Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

There's a lot in your post and I have said before I am not a lawyer and have limited understanding of American law so can't comment on the bona fides of your argument for the validity of Amy Cooper's litigation.


I will comment on two of your points where you have tried to interpret US (NY?) law

This is a rather interesting point but I think Amy Cooper has already given away her intentions when she publicly apologised to Christian Cooper and underwent anti-racism training. There's 3 points that are reasonable to infer from the original event i) Amy Cooper was aware she was going to sound like a "vulnerable white female" ii) this provided weight/power of the perception of her being under physical threat by a black male to the 911 dispatch iii) it's reasonable to infer she intended to escalate the level of danger beyond actual reality. The third point was what she was being charged with under the law and point's 1) and 2) was the reasonable interpretation of the even by her employer which a) resulted in her suspension and b) following her public apology her subsequent termination from her job. It's that last point that makes it nigh impossible for her legal team to make a case because that means she admits to lying when she apologising for actions and undergoing anti-racism training which automatically invalidates her current claims which appear to be transparently an attempt to recover money for income she lost.



Are there a) examples of Christian Cooper attempting to lure other people's pets in the past? b) actual evidence that the dog ever left Amy's side (last I checked she was choking thew animal to death which is why there was accusations of animal cruelty levelled at her leading to Amy Cooper attempting to give the dog back to the shelter which suggest she was using the dog's welfare as a weapon rather than sincere concern for the dog). You can't charge a person for felony when the animal was leashed. And finally c) carrying dog biscuits is not a crime.

This lack of understanding hasn't prevented categorical statements of people's "guilt" by yourself in the past... Why the sudden reversal?


Not trying to "interpret" the law, simply pointing out the points which the defence will be likely to rely\focus upon (should there be supporting evidence)


It is, isn't it. Strange you failed to provide your own opinion of this...


I take it, then, that you have never appologised when having done something that was misinterpreted\misunderstood by another person... Similarly, the course may have simply been to try to understand why people were reacting the way they were, which didn't align with the intentions behind what she did.

After all, as someone stated previously: "Proving intent is another matter and is more complex."


Based upon what proof? The word of a person who is happy to make categorical statements, then claim that "proving intent is complex" when information which doesn't agree with their claims is presented?

Having been in stressful situations (including being the victim of assault [1]), and dealt with people in similar states, it is highly doubtful she was aware of how she sounded, nor likely to have had much (if any) ability to control this.


"If you're going to do what you want to do, I'll do what I want to do, and you may not like it"... I wonder how a single female in an area with few\no other people around and approached by a larger male saying words like that would react, or what interpretation they may have of what was said?


Given we have no idea of her mental\emotional state at the time (potentially psychological shock), we are expected to assume she knew what she was doing, and chose to do so... How does that differ from someone claiming a person with ASD who was suffering autistic burnout is aware of what they were doing, and choosing to do so, simply because the person making the statement was infering the mental\emotional state based on the fact that the person "looked normal".


Guilty until proven innocent: how enlightened of you.

Even more so, given she was fired in May, but not charged until July...


This is where the lawsuit comes in: The company claimed to have investigated the incident.

If they did so, then they have nothing to worry about. Similarly, if she had an "at-will" clause in her contract then they are potentially also clear on at least some of the sections of the complaint.


It seems there are 2 ways to react should something a person does cause offence to another person:

• The first type of person (as Ms Cooper demonstrated) would appologise for the effect their words had on the other person (which does not imply that the way they were interpreted was the intention).
• The second type of person would consider the other person's reaction to be their problem, and show no concern for them.

Your reaction\interpretation certainly suggests which category you would probably fit within.


An interesting example of deception: suggesting you are unaware of the answer to this when you have previously (4 hours before posting the post I am replying to) quoted a section of a post containing precisely what you are now asking for...

To refresh your memory:
[/quote]
Source: https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Amy-Cooper-v.-Franklin-Templeton-Complaint.pdf


Irrelevent: He was calling the dog, trying to entice it away, which is all that the law requires (which was included in another post you replied to (and in which you quoted the section containing the law) less than 4 hours before your post to which I am replying here: I'm starting to see a pattern forming here.).

To refresh your memory:



Using them to try and attact another person's dog is.

[1] At the time, all I recall thinking was that I wanted those involved removed from where I was, so when asked by the police I declined their offer to press charges. Had I been thinking clearly (which the police seemingly believed I was in a state to be able to decide clearly), I would have done so... The outward appearance of a person can be a very different thing to their internal emotional\mental state. I'm sure there would be many members here (being a site based around those with ASD) who have had their ability\actions judged based upon their abailty to appear a certain way, rather than on their internal state.

This seems like her best arguments.

