Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Page 43 of 47 [ 746 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47  Next

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,487

14 Jul 2020, 7:52 pm

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that his behavior did all the damage it did. And that also doesn't change the fact that he scared the hell out of her -- she wasn't mind reader so there was no way for her to know that to him it was just a game.


Christian Cooper is not on trial though. Mayor Cuomo's legislation means Amy Cooper is on trial for wasting police resources and making a false report.


Just the fact that Mayor decided something doesn't make it right. Authorities can make mistakes too.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Jul 2020, 8:02 pm

League_Girl wrote:
QFT wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
QFT wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Quote:
"I will do what I want and you may not like it"


Still a bigger issue if that is percieved as a threat.


Why would applying a dictionary definition of a threat imply a bigger issue. Dictionary definition of a threat is "if you do X I will do Y". The statement "if you don't leash the dog I will do something you might not like" fits that definition perfectly. So why would one have to have a "bigger issue" in order to use that dictionary definition?

League_Girl wrote:
Quote:
Edit: I'd also suggest that claiming\implying a person is "racist" due to their race (as was the case here) indicates a "racist" mentatlity in those making the claim. I'm certain that, were the roles reversed, no-one would have cared about the "racism" in a PoC female reporting a "white" man in similar circumstances...


People always love to claim reverse racism to justify racism and pretend it doesn't exist.

It would be justified because black people have always been oppressed do how are they going to know you aren't just an as*hole who is randomly threatening them?

Is it bigotry if an autistic person assumes they got singled out because they are autistic?

Look at The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Wolf had been called way too many times for centuries on the minority so of course they are justified in thinking they are dealing with racism just like we are justified to assume we are dealing with ableism.

I would still need to see sources where a black person has called the cops on a white person for no reason.

This argument goes both ways though:

Anti-black racism:

1a) Blacks are statistically more prone to crime

1b) Thats why blacks end up being stereotyped as criminals

1c) This is unfair because there are black "individuals" that are not criminals and its not their fault that a lot of other people of their race are.

Anti-white racism:

2a) Whites had a history of discrimination against blacks

2b) Thats why whites are stereotyped as being racist against blacks

2c) This is unfair because there are white "individuals" that are not racist against blacks and its not their fault that a lot of other people of their race are.

As a side note, its not true that whites are more racist than others. In fact, the opposite is far more likely to be the case. For example, in Mediteranian, Indian and Japanese cultures its very much the norm to stick to one's group. In western culture, on the other hand, assimilation is encouraged due to the modernization. I don't know how the western culture would compare to other cultures back in the 17-th century, but at least right now in the 21-st century the western culture is far more influenced by modernization than the others and, therefore, its one of the least racist ones.

I think the historical record of White racism is not due to actual racist *beliefs* but rather its due to the *power* to enforce them. If, for example, people in India decided to bring a bunch of European slaves, they wouldn't have power to do it since Europeans had better developed weapons. But when Americans decided to bring slaves from Africa, they easily could. That doesn't mean Americans are more racist than people in India. It just means they had more physical power (in a form of technology) to "enforce" their racism.



If you want to apply the dictionary in this, in that case, parents threaten their kids all the time. "If you don't clean your room, you will be grounded." Even authority uses threats, teachers, school principal, baby sitters, anyone in charge including managers and bosses and supervisors. Seriously, if all these cause panic in someone, that person does have a serious problem. My mom used my anxiety to her advantage by using extreme threats with me like "If you don't do this, I will spank you until your skin bleeds" and bam it got me to obey lol. Now I doubt she would have beaten me. It was just a empty threat. I just took things too damn seriously because I was so literal. A regular child wouldn't have taken it seriously and just think "yeah right." They test their limits to see if you are serious.


From my experience, the examples that you gave are common in adult-child interaction but not so common when it comes to interaction between adults. In fact this is one of the things that kept screwing me over. As a child, I had a lot of such "empty threats" from my parents, so I learned not to take them seriously -- but then when I heard similar statements from other adults I also assumed they weren't serious but they were.


