Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Page 15 of 33 [ 514 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 33  Next

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,090
Location: Oz

31 May 2020, 8:21 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The guy is a weirdo.

She politely told him , "No".

That makes him angry, so he pulls out his camera and films her.

Then tells her, "You're not gonna like what I am going to do".

Then he throws dog biscuits to lure her dog (requiring her to restrain her dog).

He's the kind of man that has to get his way.


I have to disagree.
He came across, to me, as a decent human being.
But he made a mistake by filming the woman.

Also:
Apparently, when he said: "You're not gonna like what I am going to do",
He was referring to the treat he was going to give the dog.
He said he uses that to entice the owner to put the dog back on its leash.
It seemed to have the correct effect on the woman, assuming what he said was truthful.

The trouble is, he did not make it clear what he meant by that statement and this presumably fed her paranoia, as it did with some others here in this thread.
His statement was a mistake, imo.

What if the treat was baited?
I never let strangers give treats to my animal kids.
And also, consider people's paranoia about the CV.
Dogs may not incubate the virus, but they could transmit it temporarily, through saliva.

When did the woman react so absurdly?
Based on what I have seen and read, the situation became a major problem when the man started to record the woman on his phone.

Why did she react as badly as she did because of her being filmed?
I can only speculate.

If someone accosted/intimidated me by recording me on their phone, especially in a situation like that, I would be livid.
I would see it as psychological assault/intimidation, and it would be.
He said he did it to protect himself.
IMO, it was a mistake and he set the woman off.
Until he started to record her, the situation wasn't toxic, from what I could see.
She did ask him politely not to film her, and when he didn't comply, she went "nutso", as we call it in the industry.. 8O

Obviously, the woman has problems.
I am assuming she was insulted by him coming over and telling her what to do.
And what seemed to tip her over the edge was the psychological intimidation/assault through being recorded on his phone.

When people feel helpless in a situation, they can lash out and do really stupid things.
At this point, it seems this was one such event.

There are other psychological things to consider, but it is too sensitive to bring this up, at this time, imo. 8)
I am sure I have upset enough people for the time being. :mrgreen:


_________________
Any Autistic who is a neo-Nazi is a fool.

Racism against Germans is a thing.I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;) Many on the left of politics disrespect critical thinkers.

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,090
Location: Oz

31 May 2020, 8:29 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
He's ridiculously stupid.

All she has to do buy 25 leashes and tie them together and let the dog trample through his plantings.

Now that she is unemployed, she can do that everyday now.


I suspect the woman took his directive as a power trip.
Women, in particular, don't like men, who are strangers, asserting themselves over them.


_________________
Any Autistic who is a neo-Nazi is a fool.

Racism against Germans is a thing.I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;) Many on the left of politics disrespect critical thinkers.

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,090
Location: Oz

31 May 2020, 8:41 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Watch the video I posted - its self evidently a hate crime

It wasn't even an off-leash violation.

This guy harassed her without cause.


Some people have difficulty analysing a situation effectively.
What can you do? <shrug>

She was the one who was approached.
A lone woman who (I think) said she was afraid to go to the leash-free area.
The man made an ominous statement about doing something she wouldn't like.
I'm convinced he didn't realise how it sounded. (My whole life has been full of misunderstandings, after all.)
He then started to film her without her permission.
She asked him to stop.
He did not take no for an answer.

Yes, it does look bad,
But I wouldn't call what he did a "Hate Crime". :P


_________________
Any Autistic who is a neo-Nazi is a fool.

Racism against Germans is a thing.I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;) Many on the left of politics disrespect critical thinkers.

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,334

31 May 2020, 9:08 am

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
What would be an example of the real emergency? And how would the victim in that situation be able to make a phone call without being interrupted by either the phone getting ripped off their hands or a gun pointed at them?

There was no attempt by Christian Cooper to remove her phone?


I never said Christian Cooper was going to remove her phone. Quite the opposite in fact.

What I said is this. You said its inappropriate for her to make an emergency call on Christian Cooper. If I were to assume you were right, then the question would be: under what hypothetical circumstances "would it" be okay to make an emergency call? So that hypothetical person would be a lot worse than Chrsitian Cooper. But then we have a problem: that hypothetical person wouldn't let her make a call since he would rip the phone from her hands before she makes one.

So then we have the question: when is 911 used at all? I guess in cases of "less" aggressive criminals who "don't" try to rip off the phones. So that implies that it "is" okay to make that call when criminals are less aggressive, does it not?

