Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

She did not have to. Her apology and attendance at anti-racism training is an admission of guilt. I am sure a judge will see it that way too.

This is why you are rushing to defend her so eagerly. You support the use of racism as a weapon for defence, Like (to draw on another of your pet projects) the defence argument for Kyle Rittenhouse using a high powered rifle to kill innocent people.

There are four problems with your proposal
1. It actually supports Franklin-Templeton's findings from their internal review that she used racism to threaten a member of the public (even if as you now claim she deliberately intended to draw on it for self-defence which points 2-4 will demonstrate are false)
2. There is no evidence they were alone since the police arrived much later so can't verify this claim, this seems a crucial addition for your damsel in distress false narrative
3, Amy Cooper was the one threatening Christian at the time of filming and moving forward, her was the one asking her to step back (this is all on video which is why initially apologised as she knew it showed her being racist).
4. If Christian Cooper was the one making the threats then why would he choose to film her? it seems illogical for somebody intending aggression to film themselves in the act

Happy to keep going for another 57 pages Brictoria because I am not changing my mind.,

Geez 62 pages and lot of it is just people arguing with Brictoria. He isn't going to change his mind so why even bother engaging with him?

So let's recoup Amy's case against her employer so far

1. Amy is a fragile vulnerable female - No, she was a senior director in a fortune 500 Finance firm which is a role that predominantly dominated by males so for a female to achieve that role at the age of 31 she must be quite formidable

2. Amy was under pressure and had to make a snap decision so had no choice but defend herself - the role she was in Franklin Templeton mean't that she would have constantly needed to make snap decisions in board rooms with aggressive males all the time.

3. What if Amy was black how would the situation have changed? - irrelevant, Amy is white


4. Christian Cooper was a dangerous aggressive male - Incorrect, he was an eccentrically dressed gay man carrying binoculars and a bicycle who spoke in a polite manner and was never disrespectful

4. Amy felt under threat when Christian offered her dog biscuits - False, Amy had the dog on leash so there was no threat to the dog

5. Christian Cooper threatened Amy - false, the video demonstrated that Amy was the one who dragged her dog on leash toward Christian threatening to call 911

6. Amy sounded distressed when calling 911, doesn't that show she was threatened? - false, voice experts and the general public agree she was fakinging the level of threat in her voice

7. Amy didn't know she couldn't call 911 for this purpose - false, she knew the purpose of 911 and that's why she was charged for making a false report.

8 . The charges were dropped because Amy was innocent - false, the charges were dropped because the victim Christian Cooper chose not to pursue the case as he felt she had been taught a lesson by losing her job

9. Amy was doing her civic duty to report Christian's appearance - false, it is now established she said "I will say that a African American man is threatening me" which was communicated as a threat to Christian

10. Christian Cooper threatened Amy Cooper which is why she called 911 = false, Christian knew she was lying which is why he started filming,. In cases of false accusations against an innocent person the victim will always be the one who films the event not the perpetrator

11. Ok so Amy weaponised race but she was right to use race in this instance to protect herself - Wrong! the reason Amy weaponised race against Christian is because she was furious that he pointed out she was breaking regulations bringing a dog in a zone that clearly marked "no dogs", She knew this because she told him that she didn't want her dog to play without a leash near the road. Her intention to use race was therefore intended to punish him.

12. Franklin Templeton have no reason to find Amy Cooper used racism following their internal review - Wrong, In addition to members of the public, the media, the judge who charged her with making a false report, Amy Cooper herself in admitting she lied when making the 911 call for a valid reason and agreeing to attend anti-racism training but also the governor of NY Cuomo and the mayor De Blasio all called her actions racist,

I had this happen to me.

The local court offered me an online driver's training to eliminate "points" (driving infraction allowance) for a supposed driving infraction.

I still had to pay a fine.

It's not an admission of guilt.

It's how the game is played.

Not really. If Amy was single and didn't live an independent life then even a job like that would render her too immature for the "in depth adult discussion" forum of this website. (or at least she needs to know that the discussions might be too advanced for her).

But yeah that aside, she's actually a pretty capable woman but a dimwit.........but the evidence in her being a racist is lacking.

As you subjectively see it.

Let's have a look at your views on this and see to what degree they reflect the known facts (certain entries have been grouped as they are related).



No-one (other than yourself) has made this assertion. I'm not the sort of person who would claim that a female who is put in a position where she feels threatened is a "fragile vulnerable female", but apparently there are people who do.

I'm also intrigued as to the origin of the assertion that she was a director of the company: I have seen no evidence to support this assertion (the closest being that she was simply the "Head of investment portfolio management" - a department head - very different to being a "senior director in a fortune 500 Finance firm").