"New York is an “employment-at-will” state. Therefore, an employer may generally terminate an employment relationship at any time and for any reason, unless a law or agreement provides otherwise".

So, Franklin Templeton could of fired her for any reason.

However, Franklin Templeton employees had to open their mouths, and publicly say she was fired for being a *racist*.

That is so stooopid and malicious.

Hmmm Do I need to remind you that;
1.Amy Cooper was the one breaking the rules in Central Park that day. She was walking her dog in an area that explicitly calls for dogs to be put on a leash. Yet upon being asked to follow this rule, Amy responded with the kind of superiority and indignation that could only be read as white privilege. Her next move was to put race smack dab in the middle of the episode by emphasizing Christian Cooper’s race and placing heavy importance on him being an “African American man.” She wasn’t just calling the police to claim that a man was threatening her. She went out of her way to let Christian know that if he didn’t stop recording her, she could get back at him by using her privilege to cry out that an “African American man” was the one doing the deed.

2,Amy created an entirely false narrative and then do whatever she felt necessary on the call with the 911 operator to get officials to believe the lie. This is infact what she was charged for and what Christian Cooper decided not to pursue criminal charges against her which he was entitled to do. The point is had Christian not recorded the episode on his phone there is good chance a team of police officers would have stormed his apartment and cuffed him or worse.

3, The critical reason why Franklin-Templeton terminated Amy Cooper's contract with them is because she weaponised police against Christian Cooper by feigning assault. Amy Cooper exalted her voice and played damsel in distress on the 911 call, she put Christian Cooper’s life on the line. The judge would only need to watch the video again to see just how dramatic Amy Cooper became in order fabricate her lie.To increase the sense of urgency for police, she changed her demeanor, raised her voice inflections, and heightened her cries and animations all in an attempt to get police on the scene ASAP. She put it all on the line to ensure that the person on the other end of the 911 call would believe that she was indeed being assaulted. She was trying to ensure that the only impression the individual could get was that her very life may be taken if he or she didn’t act quickly.
With her performance, Amy Cooper raised the stakes and increased the likelihood that police would not just show up to Central Park, but they would show up with guns drawn ready to cause immediate harm to Christian Cooper. She raised the stakes to make police prepared to do whatever they needed to do to ensure her safety. The very message Amy Cooper was sending to Christian Cooper was that police exist to serve and protect her.

The last point actually makes her unsuitable for a role as a director in a major firm for multiple reasons (not just racism), Her character and integrity was clearly in question. About 30 or 40 pages ago I mentioned that a person in Cooper's position as director in a major investment firm must be required to have the utmost integrity and be able to cope with pressure, She clearly demonstrated an incapacity to handle a simple dispute in a park how can she be expected to run a financial portfolio where the level of pressure required to do that job is considerable which is why she was being paid in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,.

I imagine Franklin-Templeton's legal team will run rings around her somewhat spurious claims.

Last edited by cyberdad on 29 May 2021, 5:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

Not having seen any reference one way or another, it is possible that her contract may have required cause...Again, not having seen any information, it's equally possible she was on an "at will" contract.


Are also interesting ones, given they would be applicable regardless of whether she had been fired or not.

I'm looking forward to seeing the responce from her (former) employer when it becomes available, to see which paragraphs they admit, and which they deny, along with any reasons behind them.

Surely, Franklin Templeton will argue this all adds up to racism.

However, if they kept their mouths shut, they wouldn't have to even defend themselves for calling an employee a *racist*.

Frankly her lawyers only hope is defamation if Franklin Templeton called her a racist. The statement that has Amy's supporters so excited is "We do not tolerate racism of any kind at Franklin Templeton," the investment firm said the day after the incident. It said it had completed an internal review", My feeling is this internal review must be based on newspaper reports that labelled Amy Cooper a "karen" and "racist".

The question now is whether a company is permitted to interpret racism from external sources, I think at the end of the day they are entitled to fire her if her character or capacity to conduct her job is bought into question.

Thank you for the demonstration of implicit racism, where (certain) people focus on the race of those involved in multi-racial incidents above all other factors, and deny any possibility other than race being the cause...

Given the fact you have repeatedly claimed racist motives for the exchange, and provided no evidence to substantiate the claims (and prosecutors who are experienced with race related issues did not press any race-related charges here), I don't think the real racist was involved in the incident...



Do you have any evidence to show she made the call because of his race and not because of his words\actions - Not implicit racism, where you determine guilt\innocence based upon a person's race, but actual evidence.

How about evidence she wasn't suffering from something such as psychological shock?




So, to simplify this: You are saying that females (or is it only females of certain race(s)) shouldn't call the police when they subjectively feel threatened by a male? I know that if I was approached by a person who said something such as he had ("if you're going to do what you want to do, I'll do what I want, and you might not like it"), I would quite likely interpret that as a threat, or a prelude to being assaulted.