My mom would actually follow through and would even stage them and give us another chance after we were begging her. She would even threaten to abandon us on the side of the road and has actually pulled over to side ordering us to get out.


Plenty of parents do that (my wife does the "pull over to the side of the road, get out" routine to me sometimes now, too).

I got the strap\wooden spoon\ruler plenty of times growing up (being the oldest, anything a younger brother\sister did was "my fault"), and except for at that instant in time it didn't hurt me, and in many ways (in hindsight) I feel that it actually was of benefit to me. It was never spontaneous, always with a warning, and only administered if the warning (or multiple warnings) were ignored.

Maybe that's why you are unable to see the potential threat which was made here, if you grew up seeing threats made to get you to do something as "an empty threat", you're likely to (conciously or subconciously) understand what was said differently to someone who grew up with the threats being more than "empty words"...


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

14 Jul 2020, 8:29 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Taking videos of someone and putting it online can ruin their life. Too bad he had to learn it the hard way.


Despite attempts to cast Christian Cooper as some type of creep; he is actually quite decent about not wanting to make Amy suffer.

I recall (ironically) he was also not happy she lost her job. His perspective is that he wanted Amy Cooper to take responsibility for her actions. If he doesn't cooperate with prosecutors I think they will not pursue the case any further.


The problem is that, once charges have been filed, it relies on the defence agreeing for them to be dropped. Should her defence feel they have a good chance of winning, they may push to have the case proceed in order that she be vindicated after what she has been put through.


Ah I see, is that to clear her name or to turn the tables on her alleged victim?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Jul 2020, 8:46 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Taking videos of someone and putting it online can ruin their life. Too bad he had to learn it the hard way.


Despite attempts to cast Christian Cooper as some type of creep; he is actually quite decent about not wanting to make Amy suffer.

I recall (ironically) he was also not happy she lost her job. His perspective is that he wanted Amy Cooper to take responsibility for her actions. If he doesn't cooperate with prosecutors I think they will not pursue the case any further.


The problem is that, once charges have been filed, it relies on the defence agreeing for them to be dropped. Should her defence feel they have a good chance of winning, they may push to have the case proceed in order that she be vindicated after what she has been put through.


Ah I see, is that to clear her name or to turn the tables on her alleged victim?


With what she has been through, it would be to clear her name, allowing her to move on from this in a better position than that she is currently in: an "innocent" through the courts (with evidence from her side available) should do something to counter the "mob justice" verdict she currently lives under.

This may also impact on her "alleged victim", but that would likely be coincidental rather than intentional, should it occur.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

14 Jul 2020, 8:52 pm

QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that his behavior did all the damage it did. And that also doesn't change the fact that he scared the hell out of her -- she wasn't mind reader so there was no way for her to know that to him it was just a game.


Christian Cooper is not on trial though. Mayor Cuomo's legislation means Amy Cooper is on trial for wasting police resources and making a false report.


Just the fact that Mayor decided something doesn't make it right. Authorities can make mistakes too.


How is charging people for wasting police time a mistake? the law was designed to stop police resources from being diverted from where its needed and to stop people making false reports. The only issue is whether Amy Cooper breached this law and that's yet to be determined.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

14 Jul 2020, 9:00 pm

Brictoria wrote:
With what she has been through, it would be to clear her name, allowing her to move on from this in a better position than that she is currently in: an "innocent" through the courts (with evidence from her side available) should do something to counter the "mob justice" verdict she currently lives under.

This may also impact on her "alleged victim", but that would likely be coincidental rather than intentional, should it occur.


That's what I thought. I wonder if that happens whether her previous Employer would be obliged to reinstate her? her brand is rather damaged though.

