightly so.

And yet, I think it was his choices that eventually provoked this woman to escalate to physical aggression. Physical aggression is not safe! He made a bad choice that did not preserve the safety of his child and it is okay to call him out for it.

So you're blaming the victim. Sorry, only cops are allowed to get away with that when they screw up and assault someone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're an asshole. Now you're gonna get this poor manager fired for the sake of optics when all he was trying to do was take the most commonsense approach to defuse the situation.

Thinking you've lost your phone is a bogus feeling for anyone. It's probably a near panic situatiuon for a 22 year old girl. Adult trumpeter dad could have handled this better. Just show her the apps on the phone instead of being a dick and destroying this 22 year old girl with racism accusations. These were for all intents and purposes two kids with one adult between them. You could not have handled this worse, dad.

The simplest thing would be to do two tests:

1) Call her number, see if the phone rings.

2) Call what he says his number is, see if the phone rings. It would be acceptable for him to dial the second number so he doesn't have to give it out.

(You need the second to prove the phone does answer--it's not set to silent or airplane mode.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keyon senior is just a douche. Rather than help, he does what all these douchebags do, whips out the phone and starts recording and goes running to the press. Tool.

Recording was exactly the right thing to do. It proves beyond a reasonable doubt what actually happened. Very often such recordings are started too late (people start recording in response to the initial incident and thus end up only filming the reaction, making the reaction look unprovoked) but this one got enough.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is hotel camera footage of ?one? of the assaults:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CJczqz9nwWp/

 

[zorq]

And yet, I think it was his choices that eventually provoked this woman to escalate to physical aggression. Physical aggression is not safe! He made a bad choice that did not preserve the safety of his child and it is okay to call him out for it.

So you're blaming the victim. Sorry, only cops are allowed to get away with that when they screw up and assault someone.

Fine, if you want to look at it like that, I'm blaming the victim. The victim had the choice of indulging in a trivial act that had a great chance to de-escalate a tense situation and he chose not to do so. Cops shouldn't "get away with that" and neither should any of us. His failure to recognize this choice for the bad choice that it was likely contributed to the increased danger of himself and his son.

And just to be clear, I'm not ONLY blaming the victim. She screwed up, but he did too and it doesn't help society to ignore or excuse people making bad choices like this. Life isn't like a simplistic TV drama where one side is the good guys and one side is the bad guys. Sometimes everyone is the badguy. Sometimes everyone is the good guy but they all make bad choices. Why can't we recognize this fact so that we can move on and all make better choices?

 

[zorq]

The simplest thing would be to do two tests:

1) Call her number, see if the phone rings.

2) Call what he says his number is, see if the phone rings. It would be acceptable for him to dial the second number so he doesn't have to give it out.

(You need the second to prove the phone does answer--it's not set to silent or airplane mode.)

Or just one test. The one the woman kept insisting on. Just let her get a good look at the stupid phone. That probably would have been enough to shut her up and send her on her way.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

And yet, I think it was his choices that eventually provoked this woman to escalate to physical aggression. Physical aggression is not safe! He made a bad choice that did not preserve the safety of his child and it is okay to call him out for it.

So you're blaming the victim. Sorry, only cops are allowed to get away with that when they screw up and assault someone.

Fine, if you want to look at it like that, I'm blaming the victim. The victim had the choice of indulging in a trivial act that had a great chance to de-escalate a tense situation and he chose not to do so.

You keep saying trivial. It's only trivial in the sense that it was physically easy. But the events unfolding are not trivial. Being randomly accused, having someone demand proof of your innocence and then requesting a grown man takes your phone from you is not trivial.

You also say 'had a great chance to de-escalate' but that is entirely an assumption on your part.

And just to be clear, I'm not ONLY blaming the victim. She screwed up, but he did too and it doesn't help society to ignore or excuse people making bad choices like this.

