The analogy as presented IMO is pretty simple.
Alice has been wronged/victimized her property was physically removed from her persons. She was present for this theft, and was able to confront the perpetrator. She then outlined her course of action to involve the authorities, if the property isn't returned to her. I do not see that as a threat, more of an undeserved olive branch. Bob at the moment has wronged the individual and has a decision to make. The police are not involved in this analogy, only mentioned as a possible future so I don't know why they are being discussed.
Considering this is an Analogy let's not treat it like a blind study. What is this really about maybe a link to what I'm guessing is a Reputation or Scam accusations thread.
MANY DT members now claim this how they view that analogy and how each character should be viewed and treated.
Alice = black mailer and untrustworthy
Bob = victim and trustworthy
Police should reward BOB and punish Alice.
They stick to this fucked up reasoning to justify giving red trust.
I want to hear it from each person so I can establish I am dealing with people that are completely corrupt and will say anything to protect proven scumbags here.
Let's see what kind of justice our systems of control are dishing out. I mean it is like poor old Alice "just fell down the rabbit hole straight to hell" haha
This part clearly shows you are here discussing something else, by bringing red trust and peoples reasons for it into the discussion. You also have already made your mind up on what you expect to see. This is weird because we are only supposed to discuss the analogy, you just wrote it but are positive you know how people will react. Now you've seen my opinion on your analogy, but that is only in the context of what you have presented. There are varying degrees to which the situation could change, and then the labels or views of the participants may also change.
For example - Did Alice take the phone from someone Bob knows? that could change things.