Interestingly another the called "Yale Karen" has successfully completed her Yale doctorate and is working as a lawyer (despite doing it twice) and an academic.

https://philosophy.yale.edu/people/sarah-braasch



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,487

14 Jul 2020, 9:23 pm

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that his behavior did all the damage it did. And that also doesn't change the fact that he scared the hell out of her -- she wasn't mind reader so there was no way for her to know that to him it was just a game.


Christian Cooper is not on trial though. Mayor Cuomo's legislation means Amy Cooper is on trial for wasting police resources and making a false report.


Just the fact that Mayor decided something doesn't make it right. Authorities can make mistakes too.


How is charging people for wasting police time a mistake? the law was designed to stop police resources from being diverted from where its needed and to stop people making false reports. The only issue is whether Amy Cooper breached this law and that's yet to be determined.


The issue is that she had no way of knowing it's false since she is not a mind reader.

Let's say a kid plays a prank by pointing a gun at people. The gun has no bullets so there is no way for him to shoot it. Suppose someone reports him. Will it be false report since the gun has no bullets? No, because the person reporting it didn't know it.

Same thing here. As it turns out, "something you won't like" wasn't meant to be anything too serious, since he was upset she lost a job and he doesn't want her to go to jail. But how was she supposed to know it? If someone else says "something you don't like" it might mean all sorts of things, including rape and murder. How was she supposed to know it that he didn't mean it in this case? No he didn't mean it, but you can't fault her for not knowing it.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

14 Jul 2020, 9:32 pm

QFT wrote:
How was she supposed to know it that he didn't mean it in this case? No he didn't mean it, but you can't fault her for not knowing it.


A reasonable person would not assume the worst if somebody said that though. I think her reaction was described as "indignant" by a fraud analyst. The indignation makes sense given she was letting her dog run around when there are signs that clearly said dogs must be leashed.

Christian Cooper isn't the only person who was sick of people flouting these rules in NY parks. Even other dog owners were not happy.

Image

https://neighborhooddogs.wordpress.com/ ... ash-rules/



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

14 Jul 2020, 10:04 pm

cyberdad wrote:
QFT wrote:
How was she supposed to know it that he didn't mean it in this case? No he didn't mean it, but you can't fault her for not knowing it.


A reasonable person would not assume the worst if somebody said that though. I think her reaction was described as "indignant" by a fraud analyst. The indignation makes sense given she was letting her dog run around when there are signs that clearly said dogs must be leashed.

Christian Cooper isn't the only person who was sick of people flouting these rules in NY parks. Even other dog owners were not happy.

Image

https://neighborhooddogs.wordpress.com/ ... ash-rules/


According to her lawyer in the first video I linked (at around 56:35 into it) he said that there have been issues between bird watchers and dog walkers there for 50 years, which have included dogs being poisoned by birdwatchers, and police\park officials are used to handling these sorts of disputes.

Again, it is her lawyer saying this, so has the potential to be selectively presented, although I doubt he would have mentioned this without some factual basis. Maybe a "local" would know more about this?

As to her "reaction" according to the fraud expert, if accurate, this will be presented by the prosecution, in the same way that her defence appear to be planning on presenting a number of "body language" experts who will say she "froze" or was "panicing"...In almost any area of contention, it is possible to find an "expert" who will support your view.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

14 Jul 2020, 11:14 pm

Brictoria wrote:
According to her lawyer in the first video I linked (at around 56:35 into it) he said that there have been issues between bird watchers and dog walkers there for 50 years, which have included dogs being poisoned by birdwatchers, and police\park officials are used to handling these sorts of disputes.

That's interesting, although the woman who wrote that article was a NY dog-owner. The issue is hyperactive dogs who are unleashed are a nuisance. I have to deal with the same issue around the parks where I walk my dog and owners who are exactly like Amy Cooper let their dogs run amok off leash. My dog has been nipped and scratched and I've had to take it to the vet for a check afterward. The owners would invariably make some lame excuse for allowing their dogs to run like Amy Cooper saying they need to exercise etc..its not their dog getting bitten.


