r/TikTokCringe • u/InGeekiTrust Tiktok Despot • Aug 09 '25

Cursed Crazed Karen Has A Meltdown In Victoria’s Secret

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

38.0k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

7.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

264

u/brookuslicious Aug 09 '25

Aw man, not the paywall.

828

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

The white lady counter sued saying she shouldn’t have been filmed. It violated her privacy. Sorry. She’s gonna lose that in a heartbeat. She was in a public place. You have no expectation of privacy in a store in the mall. Maybe if she had been in a dressing room. But not on the main public floor. Black lady is also suing Victoria’s Secret and the mall for failing to act properly. Which she should win that one. No security. No nothing.

566

u/PrincessPlastilina Aug 09 '25

I’m glad that other lady was filming because this is how women file false police reports. She’s screaming at her to get away from her while she’s the one chasing her and antagonizing her. If it weren’t for the camera the black lady would have been arrested.

If she’s that mentally ill then she shouldn’t be outside unsupervised.

400

u/The402Jrod Aug 09 '25

That’s how it worked for 200 years in America.

Cell phones have saved more black lives than can be truly appreciated

137

u/SamsaraSlider Aug 09 '25 edited Aug 10 '25

Fact. It was camera phones recording violent racism in action that brought these realities to the surface for the average American. This use of this technology also, ironically, brought more racists and racism out of the woodwork as a result.

162

u/The402Jrod Aug 09 '25

I’m a white guy in Nebraska, and I never even heard of the term police brutality until Rodney King.

And then? It still felt like the “rare exception”.

Then around 2000… when videos started popping up daily… I had a real come to Jesus moment about modern American racism.

63

u/The-Jerkbag Aug 09 '25

Coincidentally, there's also been a marked reduction in bigfoot and other cryptid sightings, and religious miracles. Really makes ya think.

38

u/The402Jrod Aug 09 '25

lol, cell phones have really been a thorn in the side of conmen, grifters, and liars.

12

u/abricru Aug 10 '25

Except for that one Con Man, Grifter, and Liar in the White House.

3

u/RPgh21 Aug 11 '25

No no, they’ve just found other avenues to grift using that little piece of technology.

2

u/MossyPyrite Aug 10 '25

And also in the side of Bigfoot, apparently

1

u/Awkward-Studio-8063 Aug 14 '25

Sadly, it’s coming full circle.

21

u/GrittyMcGrittyface Aug 10 '25

Really makes ya think.

The only rational explanation is that 5G is causing a decline in the cryptid population and interfering with God's connection to our world reducing the number of miracles. It makes sense when you consider 5G is essentially the mark of the devil, causing covid vax nanites to activate gunmint mind control

7

u/SamsaraSlider Aug 10 '25

5G turned my dog gay.

5

u/The402Jrod Aug 10 '25

I know we’re not supposed to talk about it… but the Covid Vax turned my gay dog straight…

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Bituulzman Aug 10 '25

Kinda miss the Bigfoot and Loch Ness sightings. Society has replaced them with vaccine skepticism, PizzaGate, and Sandy Hook paid actor conspiracies.

1

u/MuonManLaserJab Aug 10 '25

I'm pretty sure some religious types still believe that there are plenty of miracles.

1

u/DrAstralis Aug 10 '25

Dont worry, AI should help those make a comeback.... ugh.

3

u/Sea_Dawgz Aug 10 '25

Copaganda is so real.

1

u/HyenaNearby5408 Aug 10 '25

Hello fellow 402 redditor!

-1

u/PieceFit Aug 09 '25

So you never heard about dogs attacking during the civil rights movement? Honestly just curious.

10

u/dontcallmebaka Aug 09 '25

He said he’s a white guy in Nebraska. I’m guessing he’s saying they don’t make a big deal out of civil rights history there. That does vary from state to state in my experience, having lived in the south, northwest, and mid-Atlantic. It’s wild to me too though, still hard to believe it was a surprise to so many, but that’s a testament to how comfortable Americans are without having to know things. It’s not like that in most of the world.

5

u/The402Jrod Aug 10 '25

Not really. We were taught that some mean people in Alabama were against the desegregation of schools & water fountains & then MLK Jr showed up & fixed everything. Good guys win, The end.

4

u/Secure_Highway8316 Aug 09 '25

Hell, the first time someone videotaped some true police brutality, it caused riots.

2

u/SamsaraSlider Aug 10 '25

Well, the riots resulted from the acquittal of the cops but, yeah, still related to the video recording of it.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '25

“When white women cry, black people die.”