He didn't screw up. He made choices in an emergent situation that were all well within his rights and aimed at protecting his son against a situation that was quickly escalating against him. The woman was escalating and the hotel manager was now approaching him for his phone. Had she not decided to behave in an unlawful manner, they would have been on their way and out of the situation.

It's easy in retrospect to opine on what would or would not have been optimal, but it's all angels dancing on the head of a pin. Why would we assume that showing her the phone would have placated her when we cannot even account for her irrational accusation in the first place? Why would we assume that prolonged interaction would have led to increased calmness when people were getting amped up?

 

[zorq]

Third part, no, citizen's arrest is not a thing compatible with unecessarily attacking and scratching someone: doing things minimally necessary to block or stop them maybe. Maybe.

Uh, no. Details depend on the state but for example, a citizen is allowed to chase down and tackle a purse snatcher they have witnessed snatching a purse. If that purse snatcher breaks their arm, loses a finger or goes blind in one eye in the process of being tackled during that citizen's arrest the tackler is protected from any legal repercussions.

Regarding the rest: Yes, as I already said, she was not making a legitimate citizen's arrest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Third part, no, citizen's arrest is not a thing compatible with unecessarily attacking and scratching someone: doing things minimally necessary to block or stop them maybe. Maybe.

Uh, no. Details depend on the state but for example, a citizen is allowed to chase down and tackle a purse snatcher they have witnessed snatching a purse. If that purse snatcher breaks their arm, loses a finger or goes blind in one eye in the process of being tackled during that citizen's arrest the tackler is protected from any legal repercussions.

Regarding the rest: Yes, as I already said, she was not making a legitimate citizen's arrest.

Then, she is NOT entitled to assault them which was the question.

So where did her sense of entitlement to assault them come from?

Also, where did her sense of entitlement to demand the boy to prove his innocence come from?

 

[zorq]

Fine, if you want to look at it like that, I'm blaming the victim. The victim had the choice of indulging in a trivial act that had a great chance to de-escalate a tense situation and he chose not to do so.

You keep saying trivial. It's only trivial in the sense that it was physically easy. But the events unfolding are not trivial. Being randomly accused, having someone demand proof of your innocence and then requesting a grown man takes your phone from you is not trivial.

The situation was not trivial, yes, I totally agree. I never called the situation trivial. Earlier in this thread I suggested that people in the US have been shot dead in the streets for less consequential reasons. But don't conflate the situation with the choice the dad had to prove his son's innocence. Pulling out your phone in public flashing it for a stranger is a trivial act. Any trivial act that we can accomplish to de-escalate dangerous situations ought to be encouraged.

You also say 'had a great chance to de-escalate' but that is entirely an assumption on your part.

No, it's not an assumption. It is a statistical extrapolation based on a lifetime of experience with humans. When people ask for evidence supporting claims they dispute the great majority of them accept concrete evidence when the evidence is provided. There's no guarantee the woman would have been satisfied, but it is totally worth the effort given the minuscule effort required.

And just to be clear, I'm not ONLY blaming the victim. She screwed up, but he did too and it doesn't help society to ignore or excuse people making bad choices like this.

He didn't screw up. He made choices in an emergent situation that were all well within his rights and aimed at protecting his son against a situation that was quickly escalating against him. The woman was escalating and the hotel manager was now approaching him for his phone. Had she not decided to behave in an unlawful manner, they would have been on their way and out of the situation.

It's easy in retrospect to opine on what would or would not have been optimal, but it's all angels dancing on the head of a pin. Why would we assume that showing her the phone would have placated her when we cannot even account for her irrational accusation in the first place?

The primary reason we can't account for the rationality of her accusation is because we don't have enough information to do so, not because it is inherently irrational. That aside, it is totally useful for us to retrospectively opine on the optimal course of action. If we refuse to be Monday morning quarterbacks we will remain completely unprepared to handle the big game when we get drafted next Sunday. This is how people learn to do better. By identifying bad choices and avoiding them in the future.