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
The only solution I can think of is to allow people to make phone calls in cases of "anticipated" emergencies, before they become real. If you disagree with this, what else would you suggest?

She should have handled it like an adult and retrieved her dog, put a leash on it and walked away. There is nothing else required?


Suppose you go to the grocery store and the cashier says "if you are not going to pay for the groceries I am going to rip that laptop from you" and starts "making gestures" that look like an attempt to take your laptop. And suppose he does it in such a way that you don't know whether he is trying to take it for real or is just pretending. For example, he might be trying to pull the laptop but not strong enough to actually get it as you are trying to hold on to it. So you say that you should handle it as an adult, pay for the groceries and problem sovled. I disagree. From my point of view yes you should pay for your groceries BUT you should also report that cashier to the manager.

Or suppose you go to a class and take a test. And suppose the professor says "I have a gun, and if any of you attempts to cheat, I am going to shoot that person". Suppose nobody attempts to cheat on that test, so you would say that threat is a non-issue since nobody got shot. Again, I disagree. While its true that they shouldn't cheat on that test, its also true that they should report that professor after that test is over.

The point is that when people are "punishing" someone for doing something wrong, they should "punish" in the way that is prescribed. The punishment for failure to pay for groceries is to call the police on that person. The punishment for cheating on the test is to give an F, report the person to the dean, and then dean deciding whether to expell them. The punishment for having the dog off the leash is to ask the person to put the dog back on the leash, if the person refuses, report them to security (and its up to him whether he wants to warn her about reporting her to security or just report her without warning, either one is okay). So -- in all three examples -- if you do what the law prescribes I am perfectly fine with it. But if you step outside the law to handle it your own way, then its wrong.

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
Also, regardless of whether it is emergency or not, fact remains that the cops would have received the information that the guy was breaking the law. How can the cops "know" that somebody is breaking the law and choose not to do anything about it? Thats like them not doing their job.

I can't speak for why the police chose not to act, but I am sure any reasonable person would be glad they did not waste their resources calling SWAT on a dude with a camera


Well, how would you know that guy wouldn't have lured somebody else's dog more successfully? And if that guy was willing to break one law, how do they know he won't break any other law?

cyberdad wrote:

QFT wrote:
What he said was could have been interpretted in at least three ways
a) He was saying that if she won't put her on leash he "will" in fact steal it, in order to "punish" her that way
b) He wasn't really going to steal it, he was just making an object lesson that somebody else might do it
c) He was going to physically attack her (the part about doing someting "she might not like" could have meant that)

on point a) she retrieved her dog when she made the call so that's redundant


Well, she was strangling the dog to stay, les he tries to lure it again. She probably would have found a much more humane way to put the dog back on leash if she wasn't "threatened" to do it, and if the dog wasn't remembering the food that it was shown that it kept trying to get to.

Yes I know that he first asked her to do it without threats and she refused. Well, thats what police is for. He could have said "if you don't put it on leash I will call a police". But thats not what he said is it.

cyberdad wrote:
c) I doubt it, there's no evidence he intended to physically attack Amy


Thats what you are saying after the fact. But how was she supposed to know it right then and there when she was told "I will do something you don't like". How was she supposed to know what that sentence even refers to? And if that sentence is phrased in such a vague way, then it certainly includes the possibility of physical attack.

I know he didn't intend to attack her, but he probably "did" intend to have her "wonder" whether or not she will be attacked -- and thats bad enough.

cyberdad wrote:

QFT wrote:
You are guessing it is "b". But you don't KNOW its "b", you are only "guessing" it. If, instead, it happens to be either "a" or "c", then he is breaking the law and she has every right to call the cops.

a is redundant (see my earlier point)


"a" is not redundant. Lets say she didn't try to strangle the dog, so the dog were to jump out of leash. Then how do you know he wouldn't have lured it?

I know that if she were to listen to him right away then he wouldn't have been trying to lure the dog to begin with. But lets imagine the following hypothetical: lets say she already didn't listen to him a second ago but she realized the error of her ways and wants to make it right. She doesn't have an opportunity to make it right. Instead, she has a choice between strangling her dog and having her dog stolen from her.

cyberdad wrote:
and c is hypothetical because (as you say) we can't read his mind but all evidence points to Chrisitan Cooper not being a violent or threatening man.


