Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

I'm starting to get the feeling that you either work in the public service or an education facility, and have no understanding of how private businesses (including publicly traded ones) work in the real world...

"vice president" isn't as "elite" a title as you appear to believe (despite having this explained in the post to which you replied).

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

And to (attempt to) forestall the inevitable remark:
A company director (which you seem to be of the mistaken belief that "vice president" title resembles), which sits above the CEO, is a very different thing to the "Director" title at middle-management level.

Also, research is not hard...If there are 41 companies with a female CEO in the fortune 500 (and so 41 true "Apex women" - more than double your assertion), then it's almost certain that there are more than 10-20 females in middle-management ("vice-president") positions - which are quite some level below "Apex"...

I worked for a major media organisation with multiple branches in the early 1990s and there were female managers but no female directors or CEOs or presidents or vice-presidents. I am not familiar with president and vice-president position description and if its American then that's probably why.

41 apex women still indicates Amy Cooper is in an elite group don't you think? I actually give her credit, she is probably a very clever, assertive, dominant and hard working to get where she has. The idea somebody as harmless as Christian Cooper would cause to fear for her life is farcical.

Which parts of:

• 41 female CEO's
• Ms Cooper's role was "middle management", far below the level of CEO

Did you have trouble understanding?

The role's mentioned also exist within Australian companies, with the same position within the corporate hierarchy, BTW - It's not an "American" thing.

You have a proclivity for splitting hairs Brictoria. Even if the position is below CEO, how many women reach the position of vice president? you are doing Olympic level limbo to try and diminish this women's importance all in an attempt to distract from the real issue that she faked her panic.



I'm not familiar with vice president in Australian companies but a simple google tells me this
Typically, senior managers are "higher" than vice presidents, although many times a senior officer may also hold a vice president title, such as executive vice president and chief financial officer (CFO).

So its not as clear cut as you arrogantly (just can't help yourself) claim. Her annual salary of $140K/yr puts her in the top 5-9% of the population and given the bulk of those are men she's an apex woman however much you are desperately trying to claim she's a middle of range worker which feeds into your narrative that she would faint at the sight Christian Cooper so she was totally justified ringing 911

If you have a look at the previous page, you will notice that this had been addressed...And that the next post in the thread, less than 30 minutes afterwards, was your own.

To assist you:

https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=387467&p=8797346#p8797346

Given that:
It has been pointed out multiple times that she was not a director (but she was still subsequently called a director to justify assertions made about her).
And
It has been pointed out her role is not "executive" (apex) level (but she was still subsequently held up as being "Apex" to justify assertions made about her).
And
It has been pointed out there are multiple "vice presidents" at her company, along with "senior vice presidents" and "executive vice presidents", indicating the position of "vice president" is not unique, nor in the upper level of the "vice president" category (but her title of "vice president" is still being held up to justify assertions about her).

It seems the "prestige" actually works on some people...

Based on the known titles within the company, along with the ordering of titles (executive>senior>ordinary) for "vice president" roles, the closest she would be to "apex" would be 2 tiers below "C" level, but more likely 3-4 tiers below...A long way from "apex".

In fact, doing the research you could have easily performed...

Her title was:
"vice president and head of investment solutions at Franklin Templeton Investments"

According to the current lawsuit:
She was "assigned increased Portfolio Manager and client account responsibilities" in 2019, which suggests a promotion\job title change to that position...But we'll continue on the assumption nothing changed.

Here is the page for what she was "head" of:

https://www.franklintempleton.com/financial-professionals/our-firm/our-teams/investment-teams/franklin-templeton-investment-solutions

And how many investment teams are there:
Equity: 5
Fixed Income: 3
Multi-Asset: 1
Alternatives: 5
https://www.franklintempleton.com/financial-professionals/our-firm/our-teams/investment-teams/

And how many divisions are there:
Investment
Private Wealth Division
Defined Contribution
https://www.franklintempleton.com/financial-professionals/our-firm/our-teams/

So, we have:
Board > Executives (C level) > Division heads > Team heads > Department (which in this case may or may not be the same as "Team head".)

