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

[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.