The fact that she couldn't read his mind is precisely the reason why c is one of the concerns. If he says "I will do something you don't like" and she can't read his mind, she can't know that it is "not" referring to "c". So, naturally, she starts to fear "what if" its "c".

cyberdad wrote:

QFT wrote:
If he wanted to make point "b", he could have made an appropriate conversation opener to make it clear thats what he meant. He "chose" not to do it, so it was his "choice" to scare her. Is it possible he still meant "b"? I guess. But purposely not saying its "b" and leaving her guessing suggests that he was getting a rise out of scaring her. And thats me giving him the benefit of the doubt since I don't even know it was "b".


Yes I agree with this point, I think he handled it poorly. He could have chosen his words more wisely which no doubt triggered Amy Cooper's implicit bias/fear of black males


Its not like he "handled it poorly"; its more like he "planned to handle it poorly" -- as funny as it sounds. I mean he had the dog food with him, so he planned the whole encounter. When he was preparing the dog food, he had plenty of time to think about the words he would use. Obviously he "chose" the bad words, for whatever reason.

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
Well, the dog actively resisted being on leash. I guess why the dog resisted is a different question. But she can't be responsible for "strangling" the dog if she was just trying to keep it on leash and the dog was the one who made it hard.
Perhaps the "way" in which she took it on leash is what triggered dogs anxiety, as in she did it too abruptly or something. But in this case it would be the guys fault since she would have done it less abruptly if the guy didn't scare her.


My understanding is that she may lose the dog for i) letting run amok off leash


I am not sure that this would have been enough to lose the dog. I thought the punishment for this is just a fine of some sort -- although I could be wrong.

cyberdad wrote:
ii) strangling it when she was not in any danger but chose to make her dog stay still while she made a her fake call.


The reason she was strangling the dog is that the dog kept trying to get off leash and she was trying to keep it on leash.

Yes I know there are ways to keep dogs on leash withought strangling, since everyone else does it. But they do it when they are not frightened. So maybe what happened is that it normally takes 10 seconds to take the dog on leash, but since she was threatened she had to do it in 5 seconds, so during those 5 seconds she accidentally did something the dog didn't like, this caused the dog to try to get off leash, so this made her try to hold it even harder, which made the dog try to get off leash even more, which made her want to keep her on leash harder and harder and the dog trying to get off leash more and more.

Yet another possibility is that the dog was trying to get away because it already saw the food so it was trying to get to that food. If so, that would be even more of his fault.

In any case, the point is

(i) She wasn't trying to trangle the dog, she was trying to keep it on leash

(ii) The reason she had to struggle so much to keep the dog on leash is probably due to the fact that she was scared (by Christian Cooper) as she was trying to do it or that the dog was after the food (again, the one Christian Cooper have had)

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
But you didn't ask about (i) and (ii). So how do you know that, whatever I did, was worse than what this guy was doing?


Why are you comparing yourself to this guy? Christian Cooper is a gay black male whose interaction with Amy Cooper has not the remotest connection to your interaction with your female co-worker??


In both cases the issue is making someone uncomfortable. I made my office mate uncomfortable, and Christian Cooper made Amy Cooper uncomfortable. So the question is: when someone feels uncomfortable, should they be allowed to report it or not? What separates the situations where the answer is yes to the situations where the answer is no?

Suppose someone steals from the store and goes to jail for it. And suppose someone else kills someone and only has to pay a fine. So I will ask "why is the murder less serious than thieft". You say "well, these are two completely different things, why are you comparing them". And I say "well, even though they are totally different, I can still say that murder is more serious than thieft, so why did the thieft get bigger punishment".

Well, here I ask the same question. Even though -- in actuality -- I wasn't punished, in your mind I could have been. So why -- in your mind -- would my behavior earn punishment, while the behavior of Christian Cooper wouldn't? Are you saying that what I did is "worse" than what Christian Cooper did? If so, why?

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
Once again, how would "anybody" ever make a successful 911 call if the criminals are actively attacking them in the middle of the call?


He wasn't attacking her :roll:


Like I said, I am asking a broader question. The quesiton is "in what situations WOULD it be appropriate to make that call". Since I am asking "you" that question, and "you" don't think Christian Cooper is an example of such a situation, then your answer would involve people "other than" him. So people "other than" him, that would be "bad enough" for you to think one should call 911 -- well, those people proabably "would" be trying to rip off her phone. Hence the question.

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
If it is so bad, then why did the guy ask for it through his behavior. So apparently he wasn't so worried about it or else he wouldn't have acted that way. So why should she be any more concerned about his well being than he is?

Probably he didn't think about the impact of what he did.


He had plenty of time to think about it when he was preparing the dog food. He clearly planned the whole thing, as evident by him having dog food with him.

cyberdad wrote:
He did tell the papers later on that he was shocked people were sending Amy Cooper death threats and that he wanted people to stop since she had apologised. His response seemed quite decent to me.


