Video Proves Women's Groping Accusation is FALSE. The video clearly shows the small boy she accused simply brushed against her with his backpack. But we need to realize something important. The woman was not lying, she was touched. This puts social justice activism and "listen and believe" in a strange position. Was this woman just arbitrarily calling the police or should we just believe all women? its not so simple and this is why false accusations are a thing. Sometimes the women is wrongly identifying someone or mistaken about what happened. All in all this shows exactly why we need due process for the accused
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There's a viral video going around depicting an older white woman accusing a 9-year-old black child of sexually assaulting her.
She can be seen on the phone with the police saying he groped her.
Many people are asking, is this another story about a white person arbitrarily calling the police on a black person, or do we have a legitimate sexual assault and we should just believe this woman?
Fortunately for the accused, there is surveillance footage showing he likely did not actually grope her.
He maybe just brushed against her with his backpack.
But the footage also proves the woman wasn't lying.
She didn't make it up.
Someone actually did touch her and she spoke up about it.
This is an excellent example of why due process is so incredibly important.
When people talk about the idea of a false accusation, many on the left immediately assume they're saying women are lying about what happened to them.
But that's not the case.
Many people who are falsely accused or imprisoned were just misidentified.
And that means we need due process to figure out what really happened.
We can believe the woman when she says she was touched.
But we need to look at the evidence to figure out what actually happened, because this woman didn't... she wasn't wrong.
She spoke up about it.
It just turns out that she was mistaken as to what the extent of the touching was.
So let's take a look at this story from the New York Post, but there's some other stories about why it's so important that we have due process, especially when we're looking at something like Brett Kavanaugh.
But before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash Timcast to become a patron and help support my work.
Patrons are the backbone of the content I create, so if you like these videos and you like the videos on my second channel, please consider going to patreon.com forward slash timcast to become a patron today.
They're calling her Corner Store Carolyn.
She says she's not racist and apologizes to the kids.
The story from New York Post frames it as an arbitrary police calling on a black person.
They say, you know BBQ Becky and Permit Patty, now meet Corner Store Carolyn.
A wild viral video captured a white Brooklyn woman calling the cops on a nine-year-old black boy who she claimed grabbed her butt in a local bodega.
But surveillance footage proves the kid never laid a hand on her.
I want the cops here right now.
Teresa Sue Klein, 53, can be heard telling 9-1-1 in this cell phone clip taken Wednesday outside the Sahara Deli in Flatbush.
The son grabbed my ass, and she decided to yell at me.
She rants in reference to the boy's mom.
The kid can be seen wailing outside the store as the crowd tries to comfort him and comes to his defense.
Nobody wants to touch your flat ass, one woman sneers at Klein.
Another onlooker brands Klein Corner Store Caroline, a la Monikers, from the other viral videos in which white women call the police on African Americans over minor incidents.
Security footage from the bodega shows the boy carrying a backpack and a large plastic bag from Cookie's department store as he passed Klein while exiting the deli, and his pack appears to brush against her.
He was walking out with his mom and accidentally brushed up against her.
His mother was right behind him, a deli worker told the Post.
In this screenshot from the New York Post, we can see in this frame, here's the woman, and the boy is walking past her.
She turns around afterwards.
From this photo right here, it's questionable as to what actually happened.
Perhaps this kid did grab this woman.
But let's look at the video to see what the surveillance footage actually shows.
We can see the woman going and leaning up against the counter.
The boy then walks past her, and it looks like his backpack brushes her, and she turns around, not knowing what just happened.
I posed a question on Twitter.
Is this an arbitrary racist police call?
Or is this a woman who was actually assaulted?
We should believe her.
And many people, many on the left, started saying, I was being disingenuous.
I was presenting a false dichotomy.
When no, absolutely not.
It's so interesting how because of this footage, people think that this woman was overreacting.
But think about it.
This woman did not know what or who touched her.
She was leaning up against the counter, someone rubbed against her, and she got angry about it.
Should women not speak up when someone touches them?
This is the conundrum.
Imagine there was no surveillance footage.
We wouldn't know what happened.
We would have to choose between believing the woman or thinking she's racist.
Fortunately, because of the footage, we can see that she wasn't lying.
Someone did touch her, and she was concerned about it.
She got into an altercation.
It was blood out of proportion, for sure, but the woman didn't make it up.
But keep in mind, this also means she falsely accused the child of sexual assault.
And this is the important distinction.
You can falsely accuse someone when you were actually touched.
The video shows the kid did touch her.
It was probably an accident.
I think any reasonable person would conclude that.
However, she didn't know that.
She didn't know what happened other than she was touched and she got angry about it.
This is exactly why we need due process.
We need to figure out to the best of our ability, beyond a reasonable doubt, what actually happened before punishing either one of these people.
It's amazing to me that there are so many people on the left calling this woman crazy for speaking up about this.
They want it to be one of these situations where she was a racist so bad, but in reality, it's just the story of a woman who was touched who got angry.
Plain and simple.
She was proven wrong, she apologized to the kids, and good.
She should have.
The story continues.
The self-described unemployed feminist and humanist variously insisted she was groped in the bodega and acknowledged the boy had only touched her accidentally, and accused his mom of pretending to be a cop, then later leaving a threatening message for her.
I would like to apologize to her daughter and her son, but not to her.