Or, put another way:




That's an interesting stretch, given a director there is a convicted felon:

Source: https://nypost.com/2020/05/30/the-firm-that-fired-amy-cooper-promoted-heir-who-beat-his-wife/

As to her "unsuitability":

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

It's also worth noting that the stress involved in working in the type of job she had are entirely different to those one would experience in a situation such as this was.

Then again, maybe the issue is that we have a female in a high-paying\prestigious job, which you feel isn't a suitable role for females?



I'm sure you do - Given your racist opinions of Ms. Cooper and the racist intentions you project on her actions (in a similar way to that in which you considered events around Mr Sandmann), though, it will be interesting to see how close your fantasies come to reality...

Well, the company employed a director who "slammed his wife into a kitchen stove hard enough to break the bones of her face. He was later convicted of felony assault and incarcerated for two months", so firing a person for something where even experienced prosecutors were unable to find any evidence of racism does make claiming "her character or capacity to conduct her job is bought into question" seem a stretch...

No doubt the racists and misogynists will continue to try, though...

Brictoria, please tone down your accusations of racism and misogyny - you're drifting into attacking people for their opinions.

Am I late to the party? 57 pages and I missed it all.

Basically a few members are claiming Amy Cooper (Central Park Karen) is the victim here not the man who Amy made a fake 9-11 call in order to get the police to kill him.

Interesting "interpretation"...

Care to point out where any member has made categorical statements regarding any person being the victim in this case?

I can only recall one person doing so (with their "understanding" of events being very different from the experienced prosecutors who investigated the case and had more knowledge of events than anyone here), whilst several others have been putting forward alternative possible causes\explanations for the participant's reaction in the events (whilst not saying that any particular cause was not possible, before a court had ruled) - Not making any claims as to whether they were accurate, simply demonstrating how there are other possible explanations.

As an example, let's take a quote from above:


No evidence (either here, outside certain people's biases against particular groups) has been produced to support this assertion, with even prosecutors who are experienced in these issue unable to produce evidence to support this, yet despite this, the fantasy is still presented by fact.

On the other hand, there are people who did not discount this as the cause initially, but who also put forward alternative possibilities as to the reason for the actions - I believe these people, who never made categorical statements regarding the case, are the ones now being accused of making claims regarding specific guilt\innoocence.

I think certain members have clearly a) cast doubt over Amy Cooper's intentions defending her right to not tolerate the ambiguity of the situation and b) stating she was entitled to draw on racist implicit bias to threaten/cause harm to Christian Cooper

In the latest episodes of "Amy Cooper has the right to be racist" we now see a defence of the legal case launched on her former employer as it appears the use of the word "racism" is incompatible with their own world views.
Not much wiggle room there to misinterpret their intentions.

• On one side, we have certain members making statements indicating definitive intent without supporting evidence besides their desire that this be the case (given prosecutors could not even substatntiate the claimed intent).
• On the other side, we have people providing alternative views, without passing judgement as to whether a particular one is correct, but providing details demonstrating how they may fit the known facts.

And here is an example of the differences: On one side, we have people unable to see anything beyond "race", whilst on the other side are people looking at all aspects of what occurred, without a fixation on any one component.

Alternatively, perhaps this statement reflects a belief that only those of particular races are permitted to take certain actions\access to certain services, whilst others should be prevented from taking the same actions\having access to the same services due to their race?


Again, a complete misrepresentation: Only a small portion of the case is related to that (2 of the 7 causes), where the employer had claimed they had investigated and determined that "racism" was the cause, yet potentially conducted no investigation, thereby having nothing to support those accusations.

3 of the clauses relate to whether the same actions would have occurred had the incident taken place as it did and she had been another race (for example, "Asian", "Hispanic", or "African American"), whilst the last 2 related to the company's "duty of care" to prevent their employees being harrassed\not facilitate that harrassment...

Unfortunately, false assertions of racism, with nothing except the accusers unhealthy desire to find it even where it does not exist, does as much harm as true racism, as it lessens the impact such claims have when it does exist (Boy who cried wolf)... After a point, people will begin to ignore any claims of racism, no matter how blatant the racism was, merely because of the number of times the accusation has been levelled falsely - But, then again, that may be their intention?

Amy Cooper clearly crossed a line. You conveniently keep ignoring she acknowledged her error when she apologised and agreed to attend anti-racism training.

You also conveniently ignore that the mayor of NY Bill De Blasio and governor of NY Andrew Cuomo called Amy Cooper a racist. Strangely Amy Cooper isn't taking legal action against them? I wonder why....

She appears not have learned anything from her actions or their consequences and is only going to make things worse for herself.