She should have know better since, 1989 was a long time ago. In the video she looks like she once had a nice pair of tits. Anyway fuck her, throw her to the lions and let the hyenas and vultures take care of the left overs of her carcass for being so blatantly stupid, calculating racist and arrogant. She is out of touch with the realities of 2020 and a liability for her employer.
Woman apologizes after video goes viral of her calling police on black birdwatcher
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
I agree with my new BFF, Smallcock.
She should have been canned and hopefully the door didn't hit her on the ass on the way out. She has the right to be racist and her employer has the right to shit-can her ass for being racist.
People get fired for misbehaviour and a lot less all the time. Also, companies have policies and I bet you someone of her position does have a contract with clauses that were violated in that video. She could have very easily destroyed the man's life if there was no recording, cuz we know people are more likely to believe her than him in that case.
Maybe. But there's probably companies that don't care if she's racist, perhaps even some that even like that she is and would hire her for those reasons.
And I don't think she's have any trouble getting dick, as long as she doesn't mind, fat, balding dudes with low IQs, lower foreheads and the confederate flag tattooed on their hairy asses. No shortage of those at certain political rallies we've all seen.
She's Canadian.
She lives in NYC
She attended University of Waterloo
She's unattractive and sports a short hair cut
She's in a park walking a dog without a man/husband
She's 41 and has no children
She's racist and full of privilege
She loves black people but doesn't want to work, live, or play near them
She speaks typical liberal speak in her "I'm sorry" response to what happened full of lies and contradictions: “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.” I mean, she knew specifically that she had that luxury and that he didn't which is why she exercised it. But "coming to that realization" BS is how liberals express themselves. It's all about inner-growth and discovering things that are obvious to most 10 year olds.
Take any one of the above and there's no way you tell because any single point is judging a book by its cover. But when you combine all of them together it paints a very clear picture because you're getting a story with context of the liberal creature. Just playing the odds. If I could place a bet on it, I'd go ALL in.
How about 2019?
"Central Park is generally safe for travelers, especially during daylight hours. Newly car-free, Central Park is now less dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists than it used to be, though nighttime can bring other dangerous elements into the park.Feb 11, 2019"
Maybe Central Park is less dangerous than it was in the 1990's (maybe yes, maybe no). However, I would not call it "safe". Ask your wife, GF, sister, daughter, etc. to walk alone in a secluded part of the park a few times and then ask her how "safe" she feels.
You've got it all wrong. An employer can fire an employee for anything. What it comes down to is whether or not it was justified and if the employee deserves severance. In other words, she can sue for wrongful dismissal and may or may not get compensation. It's as simple as that.
You're wrong about that. Two words: Karla Homolka
Actually, he admitted on his own social media post that he intimidated her before filming by saying, "If you are going to do what you want, then I will as well, and you are not going to like it" and proceeded to start throwing "dog treats" (that he just happened to be carrying while bird watching?!) at her dog. That is why she screamed stay away from my dog and was pulling the dog so viciously close to her, she was in protective Mama mode because he was openly fucking with her. Of course he stopped all that when he started filming her reaction though...
He isn't innocent, and yes she is a dick for having dog off leash, but hardly worth destroying her whole life over.
He isn't innocent, and yes she is a dick for having dog off leash, but hardly worth destroying her whole life over.
That sounds like a $200K a year job to me. She is out on the street and no one will hire her in the future.
Even if the firm does not care about her attitude, they care about clients that will be driven out, and clients staying away.
You are welcome to her......................better you than me!
It would be nice to look at this contract. If, indeed, such clause exists, it means that the employer dictates what employee should do 24 hour a day 365 days a week. I am pretty sure it violates labour law. She should file the claim for wrongful termination. I am pretty sure that she can defend her action by saying that the man yelled at her (and I am pretty sure it was the case) so she got scared and called police as a self-defence measure to prevent him from doing harm to her (as she believed he would at that time). The problem that she is young and not a partner yet and her job is not unionised, so, it is quite possible that the employer could fire her without any cause anyway, so, if she wins, the most she gets is her 2-week severance pay.
Valid point,. She may be afraid for her dog life since these treats can be poisonous. Clear "self-defence" situation where the only weapon she had against him is police and she had to lie otherwise the police will not come to rescue just the dog. This is why we have court system and "innocent unless proven guilty" principal and this is why I strongly believe that unilateral decision by the employee without a court conviction is just wrong. The way our society goes, I am afraid soon we will be living under Lynch law.
She may have an employment contract with her employer stating that sh will not in any way be an embarrassment to the firm while at work or on her own time while she is employed with the firm. A large firm like Templeton will not fire her without consulting with their own lawyers and risk getting sued.
The much bigger problem for her is she is now "damaged goods" and her future job prospects might also be badly damaged. I wonder if she has a case against the person(s) who publicly (and maliciously?) released the video?
Remember that guy who did something silly and was fired by Ontario Hydro. After the lynch mob got their pound of flesh, Ontario Hydro quietly rehired him. Same with that waitress in Alberta who was fired for asking a couple of Afghans to act "Canadian". She was quietly re-hired a bit later.
BTW: Calling 911 when you don't feel safe is not a crime. (Women have been known to have been assaulted in Central Park.) I called 911 once when I saw who I assumed was an unsavory character (no, he wasn't black) sitting for a prolonged period on the sidewalk in front of my house. I thought he was up to no good and I didn't feel safe. I do have a family and property to protect..
He's completely innocent, and she's a flat out liar. She didn't say she was calling the cops because he was threatening her dog. She said he was threatening her. She got served exactly what she deserved.
Her life isn't destroyed, but it's severely inconvenienced and set back for the time being. Everybody knows who Karen is underneath the facade. She'll get hired somewhere after this all boils over and she'll be even more cautious about protecting her fake non-racist persona going forward.
"Protective mama mode"... what is it with people that make references to motherhood when it comes to pets? Want to be a 'mama' then have an actual child.
A woman walking alone at night in large secluded areas of most areas of any major city is a bad idea.
Nothing malicious about releasing a video filmed in public, publicly depicting a racist in the midst of their racist actions. No dice.
Get used to it. There will always be bad people. It'll still be happening 100 years from now.
Ya I don't get the dog treat part of the story.
I don't know many non-dog owners or bird watchers who just happen to have dog treats on them and I don't many people who try to give a dog a treat when the owner has not given permission.
That part is really confusing to me.
I get it. He's sick and tired of uppity dog owners that don't put their potentially vicious animal on a leash in a public place that forbids it, so to induce them to follow the rules he pretends to have special treats available. The bad owners typically comply afterward.
After asking nicely dozens of times with no results, you get creative.
Think again. She represents Franklin Templeton, and is a VP with a major investment firm, and played the "white lady in distress" card by saying she would call the police to get the black birdwather, and Harvard grad, in trouble. She's a goner from that company before you bat an eye.
You make a quick friend with the dog, momentarily distracting them, and hopefully find you acceptable. When I used to house sit, at times that included taking care of pets, i.e., the dog. The week prior to the scheduled house sitting, I would meet the owner and the dog to go on a walk. I kept several treats, normally a small dog biscuit, with me. The next week when I moved in and its me and the dog, of course the come crashing the front door. I pull out half a biscuit, hold my hand flat, and the dog would take it and run to a corner of the run to eat it. By this time I've closed the door and sit on the couch. The typical sniffing occurs, and then I give the other half of the biscuit, but this time the dog stands right there and eats in. Normally after several of these, and rubbing and petting the dog, they see that your okay, and then things go forward with happy co-existence for all.