Why would we assume that prolonged interaction would have led to increased calmness when people were getting amped up?

We wouldn't. Ending the situation as quick as possible is always advisable. As quick as pulling out a cell phone and holding it up for a stranger to see.

 

[zorq]

Third part, no, citizen's arrest is not a thing compatible with unecessarily attacking and scratching someone: doing things minimally necessary to block or stop them maybe. Maybe.

Uh, no. Details depend on the state but for example, a citizen is allowed to chase down and tackle a purse snatcher they have witnessed snatching a purse. If that purse snatcher breaks their arm, loses a finger or goes blind in one eye in the process of being tackled during that citizen's arrest the tackler is protected from any legal repercussions.

Regarding the rest: Yes, as I already said, she was not making a legitimate citizen's arrest.

Then, she is NOT entitled to assault them which was the question.

So where did her sense of entitlement to assault them come from?

Also, where did her sense of entitlement to demand the boy to prove his innocence come from?

No, she is not legally entitled to assault them. But you asked for where the SENSE of entitlement comes from. I think the SENSE of entitlement comes from these citizen's arrest laws and their common-law ancestors. People are taught in American culture that you can defend yourself from assaults and you can seek instant redress from wrongs performed in your presence. This kind of cultural norm gives the people brought up in it the SENSE that they are entitled to retrieve property they believe has been taken from them. They are often wrong about some of the details, but that's just a human thing. Plus, not many people know all the laws.

Eh, it's just my opinion.

Maybe she is just a racist bitch as so many people are so eager to assume and that's where the entitlement you perceive comes from. …Or maybe she is just a product of American culture in an unusual situation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's no guarantee the woman would have been satisfied, but it is totally worth the effort given the minuscule effort required.

But he already complied earlier. She demanded one person to empty their pockets (possibly for cover before asking him). She then asked/demanded him to empty his pockets and *poof* he had an iphone.

Then, it just became even more. She asked for more. She asked him to remove his case. And give the caseless phone to her.

I will remind you that we have protections of personal property in this country according to the Constitution. A citizen's arrest like hers ought to be based on certainty and it should be clear that she was trying to be dictator by demanding him to remove the case so she could see if it was hers. OR she concluded it was hers from other evidence that doesn't actually merit that conclusion, such as his race, gender, and age.

In any case, you can expect teenage boys, adult men, and most women to have a lot of private stuff on their phones...some things even incriminating, like stuff about weed, sex with other minors (if a teen), porn pictures, maybe stuff about other drugs, or maybe nothing incriminating of themselves but maybe something of a friend, maybe a friend stole something from a store. OR just super private things like conversations with friends about suicide or that so-and-so cheated on a girlfriend or on a test. OR his personal diary. OR his phone numbers of hookups. OR his second cousin sent him nude pictures. OR maybe he's secretly gay and has a gay dating app on his phone. Maybe he even has nude pictures of himself which would be illegal for her to look at. I don't know!!! [By the way, I suspect the reason she is so irrational and panicked is the contents of her own phone but that's an aside.]

Seizure of property requires a warrant based on probable cause and persons looking at children's electronics should be professionals or parents, not ordinary random strangers.

What you think happens next by an irrational person is that you think she'll see the phone and be like "Oh that's not mine. Sorry." What might happen instead is "Oh, I think you changed the card since you changed the case. Or you hacked the background to look like yours. Lemme see the files." How do you know? OR loudly, "why did you put a gay app on my phone? Oh wait..." He's got his stuff on there! What else happens? Does she ask the hotel manager to be judge and jury by examining the phone? Do police show up 5 minutes later and take it into custody? It's a good thing the father showed up and asserted his child's rights.

There's no mention in her story of her trying to call the number. She could do that instead but instead insists, no demands, that he prove his innocence by exposing himself to risks of his private property in other, strange hands. He's only a 14 year old kid. Calling her own phone number is the path of de-escalation, not trying to take private property.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maybe she is just a racist bitch as so many people are so eager to assume and that's where the entitlement you perceive comes from. …Or maybe she is just a product of American culture in an unusual situation.