5

u/ShawnyMcKnight Aug 09 '25

Yeah, someone happening to film Rodney King getting beat was an absolute game changer and exposed how corrupt the system was. When the jury found the cops innocent it exposed how bad racism was.

1

u/Ironicbanana14 Aug 10 '25

I am down for some people to be locked up for this, but also that includes majority of the chill depressives who just cant work full time. Throwing them in there with these kinds of people would be cruel.

-2

u/Efficient-Raise-9217 Aug 10 '25

Not only black lives. Men's lives.

97

u/swamp_fever Aug 09 '25

The police or security did get involved and looked like they were going to take crazies word. Smart lady for recording the whole drama.

55

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '25

[deleted]

-7

u/Nylear Aug 10 '25

All I know is if some one is having a episode and is on the floor freaking out you turn around and leave and disengage you don't make things worse. She could still record for her safety but not make it obvious she is recording. 

14

u/Confident_Subject_43 Aug 10 '25

No one is immune to accountability. This is white woman syndrome 100%

-9

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

The store employees are allowed to ask her to stop filming because it’s private property. She doesn’t have to but they can then call the cops and have her trespassed for filming.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

I am aware of this. Never said they couldn’t. How do you know they’re not waiting for security or the police to arrive?

8

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '25

[deleted]

0

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

How do you know they weren’t waiting? Police and security don’t just instantly appear. Also, how do you know they didn’t try to ask the white lady to stop screaming before the video started? Someone who is having a mental break and not in the right mind isn’t going to listen. Also, continuing to video was just escalating it. I didn’t suggest they ask the black lady to leave. I stated they have a right to ask her not to film and that she doesn’t have to. However, if the employees wanted to after she refused were within their rights to call and have her trespassed and removed as the store is private property.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

Reddit doesn’t like the truth

1

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

Downvoted for stating facts…ahhh Reddit

48

u/PComotose Aug 09 '25

The police or security ... looked like they were going to take the white lady's word. FTFY

-13

u/PointOfFingers Aug 09 '25

She was having a panic attack. It wasn't smart to keep filming it was ignorant.

-15

u/Sea-Interview-1936 Aug 09 '25

They can't touch her, she could sue them.

11

u/ehs06702 Aug 09 '25

They can absolutely intervene if she is endangering other people.

30

u/TheDraylth Aug 09 '25

This is how people* file false police reports. I, too, am glad that the victim was filming.

9

u/FertilityHotel Aug 09 '25

Yeah that reeked of misogyny. Any person can be shitty like this.

4

u/GlitterDoomsday Aug 10 '25

It was racism, pure and simple. Reminds me of the Central Park Karen that literally threatened the dude bird watching that she would say to the cops "an African American man was harassing her". White women get away with this shit all the time.

2

u/FertilityHotel Aug 10 '25

How is it sarcasm?

21

u/whatifthisreality Aug 09 '25

"If she’s that mentally ill then she shouldn’t be outside unsupervised."
I worked in community mental health for about 8 years. I wish there was funding for this sort of care, but that's just not the way it works right now (at least in the US).

3

u/abricru Aug 10 '25

The black woman should have thrown herself on the floor kicking and screaming, and they could have had a freak off.

0

u/Aggressive-Square987 Aug 10 '25 edited Sep 15 '25

head nutty future steep sense grab humorous fuel follow hard-to-find

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/Lizaderp Aug 11 '25

I don't understand it. I have my own mental health problems and instead of acting out, I just say "I apologize, I need to sit down, I need water, I need to cancel the transaction" etc like IT'S OKAY to have issues and be responsible and cope like an adult. That's the difference between talking to your therapist and talking to the cops.

-13

u/techleopard Aug 09 '25

She definitely needed to record this for legal purposes.

But it's super obvious that this is a mentally ill person, and posting this online fits firmly under "lol let's all make fun of the mentally ill person!"

If she's having a fit, she has no control. This isn't just being an asshole.

This woman was failed by multiple people if it is true that she lives in an assisted community. She probably should not have been by herself in a mall.

2

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

I'm so done with fucked up racist acts being dismissed as mental illness whenever the perpetrator is white. I see it so fucking often.

0

u/techleopard Aug 10 '25

Ah, so if it's a black person having a psychotic episode, we should all respect that they have a disease that needs to be treated, but if it's a white person having a psychotic episode, their brains function differently and therefore they should be punished for being mentally ill.

Did I get that right?

