As outsiders of this story (we know neither Yunpeng Wu, nor Li Ouyang, we had no relationship with anyone in OU), we at first felt sympathetic for Ms. Ouyang's situation, and thought of offering her help. However, after reading all available court filed documents, and also had direct conversation with Ms. Ouyang, we changed our mind based on the followings: 1) Ms. Ouyang had actually received a few reminders, warnings from different staff, faculty, police of Ohio university (OU) that she needs to leave the building but she failed to respect OU property over which she did not have privilege. That is, she did not respect laws in USA. No matter whatever arguments she insisted, the permissions she got from two faculty pre-dated the last notice sent by dean of engineering . She obviously ignored all reminders and did not respect others; We did not see any injustice in this case;
2) When being offered a dismissal for the criminal charges upon accepting the conditions of leaving the city, the place being charged for criminal trespassing, Ms. Ouyang obviously gave up this friendly chance;
3) Ms. Ouyang waived her rights to FREE counsel offered by public defender, but chose to represent herself (pro se) at trial; She was able to present herself at trial, and already waived rights to attorneys, then why asked for donations for private attorneys now?
4)Ms. Ouyang broke the laws in US, and continued to waste tax payers' money for unnecessary legal proceedings, appeals, etc,
5) Ms. Ouyang tried to avoid our questions and became irritated when we disagreed with her speculated conclusions. She trusted nobody but only herself, she refused to different opinions, she was not able to understand a simple question (or simply wanted to avoid questions she dislikes - we wanted to offer help but was treated by ending up with hanging up phones. ..
https://www.gofundme.com/244hswc
As outsiders of this story (we know neither Yunpeng Wu, nor Li Ouyang, we had no relationship with anyone in OU), we at first felt sympathetic for Ms. Ouyang's situation, and thought of offering her help. However, after reading all available court filed documents, and also had direct conversation with Ms. Ouyang, we changed our mind based on the followings:
1) Ms. Ouyang had actually received a few reminders, warnings from different staff, faculty, police of Ohio university (OU) that she needs to leave the building but she failed to respect OU property over which she did not have privilege. That is, she did not respect laws in USA. No matter whatever arguments she insisted, the permissions she got from two faculty pre-dated the last notice sent by dean of engineering . She obviously ignored all reminders and did not respect others; We did not see any injustice in this case;
2) When being offered a dismissal for the criminal charges upon accepting the conditions of leaving the city, the place being charged for criminal trespassing, Ms. Ouyang obviously gave up this friendly chance;
3) Ms. Ouyang waived her rights to FREE counsel offered by public defender, but chose to represent herself (pro se) at trial; She was able to present herself at trial, and already waived rights to attorneys, then why asked for donations for private attorneys now?
4)Ms. Ouyang broke the laws in US, and continued to waste tax payers' money for unnecessary legal proceedings, appeals, etc,
5) Ms. Ouyang tried to avoid our questions and became irritated when we disagreed with her speculated conclusions. She trusted nobody but only herself, she refused to different opinions, she was not able to understand a simple question (or simply wanted to avoid questions she dislikes - we wanted to offer help but was treated by ending up with hanging up phones. ..
家人怎么可能没劝呢，你以为就她那性格会听吗？她只选择她自己想听的听。