I can buy that maybe she is just a fascist against anyone and it's a coincidence about race. Maybe she has incriminating things on her phone and was flipping out and maybe that isn't typical for her. Police are having a hard time finding her for some reason. Maybe there is a lot more to her we will find out.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The situation was not trivial, yes, I totally agree. I never called the situation trivial. Earlier in this thread I suggested that people in the US have been shot dead in the streets for less consequential reasons. But don't conflate the situation with the choice the dad had to prove his son's innocence. Pulling out your phone in public flashing it for a stranger is a trivial act.

I am not conflating them. I am saying specifically that showing the phone is a non-trivial event. Complying with unreasonable demands after false allegations is non-trivial. Caving in to a grown man who is now asking for property you have no obligation to give him is not trivial. It matters when you are put on the spot and pressured to comply. It matters when even your parents don't have your back in that scenario. Maybe not to you. If I generalize less, maybe even not to that kid specifically--I don't know what was in his head, but it is not particularly strange that it might not be trivial to a person in that situation. There should be no presumption that the act of showing her the phone or handing it over to the manager was trivial, especially given the emotionally charged atmosphere. Maybe you've never been in a situation like that, but it tends to play over in your mind for quite some time.

Whether showing your phone to a stranger is trivial or not has a whole lot of variation depending on the context.

No, it's not an assumption. It is a statistical extrapolation based on a lifetime of experience with humans.

I'd like to see your data, then. Also, in your "statistical extrapolation based on a lifetime of experience for humans" how often to they start randomly pointing fingers accusing people of theft then asking for people to start confiscating property when they lose their phone in a car?

Anecdotally, my experience is not the same. People struggle to deal with being wrong, especially in emotionally charged situations. When things get heated, people seem prone to rationalizing their point of view and aren't particularly receptive to new information contradicting what they think happened. But that is not a statistical extrapolation.

The primary reason we can't account for the rationality of her accusation is because we don't have enough information to do so, not because it is inherently irrational.

She had no evidence he stole her phone let alone that it was stolen in the fist place beyond the absence of her phone. By her own account, she demanded someone else empty their pockets first and she supposedly demanded to see the hotel security footage. Granted, the bit about asking someone else to empty their pockets could be a lie to deflect from accusations she singled out the boy based on racial bias, but honestly, she doesn't seem to leave much room or account for a scenario where she had reason to suspect this teenage boy.

We wouldn't. Ending the situation as quick as possible is always advisable. As quick as pulling out a cell phone and holding it up for a stranger to see.

Not being in the same space as her seems a much more likely way of reducing further conflict than continuing to engage with an unreasonable person, your 'statistical extrapolations' aside. Prolonging the exchange means more opportunities for escalation, and more likelihood that security or police intervene in an active dispute (security were already there at least by the time she tackled the teen).

Given a choice of continuing to engage on any level or leaving, I'd vote in favour of leaving without showing the phone. What actually would have been better in this specific case cannot be determined by us. So no, the armchair quarterbacking doesn't actually yield effective insights here. I can't generate a reasonably accurate model of what would have happened had the father and teen taken a different course for comparison. I highly doubt you or anyone else in this thread can either. I can only say of the options available, the one the father chose was within reason.

 

[Derec]

How about a month as Susan Smith's cellmate?

Or Crystal Mangum's. Scratch that. Cruel and unusual. That bitch is stabby.

 

[Derec]

Your example proves the point - the accusation was about rape.

Why do you think rape accusations require believing the female accuser without any evidence but cell phone theft is not?
Rape is a much more serious crime, and thus protections for the (often falsely) accused need to be stronger than for larceny, not weaker.

#BelieveWomen is about believing the story in order to verify it.

Before a story is verified or refuted the correct stance is neutrality, not automatically believing the woman.