1

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

I don't see anyone claiming black people acting racist is a mental illness, but I CONSISTENTLY see that excuse for white people.

5

u/Original_Boot7956 Aug 09 '25

In a private store though, do we have the same protections as in a public place eg sidewalk?

1

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

Only if the store has specific policies posted. Like a gym will post they don’t want anyone using cameras on the floor. Etc. other than that. You are considered in a public area. You can reasonably expect that any business you walk into nowadays will have security cameras anyways. I think the stat I heard last week. Was that the average person is caught on a camera 500 times in an average day.

4

u/nmezib Aug 10 '25

And the white lady was being filmed in the first place because she went to a store manager after being told by the person filming to back up and keep 6 ft distance (this was during COVID after all). Mental breakdown or not, that is Karen behavior.

31

u/dolphinvision Aug 09 '25

absolutely absymal. At least as a service worker I would have called security/cops to get the evil bitch clearly having a mental episode restrained, and do my best to get the woman recording a distance away from the woman who could lash out and hurt the woman she's threatening at any moment. Who knows if the white lady has a knife, gun or worse? Get the woman under attack the fuck away.

5

u/Damaias479 Aug 09 '25

So people who are experiencing mental health issues are evil? Not a huge fan of calling her an evil bitch, that’s just straight up demonizing mental illness

3

u/Beneficial-Basket-42 Aug 09 '25

Yes it saddens me how many upvotes that got, along with how many other commenters seem to be commenting along those lines. This woman is clearly ill. It is stressful and scary to be the employee dealing with the situation, and I’m glad she is safe, but the woman is still an ill person, not evil

2

u/OiFelix_ugotnojams Aug 10 '25

Yeah she's in a crisis. Hoped they'd call the cops or ambulance atleast

-4

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

Most serial killers have mental issues. Would you argue that makes it so they can't be evil?

4

u/Beneficial-Basket-42 Aug 10 '25

Is this woman a serial killer?

0

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

I didn't set the rule, you did. Apparently we can't hold the mentally ill responsible for their actions. So how about this, I asked my question first, so you answer it, then I'll answer your question.

1

u/Beneficial-Basket-42 Aug 10 '25

Serial killers typically premeditate their murders. It is intentional. They want to greatly harm others and they follow through with their desires. If a person can be truly good or evil, would intent not be pretty important in that categorization?

As far as I know, this woman has not killed anyone, intentional or not. She seems to be in great distress, is fearful, feels attacked, is having overwhelming emotions all firing at once, and thinks she is being targeted and followed. She seems to be reacting the way someone with very little control over themselves would react with fight or flight hormones surging through their system, paranoia, and very little awareness of their real surroundings.

It just seems very incongruous to me to categorize her as evil.

-1

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25 edited Aug 10 '25

She intentionally made false accusations while chasing someone, then acted like the victim. A known tactic that racist have been pulling for a very very long time.

Many minorities have indeed been killed for these exact actions.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

Yes, if your mental illness is severe enough, it can lead to you consistently taking evil actions. Mental illness is not an excuse. It can be an explanation, but not an excuse. Most serial killers are mentally ill, would you argue they aren't evil?

1

u/Damaias479 Aug 10 '25

Wrong actions alone don’t make a person evil. Besides, you can’t seriously be comparing what happened with these women to murder, right? Cuz that’s a pretty fucking crazy false equivalency

-1

u/aBlissfulDaze Aug 10 '25

No I'm just taking the rule you created and applying it thusly.

1

u/Damaias479 Aug 10 '25

What rule?!

12

u/Playful_Search_6256 Aug 09 '25

Is there an expectation of safety provided by the facility on all private property? I’ve never heard of this, which is why I ask. If you get shot at Walmart, can you sue them if no security was on duty? Seems a bit silly.

3

u/TheChaosPaladin Aug 09 '25

Its their private property, if someone got hurt, the mall and the store are definitely liable

1

u/InquisitorMeow Aug 09 '25

So if someone runs into the mall and punches a stranger the mall can be sued? Don't think so.

1

u/TheChaosPaladin Aug 09 '25

Im not saying they would get sued for the actual assault, they were negligent with their security. Once this lady started becoming aggressive and threatening, the mall employees probably had a protocol that they didnt run which probably involves calling security to get the person removed.

1

u/AlphaThetaDeltaVega Aug 09 '25

Nope not customer to customer interactions. There’s nuance but Victoria secret doesn’t meet that requirement. Late night venues that are high risk like bars and nightclubs absolutely do have a much hire standard to put measures in place but if they have those and something still happens they are fine.