Given the claimed role differs considerably from her actual role, the foundation for this claim seems tenuous at best.

The inability to understand the difference between "making a snap decision" in a board-room situation, as oposed to a situation where a person faces a potential threat to their person is also rather interesting, suggesting the person making the assertion has never been in a position to experience the latter, nor that they are aware of the statistics regarding violence against woman.



No, it's not "irrelevent": It is in fact highly relevent, being the crux of the issue, and so deserving much greater discussion.

There are 2 main options here:

• The first (which through claiming it to be irrelevent - as well as other assertions earlier in the thread - indicates you do not agree) would be to simply say that it would not make a difference: that an "African American" woman calling the police to report "An African American man is threatening me" would be equally racist. After all, the police would hear the same words, and react the same way (unless you believe that all "African American's" sound the same, and that an "African American" can never sound the same as a "white" person?).
  
• The second alternative is that a person's race is precisely what determines your views of them and their actions: That the same action can be performed by people of a variety of races, and you would judge each based on their race rather than any other factor.

Not sure what the relevence his sexuality has here, unless you believe a person's sexuality determines their actions\mannerisms\demeanour\etc., and that people deserve better (or worse) treatment based upon this facet of their personality? Or do people have different "signals" they send out based on their sexuality, which other people are supposed to be able to subconciously detect? The only reason to include this in the discussion, given there has been no indication from Mr Cooper that he informed her of this detail (and so Ms Cooper would be unaware of it, and therefore not be in a position to take it into account during the interaction), would seem to be that you do...

As to the way in which he spoke: Is this opinion founded on footage he took, covering a minor portion of the whole event, or do you have access to details of how he spoke prior to the point he elected to start filming? He didn't start filming when he saw the dog off the leash...He didn't start filming before he approached her...He didn't start filming when he informed her "I'm going to do what i want to do and you won't like it"...He waited until immediately after this to start filming.

Of course, there are details publicly available which demonstrate how Mr Cooper approached these types of situations in the past:

• My friend tells me about a month ago as we’re approaching the Ramble with our dogs off-leash, “a few days ago there was a dude in their screaming a people to leash their dog. I’m glad that other owner was with me because he’s a really buff dude waving his helmet.”
  
• Christian comes yelling from about 10 yards away “YOU NEED TO LEASH YOUR DOG!! ! THEY CAN’T BE OFF-LEASH IN HERE
  <...>
  He then says, “if you’re gonna do what you want, them I’m not gonna do what I want, but you’re not gonna like it.”
  Me: What?? Are you threatening me and my dog??
  
• My two fellow dog owners have had similar situations with this man
  
• As a black man, I am not scared of another person because their race or ethnicity, but this man IS threatening with his body language and screaming.

Do those statement produce a mental image of a person who approaches another and "speaks politely and is never disrespectful"? Or maybe you have a link to details regarding him interacting with dog walkers in a different way, which I am unaware of?



She had it by the collar, not the leash (from memory) when the footage was recorded, and that was subsequent to his having offered it the dog biscuits - Had she had it on the leash, he wouldn't have approached her (and offered the dog biscuits) for failing to have it on a leash, would he

Similarly, we can look at a description of how Mr Cooper acted with his "dog biscuits" in a similar situation:


Or how this other dog owner described the situation:


Similarly, please provide the evidence that proves he didn't threaten her: Footage, bystander\witness description, or even past actions (which can be used to infer the probable actions taken in this situation).



And yet, prosecutors dropped even a charge for this, indicating there wasn't evidence to support this charge - Christian Cooper's participation was not needed for the charges to proceed (as you are well aware, having had this explained to you previously). The charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence.

Similarly, are you claiming that people are not permitted to call 911 if they feel threatened, instead needing to wait for the threat to be carried out...Interesting.



What does the NYPD say about calling 911 to report crimes?

Source: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/services/victim-services/how-to-report-a-crime.page



Is there evidence they performed an internal review? (around 30% of the present case resolves around this question). Similarly, on what evidence was it based, given they reached a conclusion at odds with the DA and prosecutors on this factor. Similarly, point to where a judge charged her with making a false report...

As to the other main element: It appears you are advocating "mob justice" - The public and the media decide guilt or innocence based on a select portion of an event? Is that what you really want

I at first read cyberdad's post as saying Amy is 31 and I thought "Damn, I thought she was older than me somehow" and then I re read the post and he was saying she got that achievement at age 31, not saying that is how old she is now or at the time of the incident.

