Woman apologizes after video goes viral of her calling police on black birdwatcher
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
Excellent. Now we have some evidence for what happened before the video which was so highly contested by a poster here.Why has no one posted the actual pre-video conversation according to Christian?
Karen got what she deserved. No place for racism.
If I'm a news anchor and I go on air and start an off-script epithet-laden racist tirade, I'd get fired on the spot. No court room required. Whatever happened immediately beforehand off air doesn't negate that my actions on air were wrong. Of course, you can have your day in court following the incident if you choose to and that's your right, but you aren't getting re-hired. You must be aware by now that several cops were fired following the death of a black man in the US after video of a knee on the neck surfaced? The police chief didn't have to wait for a court verdict.In other words, Lynch court. No defence, no judge, just the law of the crowd. This is an awful world we are living in. Anyone can be easily set up and, instead of the detailed consideration in a court of law, can by lunch by the online crowd and suffer non-virtual loss. Some people like it before, by accident, misunderstanding, or someone's set up, they will not find themselves in such position. When the court acquit a person everybody believe is guilty because of insufficient evidence, it is not a shortcoming of the existing system, it is it strength that protect many innocent people from wrong acquisitions. Hell, so many American and Canadians take the freedom for granted and are willing to give it up for a "common good" - look at all dictatorship regimes: they started as trade off of the freedom and independent justice system for the "common good". No matter how guilty a person can look until he is proven to be guilty in the court of law, no punishment should be given, including reputation punishment.
Well, I've got bored arguing with you: you are not able to provide logical arguments or to think in logical terms. Just to cite Sheldon Cooper in "Project Gorilla" episode: "I guess, ignorance is a bliss". Let this thread die in peace.
As stated previously, this is a moral matter, not a legal one. In court, Karen would be found guilty of breaking a bylaw, uttering threats, and scolded for injecting racism into her rant. With or without this court ruling, the result would be the same - fired from her job and social backlash. The court delivers justice (legal), and people and her employer delivered what's right which is condemnation and firing (moral).
This is not a complicated event. Your comparison to lynchings and dictatorships are way out of line.
Based on his own words, he was an instigator. She is still a dick for not having her dog on a leash and when told about it the first time, not saying “no problem” and locking up the dog.
What did he mean when he said: "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going like it"?
Then he tried to touch/grab her dog.
But he is equally a dick because that is exactly what he was trying to be.
Grab at my dog and you will have a face full of pepper spray. On top of the dog bites as soon as you grab their collar, but good luck with that. I think this is more internet tough guy playing, but there you have it. You would be the one sorry if you tried that with people and their dogs. Both person and dog are usually very protective, so you wouldn’t get far with that idea.
Nice try though. LOL
It went from being two dicks into something much uglier once she began making threats to call the police and the contents of those threats. His reaction to a reckless scofflaw was understandable, her response to being called out for being a dick was another animal altogether.
Except by his own admisssion, he did threaten her.
I thought this was another typical “Karen” moment, but based on his own tweet, that is not the case. He threatened her by his blanket statement and then took that threat to the dog when trying to give him treats.
I would have called the cops by that point to. I would have said there is a man trying to feed something unknown to my dog. I would have stuck around and I would have had my own camera, and I would not have said anything about race unless to describe the man. But I would have called the cops.
I have called the cops when random food is lying around that looks like someone planted it for dogs to eat. There are tons of sick people who leave food full of razors or poison in them to harm animals. They do it to Halloween candy which is why parents check all candy first. Some people are disturbed like that and she didn’t know if CC was one of them. So she called.
But it is clear, he is a person annoyed with all the off-leash dogs, and he threatened her.
You can’t say how she interpreted it. You are not in her head. LOL
Two are not playing that game. He doesn’t have a dog to go off leash.
His own words show the threat. You don’t have to agree, you are entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to be wrong.
We are not going to agree so I am not going to waste time going back and forth with you. You are not bringing anything new to the debate to support your side, so I am done debating with you.