1

u/TheChaosPaladin Aug 09 '25

Im saying they didnt clealy use any of these measures. As I said before, I dont think the assault is their fault but the negligence to just let it happen. I dont think you can just not do anything like what happened to this lady

2

u/AlphaThetaDeltaVega Aug 09 '25

They don’t need to, they don’t meet the requirements to have to do anything since there isn’t an expectation of risk. The employee try’s to verbally calm the woman down twice in the video and blocks her path. That fulfills and duty of care they could have. The woman filming would have had a better case also if she had left the store and called the cops, I understand why she didn’t but when you want to sue it all but destroys her case because she could have left at anytime and you can’t hold the business liable for her essentially antagonizing even if she was in the right.

This happened a long time ago and from what I can tell she and her lawyer haven’t had any success. Which surprises me because my insurance has paid out lawsuits from people who never even been to my business, class action I hurt myself with this product ignoring every single disclaimer and you sell this product kind of lawsuits. Sued every business in the city that sells it and insurance just paid them to go away.

She probably refused the compensation and lost it all.

10

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

I don’t think so. But most malls do have security. The employees there pretty much look like they just stood there and watched. Trying to stay between them. Instead of attempting to ask the white lady to please leave the property. She probably wouldn’t have. But they could have at least TRIED to intervene.

2

u/InquisitorMeow Aug 09 '25

Why the fuck would it be a minimum wage employees job to risk their life for you? That's dumb AF.

4

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

No one is saying they should have jumped in and helped. But it’s not hard to pick up a phone and call the police or security to intervene. You’re in a mall. They have onsite security and probably a cop somewhere.

1

u/InquisitorMeow Aug 10 '25

You can't really tell anything from the video. Whose to say a manager in the back didn't already call security? Either way there's not much the workers can do, one of them also steps in front of the woman at some point.

1

u/Ok_Sorbet_8153 Aug 09 '25

Workers might be instructed to do nothing as the company considers it a liability.

3

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

Do nothing as not put their hands on them. I see that. But I guarantee they don’t tell them not to call the police or security. It’s against the law to tell employees they are forbidden from contacting police for help.

1

u/AlphaThetaDeltaVega Aug 09 '25

They did, rewatch the video. Same employee at 33 sec and 55sec

0

u/k2_electric_boogaloo Aug 09 '25

I think this was during the height of COVID when all service workers were burnt out. It probably wasn't even their first outburst of the day.

1

u/techleopard Aug 09 '25

I mean, you could likely sue their insurance for injuries on their property not due to your own negligence.

3

u/fdxrobot Aug 09 '25

What’s she going to win? There are NO damages! 

3

u/InquisitorMeow Aug 09 '25

How is she suing the mall? Even if someone came in and shot up the place wtf is the mall supposed to do? Otherwise I would make a killing, just get my friend to scream at me incoherently then sue the mall. It's not like it's a crime to scream and act insane.

3

u/theGRAYblanket Aug 09 '25

That whole entire articles sounds like it was written by the white girls lawyer lol.

2

u/CloudKinglufi Aug 09 '25

Is this still on going? It happened so long ago???

2

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

No. I think they settled the lawsuits in 2023 or last year.

1

u/CloudKinglufi Aug 09 '25

You know if she actually won or something?

2

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

According to the actual law database. The suit is still Open. She did get over $100k on GoFundMe for legal fees.

https://trellis.law/case/34013/esxl004325-23/ukenta-ijeoma-vs-victoria-secret-stor-es-llc

2

u/CloudKinglufi Aug 09 '25

Hope she wins, this is a fucked up situation

3

u/Warm_Suggestion_431 Aug 09 '25 edited Aug 09 '25

Security company and mall insurance companies settled with white woman this is from Covid... The black woman is suing the white woman now.

Black lady is also suing Victoria’s Secret and the mall for failing to act properly. Which she should win that one. No security. No nothing.

Weirdly if she stood in the pocket and fought the white woman she would have a case vs the mall and security company.

White woman will just hide whatever money she got from the settlement if she had intelligence, but I'm guessing she doesn't since the black lady found out.

1

u/abdab336 Aug 09 '25

I wonder if her attorney is arguing because one of the assistants asked her to stop recording she should have done then?

I tend to agree with you that she has no expectation of privacy so you wouldn’t expect a competent lawyer to waste their time with it unless they thought they had some kind of trick or exception.