Thats nice of him. But, like I said, she couldn't have known it back at the time.

Since he knew she couldn't have known it, then he knew she would be scared, yet he did that anyway.

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
Nobody is a mind reader. Especially not in the situations where somebody does something nobody else does, so there is no prior experience to rely on.


That's true, which makes this event interesting to me. It is a classic example of a projective test (like a Rorshach's test) on implicit underlying thoughts/feelings a person has which (for Amt Cooper) revealed through being put in a position she was not expecting. Her reaction revealed that she thought she could weaponise police bias against black men to punish Christian Cooper. I am 99% sure her employer thought that too.....


When people take those psychological tests, they do it for their own benefit. Nobody is supposed to lose the job over the test results.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,954
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

31 May 2020, 10:18 am

The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


_________________
just because we disagree doesn't mean i hate you, it just means we don't agree


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,334

31 May 2020, 10:34 am

funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,954
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

31 May 2020, 11:00 am

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


_________________
just because we disagree doesn't mean i hate you, it just means we don't agree


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,334

31 May 2020, 11:06 am

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


Choosing not to associate is one thing, its called "freedom of association". Firing someone is quite a different thing: nobody should be fired unless they did something *at work*. They are free to ostracize her while she is there, but she should have her job.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,954
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

31 May 2020, 11:10 am

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


Choosing not to associate is one thing, its called "freedom of association". Firing someone is quite a different thing: nobody should be fired unless they did something *at work*. They are free to ostracize her while she is there, but she should have her job.


Depends on the terms of her contract and it depends on the state's labour laws. They may be well within their rights to fire her over this, or to simply terminate her employment with no reason given.

They don't want to deal with the baggage she chose to bring in after this incident. If she was valuable enough they'd have had her back, clearly she's expendable.


_________________
just because we disagree doesn't mean i hate you, it just means we don't agree


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,955
Location: Long Island, New York

31 May 2020, 11:20 am

Quote:
The woman, since identified as Amy Cooper, apologized for making the call in a Monday evening interview with NBC 4 New York. “I sincerely and humbly apologize to everyone, especially to that man, his family,” she said. “It was unacceptable and I humbly and fully apologize to everyone who’s seen that video, everyone that’s been offended…everyone who thinks of me in a lower light and I understand why they do.”

“When I think about the police, I’m such a blessed person. I’ve come to realize especially today that I think of [the police] as a protection agency, and unfortunately, this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don’t have that luxury,” she added.

Bolding=mine

Bullshit. She knew damm well believed when she used “African-American” to threaten him with police that the police would shoot him or tase him, or arrest him because he is black and that he would believe that. That does not mean she is personally racist, it means she has either bought into progressive propaganda, reality, or both. It does not matter if she is personally a bigot, what matters is she used the “race card”.

New York is an at will state meaning the company can fire you for most any reason it wants including for what you do when you are not at work. Companies have been firing people for off work activities that have been revealed publicly that they feel hurts their brand since time immemorial. In this age of social media and devices the difference between at work and off work activities has been blurred if not obliterated. Extremely regrettable but as a professional you are expected to know that.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

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


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,954
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

31 May 2020, 11:34 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
New York is an at will state meaning the company can fire you for most any reason it wants including for what you do when you are not at work. Companies have been firing people for off work activities that have been revealed publicly that they feel hurts their brand since time immemorial. In this age of social media and devices the difference between at work and off work activities has been blurred if not obliterated. Extremely regrettable but as a professional you are expected to know that.


Thank you for confirming what I was speculating about earlier.


_________________
just because we disagree doesn't mean i hate you, it just means we don't agree


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,334

31 May 2020, 12:33 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


Choosing not to associate is one thing, its called "freedom of association". Firing someone is quite a different thing: nobody should be fired unless they did something *at work*. They are free to ostracize her while she is there, but she should have her job.


Depends on the terms of her contract and it depends on the state's labour laws. They may be well within their rights to fire her over this, or to simply terminate her employment with no reason given.

They don't want to deal with the baggage she chose to bring in after this incident. If she was valuable enough they'd have had her back, clearly she's expendable.


Then I disagree with the policy that they can fire without reason stated. Because then they can fire someone because they are black, or because they don't like their hair style or for any number of other silly reasons.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,954
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

31 May 2020, 12:35 pm

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


Choosing not to associate is one thing, its called "freedom of association". Firing someone is quite a different thing: nobody should be fired unless they did something *at work*. They are free to ostracize her while she is there, but she should have her job.


