Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

In simple terms: Pets are considered "property under law (rightly or wrongly), and so his attempt to gain possesion of the dog\remove it from the owner would constitute theft\attempted theft in most jurisdictions.

In this particular case...

Source: https://www.caninejournal.com/stolen-dog/

This appears (based on minimal research) to comprise of:

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/366

From the same statute:


Given this fits into the category of theft (or at minimum, attempted theft), we also have:

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/155.05

And the felony section here would likely come in the form of:

Source: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/155.30

I'm not certain that the "extortion" (6 in above) would neccesarily apply, but have included it as theoretically it could fit what is known.

Section 5 above refers to the difference between taking something when the owner is present and known, as opposed to what is known as "theft by finding":

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding

They would have to prove intent though to steal the dog.

From above:


Coupled with:

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/05/26/christian-cooper-recounts-amy-cooper-incident-before-video-footage/

So, you have Mr Cooper appearing to be attempting to "appropriate" the dog (or deprive the owner of it), through the use of the dog treats to have the dog come to him, and away from its lawful owner...His future plans regarding the dog (keep it\leave area with it, or simply return it\allow it to return to its owner) are irrelevent.

Or, substituting a child for the dog in the situation, you would have kidnapping (which is essentially equivalent to "theft" of a person at a basic level).

It's not a complex thing to understand...

It seems like she should sue for defamation, for Franklin Templeton publicly calling her a racist.

Not for racial and sexual discrimination.

Last edited by TheRobotLives on 28 May 2021, 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

"Amy Cooper's attorneys Andrea Paparella and Matthew Litt"
https://people.com/human-interest/amy-c ... -incident/

Proving intent is another matter and is more complex. Cooper himself has never said what he intended to do if he offered the dog treats, his intention at worst would have been to remove the dog from the area where it says "no dogs allowed" or he just thought the dog was hungry.

Her law suit is not going anywhere.

Franklin Templeton will simply use Amy Cooper's own words to have this libel thrown out of court
Amy initially apologized to Christian shortly after the incident, telling WNBC at the time: "[b]It was unacceptable. And you know words are just words and I can't undo what I did. I sincerely and humbly apologize to everyone. Especially to that man, his family."[/b]

Secondly she volunteered to undergo psychotherapy to avoid being charged with falsely reporting an incident in the third degree

By her own admission she was being racist in order to threaten Christian Cooper, she knew it, her employer knew it.....no neo-Nazi happy endings like for Nicholas Sandmann or Kyle Rittenhouse.

This thread has certainly been enlightening...

Simplified, we have 2 "components" of the interaction between people of different racial backgrounds - the calling\offering "treats" to the dog, and the telephoning the police as a result.

In the first, despite one person stating he had called the dog, and was going to offer it treats which were likely to entice it away from the owner, "Proving intent is another matter and is more complex".

In the second, one of the people from the first incident person calls the police to report what they believe is a crime, describing the person near them who they believe is committing it. In this case, proving intent is apparently not complex, and the caller is immediately considered guilty.

What could be so different about the components that in one intent is difficult to determine, whilst in the other there was no need to prove\demonstrate intent (at least to a certain type of person)? What could it possibly be that these people focus on which makes them immediately assume guilt, and makes intent so "clear" to them? And why was this intent not as clear to the prosecutors (who routinely deal with issues of these types) that caused them to either not place changes related to that aspect they focus upon, or to determine there was not sufficient evidence (based upon their level of experience) of intent up to or beyond "reasonable doubt", and so to drop the single charge they placed related to the interaction?

Showing affection while black?
(that's a sarky comment, Brictoria - not a legal argument )

I just tracked down a copy of the complaint, and it is quite an interesting read - https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Amy-Cooper-v.-Franklin-Templeton-Complaint.pdf

The section regarding Jerome Lockett was something I had not been aware of, best summarised in paragraph 48:


There is a lot more about it in Exhibit A (which is part of the file) and could be part of the reason Mr Cooper was unwilling to testify, given it would open him to questioning regarding this as well.

Looks like he's guilty of *Dog Stealing*.