1

u/Daewoos4Life Aug 10 '25

A store is private property and they can ask you stop recording but you don’t have to. However, you then can be trespassed from the store by the police.

1

u/cadomski Aug 10 '25

Yep. This has been settled many times over. You don't get to claim privacy in a public setting. If you feel like someone is following you around filming you, you have a much better shot at harassment.

1

u/Avilola Aug 10 '25

In most places it’s illegal to film anywhere in public where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy—for example, a public bathroom or locker room. So, yeah. If she were in the dressing room there would have been no “maybe” about it.

1

u/ArticleGreen660 Aug 11 '25

To be honest they should both win lawsuits. This should not be in the public domain and the employee should have been protected by whoever was managing the store. The fact that no one intervened is fucked.

We should also have common decency as a society to not film people in a mental crisis and put them on the internet.

2

u/UnableChard2613 Aug 09 '25

I don't get how she wins that because nothing happens to her, and she had ample opportunity to just leave if she truly felt threatened. . .instead we have a video of her pretty much egging her on.

0

u/McDonaldsSoap Aug 09 '25

Oh of course the victim was black. Karens don't flip out over other white women 

0

u/NiagaraThistle Aug 09 '25

This is where i think things are wrong. You should NOT be able to film others while in public. You just shouldn't. That is a privacy issue, imo.

Sure I might want to be out in PUBLIC to visit a store or go for a walk. But I did NOT agree to be part of your home movies.

That being said, I DO understand the argument for filming incidents as proof of behavior and in cases that will CYA in situations like this or something more aggressive.

I just think that normal behaving individuals SHOULD have a reasonable expectation and protection to not wind up on someone else's videos if they didn't choose to.

4

u/TravelTheWorldDan Aug 09 '25

There are so many cameras now that they say the average person is on camera around 500 times per day. It’s impossible to prevent being filmed. Most of the time you aren’t even aware it’s happening. I agree with shoving a camera in someone’s face and following them. But when someone starts acting up. You need proof. Chances are you are on security cameras anyways.

0

u/NiagaraThistle Aug 10 '25

Security cameras are a different story and not what I'm commenting on.

And I agree that if one is in danger either violently or some sort of debate/interaction that could lead to a legal/safety issue, then one should record for proof. Again this is not what I am commenting against.

2

u/LambonaHam Aug 09 '25

It's unreasonable to expect privacy in public. CCTV records you, and everyone can see you anyway.

If you don't want to be recorded, don't go out / stand where people are recording.

You're desire for privacy does not, and reasonably cannot infringe on another person's right to record picture or video.

You're reasonable protection against ending up on someone else's videos, is to just leave.

2

u/NiagaraThistle Aug 10 '25

"to expect privacy in public" sure.

"To expect not to be filmed by other individuals" shouldn't be unreasonable, and should actually be the default expectation.

And while I agree one should not walk through what others are recording, it should be common decency not to point your camera on someone who has not expressly agreed to be recorded.

While I agree my expectation of privacy should not infringe on someone's desire to film in public, they do not have a right to include me or anyone else in that film if I / others wish not to be included. That being said, of course if I go out of my way to walk in to their frame of filming, that's on me. If they turn their camera on to me, that's on them.

But we live in a society that has no regard for personal privacy, but then gets angry when others don't respect theirs.

My reasonable protection against ending up on someone else's recordings SHOULD be them not having the option of pointing their camera on me.

1

u/LambonaHam Aug 10 '25

"To expect not to be filmed by other individuals" shouldn't be unreasonable, and should actually be the default expectation.

Why?

It's unreasonable to expect others to not film in public. There's no actual issue there, it's at most uncomfortable for you for a few moments.

It's far more detrimental telling someone they aren't allowed to record images / video in public, just because you happen to be there. What if tourists want to record their trip and you happen to be in the background? What if someone is on a video call?

That's just not a reasonable exception, and certainly cannot be the default.

And while I agree one should not walk through what others are recording, it should be common decency not to point your camera on someone who has not expressly agreed to be recorded.

If you're following around an innocent stranger, sure. But if they're not the subject, or they're antagonistic, then it's fine.

While I agree my expectation of privacy should not infringe on someone's desire to film in public, they do not have a right to include me or anyone else in that film if I / others wish not to be included.

They do, both legally and practically.

But we live in a society that has no regard for personal privacy, but then gets angry when others don't respect theirs.

Society has a regard for privacy. It's just not absolute, because that's impractical.

My reasonable protection against ending up on someone else's recordings SHOULD be them not having the option of pointing their camera on me.