Brictoria wrote:
As to her "reaction" according to the fraud expert, if accurate, this will be presented by the prosecution, in the same way that her defence appear to be planning on presenting a number of "body language" experts who will say she "froze" or was "panicing"...In almost any area of contention, it is possible to find an "expert" who will support your view.


It's not a court appointed psychologist, its a specialist being interviewed by a newspaper. Like you I am interested how the proceedings transpire.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 23,839
Location: Pacific Northwest

15 Jul 2020, 12:02 am

If it turns out the woman has a mental issue or she was abused as a kid so she perceived it as a threat because that was what her abuser did to her as a child and then beat her let's say, that can be used in court to help reduce her sentence. It is definitely not a normal reaction to react to, "If you don't do this, I will do something about it."

But the fact she had to mention African American as a first thing to describe him makes me think she is a racist and she weaponized it.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

15 Jul 2020, 12:52 am

League_Girl wrote:
But the fact she had to mention African American as a first thing to describe him makes me think she is a racist and she weaponized it.


I think she has already wasted police time calling 911 so she may get some type of minor penalty (smack on the wrist) for that.

What is pivotal to the court case is if mayor Cuomo's new legislation applies to the very exact point you mention.

Did she say "African American" to weaponise race to the police via 911 in order to exact vengeance? I think there is a possibility that she and other "Karens" are going to be put on notice.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 795
Location: Melbourne, Australia

15 Jul 2020, 1:25 am

League_Girl wrote:
If it turns out the woman has a mental issue or she was abused as a kid so she perceived it as a threat because that was what her abuser did to her as a child and then beat her let's say, that can be used in court to help reduce her sentence. It is definitely not a normal reaction to react to, "If you don't do this, I will do something about it."

But the fact she had to mention African American as a first thing to describe him makes me think she is a racist and she weaponized it.


Who knows: Maybe she has called "911" in the past for other issues, and each time she was asked to describe the person whe was reporting, starting with a description, where a person's "race"\colour is one of the first things they ask for (When looking for help finding people isn't this one of the first desciptors used ?) and she may (for all we know) have been preparing what she was going to say?

Similarly, maybe she was focused on the source of the threat, with the most "prominent" feature that might help the police find the person she was preparing to describe (It's unlikely, being that he was there to watch birds, that he would be wearing bright colours or anything else that might have the potential to scare those birds away).

There could be any number of reasons she used the words she did (we'll probably find out at the trial), but it is unfair to make assumptions on someone's state of mind or actions when all you have is one side's "evidence" of what occurred, and only based on a subset of the actual information. Limited\selective information can lead to hasty, unfair, and incorrect judgement.


_________________
Quote:
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character." - Ralph Waldo Emerson


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 69,882
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Jul 2020, 3:07 am

De Blasio is mayor of New York City.

Cuomo is governor of New York State.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,236

15 Jul 2020, 3:37 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
De Blasio is mayor of New York City.

Cuomo is governor of New York State.


Sorry a false memory on my part, Somebody said the mayor made the law and then I read it was Cuomo. I put 1 + 1 together and my brain said Cuomo is the mayor.

So the governor Cuomo made the law (apologies).



Sylkat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2011
Age: 5
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,404

16 Jul 2020, 1:36 pm

Regarding usage of ‘African American’ as description:
She did not say “Six foot African American man in purple bike shorts, orange tank top, white high tops”.
She said ‘African American’.
Wondering how many individuals of that description were in that area (or the whole park) that day?
My dog weighs 5-6 pounds, so of COURSE she is never off the leash, for her own safety.
That is the second reason for leash laws.
The first is for the safety and peace of everyone else.
Exercising a dog can be done just as well as by a long walk as a short active run.
The rules were posted.
She made a decision not to obey them.
I heard she got her dog back; I hope so; she cares about him, and he may never find another home, otherwise.


_________________
Sylkat
Student Body President, Miskatonic University