Have a good one.
She asks "what's that?" (either not hearing him clearly or ready to call his bluff) and he proceeds to call the dog. She knows his focus is on the dog, not her. The entire conversation is about the dog, not her. That's the context of the entire interaction.
Karen is not scared for her personal safety, she's afraid that her dog might get poisoned. Calling the police is fine.. what she tells them is where it takes a dark turn.
Like I said, agree to disagree. You have the right to your opinion. I can continue to ignore it now that I know it is futile to continue.
When Karen called the cops she claimed that she was being threatened, not that her dog was being threatened. Why? Because she would have to state that it's not some random guy going around threatening dogs... it's that she had a dog unleashed when it was supposed to be leashed and after being told this and ignoring it, a man got upset and began threatening the dog. But this paints Karen in a not so innocent light. Claiming that a black man is threatening her creates a more sinister atmosphere that she hoped would scare him off knowing full well that he could be unnecessarily victimized further by police (she didn't stick around for the police to come, and they did come, because it just wasn't important enough to Karen and she wasn't afraid).
Can we see inside Karen's head to know what she's thinking? Not exactly. We use what has been written about pre-video and what we see in the video - verbal and body language. While people cannot see into the head's of others, in order for someone to be found guilty of a crime, the accused must meet two elements - mens rea (guilty mind/intention) and actus retus (guilty action). The former is determined every day in courts of law based on evidence surrounding the guilty action. Likewise, we see a rather dismissive Karen at first (not afraid), then a combative one (afraid for her dog), followed by a threatening one (vengeful for an audacious black man). On the other side we see an upset birdwatcher who has tried to reason repeatedly with a scofflaw to no avail and then gets ready to pull out some treats. Dick move, but understandable. Going full blown race bait, Karen went down a road not required but showed her true colors.
Brain surgeons need not apply. It's a simple case.
Can we see inside Karen's head to know what she's thinking? Not exactly. We use what has been written about pre-video and what we see in the video - verbal and body language. While people cannot see into the head's of others, in order for someone to be found guilty of a crime, the accused must meet two elements - mens rea (guilty mind/intention) and actus retus (guilty action). The former is determined every day in courts of law based on evidence surrounding the guilty action. Likewise, we see a rather dismissive Karen at first (not afraid), then a combative one (afraid for her dog), followed by a threatening one (vengeful for an audacious black man). On the other side we see an upset birdwatcher who has tried to reason repeatedly with a scofflaw to no avail and then gets ready to pull out some treats. Dick move, but understandable. Going full blown race bait, Karen went down a road not required but showed her true colors.
Brain surgeons need not apply. It's a simple case.
Thank you. Now I can see it. I was bored and wanted to exercise my mind by entering in a debate, but when the other party does not listen to what your say and simply repeat itself, it loses its purpose.
He would not have tried to do it in Texas or Arizona. In "no retreat" states lots of people carry guns and are allowed to shoot to protect their property (not just their life). So, grab the dog - get a bullet. Too bad Karen did not have a big "bad-boy" boyfriend nearby to call, bad-boys are more efficient defence against these scumbags than police.
It's not my first rodeo. Let's do this again.
I think you've all learned a lot in his back and forth - about law, courts, body language, language, employers, evidence, racism.
He's a Harvard grad... he may not do this in Texas unless he was also armed. The victim is not a scumbag. Karen is. She's also likely a lesbian or frigid... no "bad boy" boyfriend to the rescue.
You like quotes, here's one for Karen: "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
Projecting what you want people to apparently “learn” that YOU are apparently “teaching” them.... LOL... sorry but you will be disappointed.
It is not all about what you think. Again agree to disagree, but you don’t seem to be able to do that.
When someone can’t even do that, you can’t really take their opinion for anything of then blow-hard talk.
I accept your point of view. Even you stated you wouldn't have pulled the race card if placed in the same situation as Karen, and that's what all the hoopla is about.
I thought we agreed to disagree already?