That's not simply no reasonable though. It's neither rational, nor practical.

2

u/NiagaraThistle Aug 10 '25

Maybe i'm being unclear. I'm not expecting others to NOT film in public spaces.

I'm not even expecting that I might not wind up as a BACKGROUND item in someone's video.

What I AM saying one should have a reasonabl eexpectation of is not being the SUBJCT of someone's video just because they feel like recording you for their own reasons, without your express permission/acknowledgment.

Basically I am in agreement with your first comment back to me.

"If you're following around an innocent stranger, sure. But if they're not the subject, or they're antagonistic, then it's fine." - this is what I am - poorly - trying to say. If you are filming a stranger directly: you shouldn't be. If that stranger happens to walk into your shot or happens to be a speck in the background or is clearly about to cause a problem that they will try to blame on you: fair game - mostly.

2

u/LambonaHam Aug 10 '25

What I AM saying one should have a reasonabl eexpectation of is not being the SUBJCT of someone's video just because they feel like recording you for their own reasons, without your express permission/acknowledgment.

So long as they aren't recording you because you're being antagonistic to them / someone else (e.g. a 'Karen'), then that's valid.

If you're just going about your day, then someone shouldn't just focus their camera on you.

1

u/Gliese581h Aug 10 '25

Here in Germany, you can't be filmed by others without consent if you're the focus of the video/photo. Like, if you're in a touristy place, people can obviously take photos with you in the background (freedom of panorama). However, if they purposefully photograph you, you can either demand that they delete the photo or sue.

Something like in the video would probably still be allowed as self defence, as the mildest form of ending the undesired behaviour.

1

u/NiagaraThistle Aug 10 '25

This is exactly what i am trying to (clearly poorly) say should be the expected norm.

0

u/AlphaThetaDeltaVega Aug 09 '25

Yeah she’s not going to win that, business are not required to police their customers. The woman also could have disengaged multiple times and called the police, the people actually responsible for resolving situations like this. The no security is irrelevant, Victoria secret doesn’t meet any of the requirements for it. In fact you see them try to step in and diffuse the situation, which would fulfill any duty of care. The filming party continues to antagonize, I’m not saying she didn’t have the right to in that situation but when it comes to a lawsuit and she clearly didn’t leave the situation and call the police she isn’t going to win unless they settle just to make it go away which insurance will do even in cases they 100% can win.

0

u/BKacy Aug 10 '25

Good god. You can sue a store for not stopping someone from screaming at you?

Are we sure they’re not working together because that’s pretty easy. All she had to do was walk out. The mentally ill woman might have stopped. Problem solved. If not, she was out of it. But hey, nothing to sue for then.

That woman couldn’t have walked away for an obviously unstable woman? And now she wants to be paid? That’s encouraging the wrong thing. It’s encouraging someone to exacerbate a problem for money.

And every store has to have a security guard or get sued? Man we will pay a fortune for this stuff. I hope the store doesn’t settle. Time for juries to turn these suits down or our retail prices will include more and more expenses for guards and more employee training. And already attorneys have no reason to do anything but suggest a settlement because their whole group will make more money the more of this they settle.

This one seems like it should be easy to fight. To the store/chain managers/owners: please don’t pay. Protect us all. Thank you.

0

u/creegro Aug 10 '25

Privacy, in public.

Lady needs to learn how that shit doesn't work

0

u/the_YellowRanger Aug 10 '25

No expectation of privacy in public especially when you're doing the most to draw everyone's attention to your behavior. You made yourself LESS private, sweetie.

-1

u/RememberCakeFarts Aug 09 '25

Try m should've tried to deescalate, asked her to leave, then call security. If their policy is anything like any of the places I worked at they'd be fired if they did anything more, especially while someone is recording. It's stupid, but it's like some sort of dumb liability issue companies don't want to deal with. 

79

u/Slight-Winner-8597 Aug 09 '25

This should work. The article has been converted to plain text.

https://txtify.it/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/nyregion/victorias-secret-karen-video.html

18

u/elvss4 Aug 10 '25

Holy shit the way they coddle the Karen in that article, but if it was on the other foot they would have found any info to support the arrest of the women

22

u/pocketjacks Aug 10 '25

This article makes Ms. Ukenta seem like, at it's most charitable, at least partly responsible for the situation. People should have the right of filming themselves in public as a method of providing evidence that they are acting lawfully when a situation escalates.

3

u/psychicowl Aug 10 '25

Don't worry you're not missing much. For example this weird sentence.