366. Dog stealing
"To entice, seize or molest any dog, while it is being held or led by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental to the enforcement of some law or regulation"
https://www.nyshumane.org/manual-ch7-va ... 26/#366Dog

In 2014, this appears to have been upgraded from a misdemeanor to a class E felony.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/govern ... tment-pets

"Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today signed legislation ... "The new maximum penalty will be applied against those that remove a collar or identification, entice, seize or harass a pet while it is being held, led or while properly muzzled, or transporting an animal for the purpose of killing or selling it".

So, it's a state law in New York, that you're not legally permitted to entice a pet away from anyone.

I think you are unnecessarily doing mental gymnastics to create case against a person (who is technically the victim) where no case for felony exists

In Christian Cooper's own words "I believe in punishments that are commensurate with the wrongdoing. Considering that Amy Cooper has already lost her job and her reputation, it’s hard to see what is to be gained by a criminal charge, aside from the upholding of principle. If her current setbacks aren’t deterrent enough to others seeking to weaponize race, it’s unlikely the threat of legal action would change that."

"I consider it fair and just if Cooper were found guilty and sentenced to anti-bias training and some form of community service?"

While a reasonable person would consider Christian's decision to not seek criminal charges as conciliatory your attempt to prove underhanded tactics from his part would seem to go against the grain (so to speak).

Even if a court were to entertain a "hypothetical" in Amy Cooper's litigation against her ex-employer it's irrelevant since 1) Christian Cooper is not on trial 2) courts do not deal in hypotheticals only in facts 3) Amy Cooper's actions and subsequent apology and voluntary decision to undergo anti-racism training support her employers decision to terminate her for racism

I can't see how Amy Cooper will get 1 cent in restitution and invoking red herrings that she was entitled to be racist to protect herself in a hypothetical situation doesn't mean her employer was obliged to support her,

I'm guessing you said the same thing for Nicholas Sandmann's lawsuits?

He too was characterized as a racist.

Sandman's family had the support of a QAnon lawyer and political interference with a QAnon POTUS publicly supporting his case which likely scared the newspaper to settle out of court,

That won't apply this time since Amy Cooper's employer has nothing to be scared off.

Well, it's an interesting case to read, but based upon experience, it's probably best to give a summary:

There are 7 causes listed, not all connected with her having been fired. These are:
1. Race Discrimination in Violation of § 1981

(sounds very similar to those accusing her of being guilty for "calling the police while white")

2. Race and Gender Discrimination Under the New York State Human Rights Law


3. Race and Gender Discrimination Under the New York City Human Rights Law


4. Defamation Under New York State Common Law
Relates to a long list of statements made by defendants.

5. DefamationPer Se Under New York State Common Law
Relates to a long list of statements made by defendants.

6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressUnder New York State Common Law


7. NegligenceUnder New York State Common Law


Looking at them, 1-3 are similar. 4-5 are similar. 6-7 have common links.

1-3 would likely hinge on:

Translation: If Ms Cooper had been of "Asian", "Hispanic", or even "African American" descent, would she have been fired for what happened? If yes, then they likely have a defence. If not, then racial discrimination is likley to have occurred.

There is also the fact that they have a convcted felon on their board of directors, which is also referenced: https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/the-firm-that-fired-amy-cooper-promoted-heir-who-beat-his-wife/

4-5 would likely hinge on:

Given the reason for her firing was the claimed investigation, if it was not performed then claiming they had done so and it had produced results as they claimed would likely fit within defamation.

In this case, past occurrences of similar actions by Mr Cooper (or any other people in similar circumstances) would be entirely relevent, as they provide examples of what may have happened had she not called the police.

6 and 7 would likely hinge upon:
Note: I have censored the quote from a text message in the above - the message was not censored.

Fairly simple one - Knowing of the event that occurred\was in the media and how she was being portrayed there, did the company do anything to protect her from harrassment (duty of care)?

The important part here is that this isn't an all-or-nothing case, so even if there is an "at will" clause in her employment contract (which may negate 1-3 to some degree), other causes listed would still go ahead.


That sounds remarkably similar to what I have been led to believe would have been the opinion of many in the southern states of the USA in the 1950's-1960's, had a female of "African-American" descent called the police to report that a "White male" was threatening her, in similar circumstances...