She could have walked away, but she didn't.
I'm also a Buddhist, but I let my temper show, Klein said.
I've been called racist before and I'm not.
But neighbors disagreed, claiming Klein has written racial slurs in chalk outside the building.
I have no idea what they're talking about, she told the Post.
And here is a great conundrum within intersectional feminism.
They want us to listen and believe, believe all women, believe survivors.
But that means there will be instances where innocent people will be wrongly accused, even if the person who was touched or assaulted is telling the truth.
This is why we should, in all things, presume innocence until we can prove someone guilty.
During the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, many people said, it's not a criminal proceeding.
It's just a job interview.
And that's why it's really important we listen to Christine Blasey Ford.
But think about it.
Christine Blasey Ford had no evidence.
She had no time, no date, no location.
She couldn't even tell you how she got to where she was or where it took place.
And the other people she claimed who were there denied knowledge of this party.
Yet, many people would say, so what?
We should believe her.
But think about this story.
This woman, we actually have video evidence that someone touched her.
This is way more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford had.
And if we want, We could argue maybe the kid did it on purpose.
Maybe the kid turned to the right so he'd rush up against her because he thought it was funny.
I don't know.
I'm not going to assume his intent.
The fact remains, there's footage showing a touch did happen.
That is more evidence than Christine Blasey Ford happened.
Why then is it that this woman was being racist, but Christine Blasey Ford should be believed?
Why shouldn't we just believe this woman?
Why should we assume the child had no ill intent?
The reality is, we shouldn't assume intent on anybody.
A reasonable person would conclude the kid probably just brushed up against her and it was an accident.
But also, the woman didn't lie.
And that's why many people understand the importance of due process.
In a video I made a couple days ago, I pointed out how black men are 3.5 times more likely to be found innocent than white men.
And this is why I think we see a story like this in the National Review.
The black men who identify with Brett Kavanaugh understand the stakes.
They say, earlier today, freshly minted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill published a piece that broke new ground in the Brett Kavanaugh debate.
She revealed that in her experience, black men were more sympathetic to Kavanaugh than she anticipated.
On Tuesday night, I was in an auditorium with 100 black men in the city of Baltimore, when the subject pivoted to Brett Kavanaugh.
I expected to hear frustration that the sexual assault allegations against him had failed to derail his Supreme Court appointment.
Instead, I encountered sympathy.
One man stood up and asked, passionately, what happened to due process?
He was met with a smattering of applause and an array of head nods.
Hill says this support makes a twisted kind of sense because countless times black men have had to witness the careers and reputations of other black men ruthlessly destroyed because of unproven rape and sexual assault accusations.
But there's nothing twisted about it.
Their experience highlights the vital importance of due process and the presumption of innocence.
In fact, according to a report she cites, while black men account for 22% of sexual assault convictions, they account for a whopping 59% of exonerations.
And that's just criminal convictions and exonerations.
Hill doesn't even delve into the ongoing scandal of campus Title IX adjudications, where the stakes, like those of judicial confirmation hearing, aren't criminal, but nevertheless remain high.
An accused student's enrollment in school is often on the line.
Last September, Emily Yoff wrote a troubling essay, So this strikes at another argument made during the Kavanaugh hearings, that it's just a job interview, not a criminal proceeding.
He shouldn't be allowed this job if he's accused.
by the very-believed-survivors ideology of Kavanaugh's opponents are imposing terrible
consequences on young African Americans, often stemming from mourning after regret amplified
by racial differences.
So this strikes at another argument made during the Kavanaugh hearings, that it's just a job
interview, not a criminal proceeding.
He shouldn't be allowed this job if he's accused.
So let's take that logic and go towards schools.
These Title IX hearings are not criminal proceedings.
They're just determining whether or not the student should stay in school.
If someone accuses a student, should we remove them from school?
What if it turns out that black men are disproportionately targeted in these false accusations?
What if it turns out that the women who are making the false accusations are often mistaken or they have regret?
Whatever the situation might be.
We can say the women aren't lying.
We have a perfect example of what happens when a woman is touched, makes the accusation against the child, but was wrong about it.
Should we then say due process isn't required outside a court of law?
Even if it means derailing the career of a student simply because you prefer to believe all women instead of seeking due process?
When you throw out due process, you end up with a racial disparity in false accusations.
You end up with people who are probably telling the truth, but wrongly identifying people and accusing them without the evidence.
I assure you there would have been people split between the woman is telling the truth or the woman is racist.
And then what do we do?
Because if both arguments don't require due process, if people are okay with the court of public opinion, we will end up destroying everyone's lives without actually trying to figure out what's going on simply because we want to side with one idea over another.
I think people who may have experienced racism would automatically assume she's racist, and people who have experienced assault would automatically assume she's telling the truth.
Neither can be acted upon without evidence.
This is why, after thousands of years of human civilization, we've ended up with the presumption of innocence.
The Constitution we have in the United States has been a model for many other countries throughout the world.
And we shouldn't abandon these things simply because we're concerned about the innocent.
We should uphold them to make sure the innocent aren't punished.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
How do you feel about this?
A lot of people are coming at me saying that I'm wrong.
We shouldn't believe this woman.
She's crazy.
But she was touched.
She was telling the truth.
She just misunderstood what happened.
So, again, comment below and let me know what your thoughts on this story is.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
More videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
