Woman calls cops another Black Jogger
kraftiekortie wrote:
She completed sort of an "empathy" program.
I believe this was rather like an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" than anything else.
I believe this was rather like an "Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal" than anything else.
Had the program had any bearing on this, it would have been noted in the judgement and a plea deal\guilty plea would have been entered (noting the course as part\all of the sentence, or as being taken into account when sentence was passed).
The way the case was dismissed is legally equivalent to a "not guilty" verdict in a trial.
As to why she did the course, given it wasn't court mandated (and so unrelated to the case against her): It could have been her previous employer had mandated it prior to her dismissal related to media coverage for all we know...
Brictoria wrote:
It could have been her previous employer had mandated it prior to her dismissal related to media coverage for all we know...
It doesn't make sense if her previous employer "parted ways" (not unlike Gina Carano and Disney) then why would they mandate she attend empathy training?
Despite your jubilation at her acquittal my guess is she was encouraged (likely by her therapist) to attend empathy training to reduce her prejudice and to increase her understanding of other people's pain.
Her voluntary compliance to attend this training suggest she acknowledges she acted in a manner that was inappropriate. Hardly worth doing a victory lap over.
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
It could have been her previous employer had mandated it prior to her dismissal related to media coverage for all we know...
It doesn't make sense if her previous employer "parted ways" (not unlike Gina Carano and Disney) then why would they mandate she attend empathy training?
Not sure what part of "mandated it prior to her dismissal" is so difficult to understand, but maybe this simplification will help:
* Her employer may have sent her on the course.
* She commenced the course.
* Her employer terminated her due to the media coverage.
Regardless of the reason for the course she took, the prosecutors found no racist motive, nor evidence to support any other charges, and so all charges related to the incident have been dismissed.
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria is saying its not over. Her lawyer is itching to seek damages for loss of income and defamation.
Interesting...I don't recall making any such claim.
Could you please point to where I said anything about her lawyer "itching to seek damages", rather than simply noting it was a possibility that he may (which neither indicates a desire on his part to do so, nor an indication that it would occur)?
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria is saying its not over. Her lawyer is itching to seek damages for loss of income and defamation.
Interesting...I don't recall making any such claim.
Could you please point to where I said anything about her lawyer "itching to seek damages", rather than simply noting it was a possibility that he may (which neither indicates a desire on his part to do so, nor an indication that it would occur)?
Sorry, my propensity for colorful metaphors/adjectives and verbs.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,699
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Brictoria wrote:
Once I have something I can link here, I'll post it...Hopefully in the next few hours.
Well, it took longer than I had hoped...
From yesterday (between 15:55 and 33:00), here is Robert Barnes (her lawyer) discussing the case:
There is also some details in the following, which are also discussed in the video above:
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,416
Location: Long Island, New York
‘Central Park Karen’ Amy Cooper sues ex-employer for racial discrimination
Quote:
The “Central Park Karen” who went viral last summer for calling the police on a black birdwatcher is suing her former employer for firing her over the incident — accusing the company of axing her without a thorough investigation and discriminating against her because of her race.
In the Manhattan federal suit, Amy Cooper accuses her former employer, Franklin Templeton, of perpetuating her image as a “privileged white female ‘Karen'” by making public statements that it had fired her after conducting an investigation into the incident.
Her suit argues that she did not call the cops on Christian because she is “racist” — but rather because the “overzealous birdwatcher” selected her as a “target” in a feud between bird and dog lovers.
“Even a perfunctory investigation would have shown that Plaintiff did not shout at Christian Cooper or call the police from Central Park on May 25, 2020 because she was a racist — she did these things because she was alone in the park and frightened to death after being selected as the next target of Christian Cooper, an overzealous birdwatcher engaged in Central Park’s ongoing feud between birdwatchers and dog owners,” it alleges.
The suit notes that Franklin Templeton did not interview Amy, or the birdwatcher, during its investigation into the incident.
Had the company obtained a record of the New York City Park Board Meetings from prior to the incident, the suit claims, it would have shown that Christian Cooper had previously gotten into an altercation with another dog walker while he was birdwatching in the park, according to the suit.
altercation, saying in a statement that it does “not tolerate racism of any kind,” the suit states.