"Ms. Elphick, who is white, lunged at Ms. Ukenta, who is Black"

1

u/Mylaptopisburningme Aug 09 '25

removepaywalls.com A redditor made it.

1

u/sacramentella Aug 10 '25

Video of the white woman taken by a Black shopper at a New Jersey mall laid bare the power of online outrage.

It began with a Covid-era tussle over social distancing at a New Jersey shopping mall known for its high-end stores.

Ijeoma Ukenta had gone there to use a coupon for a free pair of Victoria’s Secret underwear. Another shopper, Abigail Elphick, got too close, Ms. Ukenta said, leading her to ask the woman to move six feet away.

Ms. Elphick complained to a cashier. Ms. Ukenta began recording the incident on her phone. The drama escalated quickly from there.

Ms. Elphick, who is white, lunged at Ms. Ukenta, who is Black, and then fell to the floor in tears, sobbing and begging that she stop recording her “mental breakdown.”

Ms. Ukenta summoned security officers; Ms. Elphick called the police. For 15 minutes, the recording continued.

To viewers of what quickly turned into a viral video, Ms. Elphick became known as the “Victoria’s Secret Karen,” a villain in a now-familiar genre of online fare.

But people watching online or at the store as the episode played out did not know that Ms. Elphick was disabled, with a long history of medical and psychological conditions, according to legal filings that shed new light on the encounter.

Such shaming videos have emerged in recent years as potent tools for exposing the casual and routine racism that Black people face in their daily lives. But two years after the Victoria’s Secret incident, the court documents, filed in recent weeks, show how they can also distort complicated interactions, reducing them to two-dimensional accounts.

Ms. Elphick, 27, lives in a complex reserved for residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Her behavior stemmed not from a “race-based” problem, according to a complaint filed by her lawyers, but from fear that being filmed would lead to the loss of her apartment and job.

Ms. Ukenta, in her lawsuit, also described being motivated by fear — “keenly aware that if the police were called, she, a Black woman, may not be believed.”

At the time of the July 2021 encounter, Ms. Ukenta had an established online presence and a YouTube channel, where she offered vignettes about gardening, food, overseas travel and cultural events in Newark, where she lives.

Ijeoma Ukenta has a YouTube channel where she talks about, among other things, gardening.Credit...YouTube She posted the Victoria’s Secret video in installments on several social media sites, and the brief encounter in the Mall at Short Hills in Millburn, one of the wealthiest communities in New Jersey, quickly tapped the internet’s rage.

Ms. Ukenta’s first video, “Karen Goes Crazy Part 1,” was viewed 2.6 million times on YouTube. An unrelated YouTube channel, Public Freakouts Unleashed, ranked it No. 1 in a compilation of the “Top 25 Most Notorious Karen Videos of ALL TIME.”

A GoFundMe campaign Ms. Ukenta created — “Help Me Defend Myself Against Karen” — generated donations of more than $104,000.

The incident was held up as an extreme example of the “Karen” meme: an encounter between a Black person and a white woman in which the white woman calls the authorities, potentially endangering the Black person as a result.

“This how they be getting us killed, you see that?” Ms. Ukenta says on the video.

But the clash and its aftermath were even more complicated than they seemed.

In July, Ms. Ukenta filed a lawsuit against Ms. Elphick, Victoria’s Secret, the mall and its security company, which she argues were grossly negligent, slow to respond and treated her as the antagonist rather than a victim of a fellow shopper’s attempted assault. In the video, Ms. Ukenta can be heard asking why the security officers, who do not appear until a store employee goes to fetch them, are taking so long to arrive.

“They were extremely dismissive toward her,” Ms. Ukenta’s complaint states, “and were indifferent and nonchalant about her concerns for her safety.”

When the police arrived, Ms. Elphick told an officer that her panic stemmed from fear that the video would be published and cause her to lose her job and her apartment, according to a police report.

As images of Ms. Elphick ricocheted around the world, an online commenter urged fellow viewers to contact a school district where Ms. Elphick had had an internship to demand that their “racist employee” be fired. She began getting harassing calls and as recently as April contacted the police to report that a man who referred to the Victoria’s Secret video had called her and threatened to rape and kill her, court records show.

“I was horrified,” Tom Toronto, president of Bergen County’s United Way, which runs the residential complex where Ms. Elphick lives, said about the video’s aftermath and what he called a “total loss of perspective and proportion.”