Having watched the initial video (and the reporting on the content of the facebook post explaining what happened prior to the footage), my initial reaction was that Mr Cooper's manner of approach was unlikely to have been calm, and the message about "doing what he wanted and she wouldn't like it" along with trying to entice the dog to himself with "treats", coupled with the "hostile" (not by intent) way he had approached her had been sufficient to give her a deep feeling of threat (several indicators in the video suggested that) - but that it was merely a misunderstanding.

Based on what has since come out (the way he had approached others with dogs off the leash, for example), it seems more like the situation of 2 children left in a room. As a parent returns, and just prior to entering the room, one of them hears them and punches\pinches\etc. the other. As the parent enters (camera starts filming), they see the second child reacting to the first child's deliberate action - The parent doesn't know what happened prior to that point, so simply assumes the second child hit\pinched\etc. the first for no reason, and so they are "bad" while the first (who initiated the situation) must be the victim.

This could also help explain why he refused to assist the prosecution further, claiming she had been punished enough - He hadn't intended the footage to go public (it was merely a "trophy" to be shared with friends/family/?), but had simply wanted her scared as a way to "encourage" her not to take the dog through there without being on its leash in the future.

"She was a vice president and head of investment solutions at Franklin Templeton Investments from 2015 to May 26, 2020".
https://conandaily.com/2021/05/25/amy-c ... ark-karen/


"She was 41 years old when she encountered Christian on May 25, 2020"
https://conandaily.com/2021/05/25/amy-c ... ark-karen/

Thank you for that. I hadn't been aware of some of that information.

A couple of points, though:
The linked article seems to imply she held that position from 2015, but according to her recent court filing, the role listed may be a promotion received in 2019:

Source:https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Amy-Cooper-v.-Franklin-Templeton-Complaint.pdf

While the filing does not provide job titles across the timeframe, the mention of "assigned increased Portfolio Manager and client account responsibilities" does suggest a promotion\job title change, although it may equally have been simply additional duties added to the existing role - I've noticed managers generally like their titles updated when this occurs, though, to show how much more "important" they now are...

Similarly, whilst sounding impressive, the "vice president" part of her title does not appear to be an indication of "being second in line", or even a unique title, given there are several "vice presidents" (technically, "Executive Vice Presidents") listed on their "directors" page, and a search for "franklin templeton vice president" (at least in DDG) gives quite a few more "vice presidents" and "Senior Vice Presidents". Given the number of perople with the title, it seems more a "prestige" title, rather than a "functional" one.

That makes even more formidable than a director doesn't it. Only underlines my point.



That still makes her a formidable individual as a woman in such a high powered position not a shrinking violet

I think what it boils down to was whether Frankjlin-Templeton called her a racist or whether her actions were perceived as racist.

According to Franklin Templeton: "Following our internal review of the incident in Central Park yesterday, we have made the decision to terminate the employee involved, effective immediately. We do not tolerate racism of any kind at Franklin Templeton."

Her ex-employer did not actually call her a "racist" but a reasonable person would interpret the company perceived her actions as being racist which was the universal view at the time leading her to accept she did something wrong and attend anti-racism training,

No Brictoria, I am advocating that she take personal responsibility for her actions. This ugly episode should have ended when she undertook anti-racism training (which she wholly accepted she would attend).

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand Amy said i) I made a mistake calling 911 ii) made a mistake threatening Christian Cooper with a racist meme and iii) I took responsibility by attending anti-racism training

But now she has turned around and said I was never a racist! I never used racism! I want compensation!
Any reasonable judge would objectively see her actions as i) an attempt to seek financial advantage ii) seek revenge on her employer and iii) contradicting herself and removing personal responsibility for her actions.

The last point is what I have been saying for 60 + pages. Amy Cooper is still not taking personal responsibility for her actions and is choosing to be petulant and opportunistic.

How so?
The hierarchy is:
Directors
"C" level Executives (which includes "executive" vice presidents")
<...>
"Senior Vice Presidents"
<...>
"Vice Presidents"
<...>

Seems it actually undermines, rather than underlines your point, given the title puts her well down the corporate hierarchy compared to where you imagined she was situated...

Your eager attempt to lower her standing in FT is purely to buy her credibility ins't it. How many women in the US hold a position of vice president in a fortune 500 company Brictoria? maybe 10-20? she's an apex woman.

My point is out of every female in the USA Amy Cooper is the least likely to panic at the sight of a gay man with fluorescent clothing and binoculars. Her claim she panicked to call 911 is preposterous given she is clearly of sound mind to be holding a senior position in FT.