The suit argues that the statement, which garnered more than 200,000 “likes” on Twitter, helped perpetuate the view that Amy Cooper is a racist.
She’s seeking unspecified damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence — and racial discrimination.
“The Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of her race,” the suit states.
“As a result of the Defendants’ discrimination, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial loss of
earnings and benefits and endured severe emotional distress, and will continue to do so in the future.”
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
In the Manhattan federal suit, Amy Cooper accuses her former employer, Franklin Templeton, of perpetuating her image as a “privileged white female ‘Karen'” by making public statements that it had fired her after conducting an investigation into the incident.
Her suit argues that she did not call the cops on Christian because she is “racist” — but rather because the “overzealous birdwatcher” selected her as a “target” in a feud between bird and dog lovers.
“Even a perfunctory investigation would have shown that Plaintiff did not shout at Christian Cooper or call the police from Central Park on May 25, 2020 because she was a racist — she did these things because she was alone in the park and frightened to death after being selected as the next target of Christian Cooper, an overzealous birdwatcher engaged in Central Park’s ongoing feud between birdwatchers and dog owners,” it alleges.
The suit notes that Franklin Templeton did not interview Amy, or the birdwatcher, during its investigation into the incident.
Had the company obtained a record of the New York City Park Board Meetings from prior to the incident, the suit claims, it would have shown that Christian Cooper had previously gotten into an altercation with another dog walker while he was birdwatching in the park, according to the suit.
altercation, saying in a statement that it does “not tolerate racism of any kind,” the suit states.
The suit argues that the statement, which garnered more than 200,000 “likes” on Twitter, helped perpetuate the view that Amy Cooper is a racist.
She’s seeking unspecified damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence — and racial discrimination.
“The Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of her race,” the suit states.
“As a result of the Defendants’ discrimination, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial loss of
earnings and benefits and endured severe emotional distress, and will continue to do so in the future.”
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
ASPartOfMe wrote:
‘Central Park Karen’ Amy Cooper sues ex-employer for racial discrimination
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
Quote:
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
The company says her claims are baseless. There isn't a racist POTUS to interfere on her behalf anymore. I'm curious if anyone knows the background of the lawyer she hired?
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
‘Central Park Karen’ Amy Cooper sues ex-employer for racial discrimination
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
Quote:
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
The company says her claims are baseless. There isn't a racist POTUS to interfere on her behalf anymore. I'm curious if anyone knows the background of the lawyer she hired?
The article reads like The Onion but sadly it's Not The Onion.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.
League_Girl wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
‘Central Park Karen’ Amy Cooper sues ex-employer for racial discrimination
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
Quote:
In a statement, Franklin Templeton called the claims in the suit “baseless.”
The company says her claims are baseless. There isn't a racist POTUS to interfere on her behalf anymore. I'm curious if anyone knows the background of the lawyer she hired?
The article reads like The Onion but sadly it's Not The Onion.
I've seen this republished in a few publications
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... s-employer
She is entitled to seek damages but I am curious who is her legal representation as QAnon have been sending lawyers to defend race bases crimes such as with Nicholas Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse. However in both those court cases Trump irresponsibly tried to sway the jury by throwing his support behind the racists. Sandmann's case in particular should have been thrown out of court.
No such political interference will be forthcoming this time for Amy Cooper, I think she is trying to recoup her 6 figure salary, I look forward to seeing this one get thrown out of court and for Amy to go back to rehab.
Brictoria wrote:
There is also some details in the following, which are also discussed in the video above:
Well, that explains why Christian Copper refused to testify.
He would have to admit to a felony of offering treats to pets, and possibly other felonies for all the other times he did that.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Black Autistic Boy Tased By Cops Who Mistook Him For Suspect |
19 Jan 2024, 9:12 am |
3 D.C. Cops shot trying to serve arrest warrant |
14 Feb 2024, 5:09 pm |
George RR Martin Calls out Anti-Fans |
10 Feb 2024, 10:33 am |
Woman uses corpse to try and sign bank loan |
Yesterday, 9:27 am |