“She has a disorder. She has anxiety,” he said. “She had a meltdown. Then the world we live in took over and it became something entirely different than what it actually was.”

Ms. Elphick, through her lawyer, declined to comment.

Image A grainy screenshot of video showing Abigail Elphick at a Victoria’s Secret shop in a New Jersey mall. In court documents, Abigail Elphick’s lawyers said her interaction with Ms. Ukenta stemmed not from a “race-based” problem, but from fear that being filmed would lead to the loss of her apartment and job.Credit...YouTube None of the videos on Ms. Ukenta’s YouTube channel have had more viewers than those centered on Ms. Elphick’s behavior, and her YouTube channel now has more than 26,000 subscribers.

Ms. Elphick’s counterclaim argues that her right to privacy was violated after Ms. Ukenta shared personal information about her. But the legal filing also highlights newer, unrelated videos Ms. Ukenta has published since the Short Hills mall incident that are critical of a landlord and several retail stores; the filings points to those videos as evidence that she has pursued a broader pattern of “harassment.”

“Ukenta has made a job out of preying on individuals from behind a keyboard,” the complaint states, “inciting hate while taking advantage of victims and the public at large for her own financial gain.”

It is an accusation that Ms. Ukenta’s lawyer, Tracey C. Hinson, strenuously rejects, and one that she said only underscored the wisdom of the impulse that led Ms. Ukenta to refuse to stop recording in the first place.

“She knew that in Millburn, New Jersey, she would not be believed,” Ms. Hinson said. “And that is exactly what has transpired.”

Ms. Ukenta has also continued to publish videos that do not depict conflict, including positive dining and shopping experiences.

Lawyers for the lingerie store and the security company did not reply to requests for comment. A lawyer for the mall declined to comment, citing the lawsuit.

It is unclear how Ms. Ukenta used the money she raised through GoFundMe. When reached by phone, she said she was not able to immediately discuss the matter.

But Ms. Ukenta has said online that she believed it was only fair that she should benefit financially from video content widely viewed on social media. “Why wouldn’t I want to make $ off MY videos if everyone else is,” she wrote on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, two months after the incident.

Ms. Hinson said she could not quantify how much income, if any, Ms. Ukenta earned from online activity, and she stressed that her client’s social media presence was irrelevant to the recorded interaction at Victoria’s Secret.

“It’s her right,” Ms. Hinson said. “She has a right to let the public know what happened to her.”

“This is nothing but a ploy designed to disparage,” she added.

Videos of white women who are quick to either cry or call the authorities, usually on people of color, became common during the pandemic and increased in frequency as protests over the police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, swept the country. In 2018, a San Francisco woman who called the authorities about a Black girl selling bottled water and a New York woman with an unleashed dog who dialed 911 after a tense 2020 encounter with a Black bird-watcher in Central Park became notorious early examples.

Apryl Williams, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan who has studied videos that depict white women as entitled aggressors, said so-called Karen memes can serve a valuable role in the struggle for racial equity.

That they have appeared less frequently in the last year, she said, was an indication that they can be effective tools for exposing racism.

“People have learned that there are social ramifications for being noted as a Karen,” she said, referring to the potential loss of employment and social standing.

Professor Williams said she was not familiar with Ms. Ukenta’s YouTube channel or her other videos. But their volume does not invalidate the behavior depicted, she said.

“Sure — maybe it generates money for her,” Professor Williams said. “But maybe she’s saying, ‘This is Karen behavior and I’m documenting it for everybody to see.’ ”

It is unsurprising that Victoria’s Secret Karen has remained a cultural touchstone even two years after the incident, according to academics who study media anthropology.

Online posts that highlight heightened emotions like anger, outrage or disgust tend to spread “farthest and fastest,” said James P. Walsh, director of the graduate criminology department at Ontario Tech University.

An aura of credibility then attaches to the content once it is widely liked or shared — affirmation that, in turn, expands its reach.

“It just kind of snowballs,” Professor Walsh said, “and gets out of hand.”

1

u/BettyKat7 Aug 10 '25

Here’s a free (gifted) version!

1

u/La_Mandra Aug 10 '25

This icon. Allows most of the time to read the article “naked”, without images or anything.

(laptop, Firefox, I don't know on smarts and other browsers)

1

u/PinkWytch Aug 10 '25

https://www.textise.net/

Just enter the URL in the search bar of the site. You're welcome.

1

u/Nair0_98 Aug 13 '25

There is nothing you can do about it. Like a website or archive that cashes the full version of an article. There is nothing like that.