So, we have a person who is (simply put) the head of a 120 (or thereabouts) person component of the company (of over 9000 staff), at a minimum of 2 levels below "Apex" (C level)... Or, as mentioned many times: A middle manager.

And this is exactly what I would expect of someone in her position - taking responsibility and being the adult.
Ah, the lure of money - revenge money at that...

She never "took responsibility".

She attended the therapy program so they would drop the charges.

If she just attended it cynically that would suggest that the charges shouldn't have actually been dropped because she refuses to take responsibility for her actions.

Either way it isn't an argument that calling her racist is an unfair slander. It seems like a reasonable opinion even if she denies it. Rush Limbaugh denied being racist too.

She was mean to a black man, but how does that prove she is a racist?

If a white person spits on a black person, that's not racism.
If a white person calls a black person names, that's not racism.

Racism is having prejudicial racial views.

I agree, a single action isn't inherently proof that she's racist, but it still looks indefensibly terrible. That's why she chose to stop defending it. Saying it's just like your traffic court situation isn't really true because this is a bigger matter of principal and she's likely better equipped financially to fight it.

That said her employer deciding that the appearance of her actions might harm them because people might reasonably conclude that's she's racist isn't slandering her. She made a significant lapse in judgment and she can deal with the consequences like a grown-up. It's like if I raise my hand at a partner, I can be on the record as being against domestic abuse, and I can still believe that I've always been against it even after I did it, but if I did it I don't get to insist that it's unfair to say I'm okay with domestic abuse because my actions strongly suggest otherwise.

She seems racist. Get over it.

There's no point in arguing whether her attendance in a therapy program is an admission of responsibility, because the prosecutor did not require an admission of guilt.

So, there is no proof.

What matter in court is proof, not conjecture.

Their opinion is that she's racist. They're entitled to that opinion based on her actions even if she personally feels that it's unfair. Her disagreeing doesn't make it slander if her actions would cause a reasonable person to share that conclusion.

My money is on the motion being dismissed, but it's not like I was right about George Floyd's murder so what do I know.

I myself have never been as high up as this woman but have supervised 20-30 data casual entry staff in my "hayday". The fact she was above 120 professional/fulltime staff puts her in a very unique position. Again it supports my basic assertion she is capable of handling the situation she faced in central park without resorting to a fake call to 911.

Have you supervised staff before Brictoria? one of the the types of training I did which was standard minimum for anyone supervising even 1-2 casual staff was a basic staff management module required by HR. The primary skill when dealing with people/groups is something called tolerance of ambiguity. This requires very high levels of emotional regulation (application of emotional intelligence). We workshop situations/scenarios when facing aggressive/uncooperative staff and how to deal/diffuse the situation. I am 100% sure Amy not only attended this type of training but given where she was working in such a high pressure environment would have had to apply her training often, She must have been good to get to where she was at the age of 41. Again she knew what she was doing when she called 911 because her training would tell her the logical thing to do was take her leashed dog and walk away from the situation. But she didn't, why? because she was furious/angry/embarrassed at being caught on film breaking a law, The rest is self-evident I need not repeat myself.

Last edited by cyberdad on 02 Jun 2021, 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

She just didn't want somebody to tell her to leash her dog.

All the other stuff was related to the above.

I don't know if she's a racist----but I do know she probably took advantage of societal perceptions of African-Americans in this instance.

I'm pretty sure even if she's middle management as Brictoria is so anxious to point out that she'd have read Sun Tzu's "Art of war" a copy of which can be found in any manager's book collection.

Any was likely applying a strategy of Sun Tzus which would be she felt embarrassed when Christian started filming her breaking the law, in order to fight back she looked for a weaknesses in her adversary had and zeroed in on his race. She then weaponised his race in order to attack back so he would a) stop filming and b) feel threatened not to share the video of Amy breaking the law.

So what she did does not require her to be a practicing racist but she weaponised race which is a racist act. That's all that matters for her employer to throw her out. How damaging it would be for their company in the eyes of their clients to cling to such a person in their ranks.

Which means the original charges should be reinstated against her and she should go to jail. Then it's irrelevent, no major firm would want a "jail bird" in a senior position in their company.

Sorry...can't have it both ways...