Depends on the terms of her contract and it depends on the state's labour laws. They may be well within their rights to fire her over this, or to simply terminate her employment with no reason given.

They don't want to deal with the baggage she chose to bring in after this incident. If she was valuable enough they'd have had her back, clearly she's expendable.


Then I disagree with the policy that they can fire without reason stated. Because then they can fire someone because they are black, or because they don't like their hair style or for any number of other silly reasons.


You'll have to take that up with the state of New York.


_________________
just because we disagree doesn't mean i hate you, it just means we don't agree


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,955
Location: Long Island, New York

31 May 2020, 7:27 pm

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


It's almost like employers don't wish to associate with people who expose themselves as racist. Good for them, the antagonist is suffering for her actions.


Choosing not to associate is one thing, its called "freedom of association". Firing someone is quite a different thing: nobody should be fired unless they did something *at work*. They are free to ostracize her while she is there, but she should have her job.


Depends on the terms of her contract and it depends on the state's labour laws. They may be well within their rights to fire her over this, or to simply terminate her employment with no reason given.

They don't want to deal with the baggage she chose to bring in after this incident. If she was valuable enough they'd have had her back, clearly she's expendable.


Then I disagree with the policy that they can fire without reason stated. Because then they can fire someone because they are black, or because they don't like their hair style or for any number of other silly reasons.

It is against the law to fire someone because they are black. They most certainly can fire someone if they do not like their hair style.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

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


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,090
Location: Oz

31 May 2020, 8:09 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Quote:
The woman, since identified as Amy Cooper, apologized for making the call in a Monday evening interview with NBC 4 New York. “I sincerely and humbly apologize to everyone, especially to that man, his family,” she said. “It was unacceptable and I humbly and fully apologize to everyone who’s seen that video, everyone that’s been offended…everyone who thinks of me in a lower light and I understand why they do.”

“When I think about the police, I’m such a blessed person. I’ve come to realize especially today that I think of [the police] as a protection agency, and unfortunately, this has caused me to realize that there are so many people in this country that don’t have that luxury,” she added.

Bolding=mine

Bullshit. She knew damm well believed when she used “African-American” to threaten him with police that the police would shoot him or tase him, or arrest him because he is black and that he would believe that. That does not mean she is personally racist, it means she has either bought into progressive propaganda, reality, or both. It does not matter if she is personally a bigot, what matters is she used the “race card”.


She had a "Brain Snap".
I've had brain snaps.
It can happen to anyone.

Quote:
Your Brain Is Hardwired to Snap

The same group of neurons could make you a hero—or a rage-filled aggressor.
8 Minute Read
By Simon Worrall

PUBLISHED February 7, 2016

We’ve all been there: Some jerk cuts you off on the highway. You lean on the horn, scream abuse. You want to get out the car and kick the @#$% out of the bozo’s SUV.

Road rage is just one example of what neurobiologist Douglas Fields calls “snapping.” From domestic violence to mass shootings, the news is full of stories of seemingly “normal” people suddenly going berserk. The easy availability of guns only compounds the problem.

But how and why does this happen? The traditional explanation is that these outbreaks of rage and violence are aberrations: the result of moral and psychological defects. But in his timely new book, Why We Snap: Understanding the Rage Circuit in Your Brain, Fields shows that violent behavior is often the result of the clash between the modern world and the evolutionary hardwiring of our brains—and that, unless we understand its triggers, we are all capable of snapping. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -booktalk/


_________________
Any Autistic who is a neo-Nazi is a fool.

Racism against Germans is a thing.I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;) Many on the left of politics disrespect critical thinkers.

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,090
Location: Oz

31 May 2020, 8:23 pm

QFT wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
The moral of the story, having a racist meltdown in public and trying to use the police as a weapon might carry life-altering consequences. It's good to see this story had a happy ending.


There was no happy ending. The girl got punished and the guy didn't, even though the guy is the one who started it.

Besides, the girl lost her job, even though she didn't do it at work.


She did get heavily punished for her "transgression",
But he didn't for mishandling the confrontation.
Such is life. <shrug>

The other thing to consider, as you suggested:
Was this a set-up waiting to happen?
Was he intending to ambush any transgressor who violated his sanctuary?
Did he deliberately provoke the situation?

I can't see a definitive answer to this speculation. 8)


_________________
Any Autistic who is a neo-Nazi is a fool.

Racism against Germans is a thing.I like to flirt. Don't take it seriously. ;) Many on the left of politics disrespect critical thinkers.

Down with big business!...Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)