Central Park Karen is a racist

[ccmdfd]

As I have tried to emphasize repeatedly, all the facts need to be evaluated before reaching a conclusion or passing sentence.

This woman's life was destroyed in the blink of an eye...regardless of whether we may find her shrill or find fault with her behavior.

Without any substantive evidence of what occurred before the video was turned on, we only have her statement, and Mr. Cooper's statement which was posted on facebook. If some stranger had said something of the kind to my wife, that he'd do what he wanted but she wouldn't like it, I think I'd take pretty strong issue with it, on the basis of its implication alone.

In this case, the punishment doled out has not been proportional to the alleged offense.

But, but destroying someone's life or livelihood is the new national sport!

Heck, we should petition the Olympics to add it to the next summer games

[vcdgrips]

...and on the other side of the coin.

"Central Park ‘Karen’ previously sued alleged romantic interest for stealing $65k, a story he calls ‘fabricated’"

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...wpq-story.html

[blues]

...and on the other side of the coin.

"Central Park ‘Karen’ previously sued alleged romantic interest for stealing $65k, a story he calls ‘fabricated’"

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...wpq-story.html

Somehow, I doubt that would be admissible if this were in an actual court as opposed to the court of public opinion.

[vcdgrips]

Blues:

There are 23 hearsay exceptions that allow out of court statements/conduct etc to come in for the truth of the matter asserted under federal law. There are nearly as many under NY state law.

She also strikes me as the kind of witness who would open some doors in a deposition such that a wide variety of information about here would become relevant in the civil litigation context.


I am now engaging in pure speculation:

She was fired because times are hard and she has other documented issues. If she were a top tier employee with an unblemished record, her employer announces there are investigating and it fades away in a matter of days. She gets counseling, training etc and everybody drives on. This is especially true as her Harvard educated, NYC Audubon Society Board of Directors member, former Marvel Comics Exec does not seem to be out for blood.

If she was making her 700+ Billion dollar former employer real money, she still has a job. Maybe not in the same position, maybe not even in the NYC area, but she has got a job.


I suspect there will not be a pot of gold at the end of her rainbow re suing her former employer. I suspect her "contract"/employment agreement allows here to be terminated for almost anything.
I would not be surprised if she may be contractually obligated to arbitrate any employment dispute first and/or may be completely barred from even suing in court.

I acknowledge that I am talking general principles of employment law. I am not an employment lawyer. I am not licensed in the state of NY.


Bottom Line:

We have personally judged credibility for 20 + years. Which narrative is more believable to you?

[Borderland]

Somehow, I doubt that would be admissible if this were in an actual court as opposed to the court of public opinion.

The article states;

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 after all parties failed to appear at back-to-back hearings, online court records show.

So I guess it was a frivolous lawsuit.

[blues]

Bottom Line:

We have personally judged credibility for 20 + years. Which narrative is more believable to you?

I suspect that there's a decent probability that she's not the sort of person whose parties I'd like to attend, nor a guest I might want to invite to my home.

That said, whether or not her behavior, (or the behavior of the other Cooper in the mix), was questionable, or lacking the high standards that most of us would like to portray, I think the punishment (already) received exceeds the "crime".

This would be like being charged with distribution weight and sentenced to a mandatory minimum for having a roach in one's pocket.

Perhaps the appropriate sentence would be to confine her and Jussie Smollett to a period of confinement as roommates together.

[vcdgrips]

Blues:

The consequences is a separate question. I did not ask if her punishment fit the crime. I did not ask if you would like to spend time with her. You answered a series of questions I did not ask.

I asked, perhaps, inartfully, who's story is more believable.

To be clear, I think that entitled white karen did not like it when birdwatching carlton (as in Carlton from the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air) asked/told her to leash her dog. Carlton, asks people all the time to follow the law (something most of here are really keen on) as an unleashed dog really jacks up his birdwatching. When she cannot and/or will not leash the dog and it was clear he was not going to back down (how dare him she thinks.) I also think that would have been her initial reaction to anybody asking her to leash her dog, black, white, brown, male or female.

Then, the following happens:

Karen then make a conscious decision to call 911, and makes a very deliberate attempt to up the ante and play the race card to get the police there faster by setting up "a bad black man" is trying to hurt me narrative. I found her voice, tone, and word choice all contrived for maximum effect.

The above is my personal opinion on which narrative is more credible based on 28+ years as an attorney, 23+ as a prosecutor.

[vcdgrips]

Borderland posts:

"The article states;

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 after all parties failed to appear at back-to-back hearings, online court records show.


So I guess it was a frivolous lawsuit."


No way to know if it was frivolous or not from that snippet. When parties are a no show 2x in a row , a dismissal is not a decision on the merits. It is a procedural decision.
I base that from the reporting on how the case was dismissed. I have not reviewed the docket entries or the dismissal order.

[Borderland]

Borderland posts:

"The article states;

The lawsuit was dismissed in March 2018 after all parties failed to appear at back-to-back hearings, online court records show.


So I guess it was a frivolous lawsuit."


No way to know if it was frivolous or not from that snippet. When parties are a no show 2x in a row , a dismissal is not a decision on the merits. It is a procedural decision.
I base that from the reporting on how the case was dismissed. I have not reviewed the docket entries or the dismissal order.

Not knowing anything about court procedure I'll ask a question. If one of the parties shows up and the other doesn't is it still dismissed?

I know all states and courts aren't the same but generally speaking.

[vcdgrips]

Borderland

Typically, if one party shows and the other one does not after a certain period of time or number of times (often 2 no shows means a decision rendered on setting #3)

The party that shows gets a win via a default judgement. Often they get everything they ask for. Where this often happens is in the creditor/debtor context. Credit card company sues cardholder for non payment. Cardholder is a no show. Company gets the number they asked for plus penalties, plus interest past, present and sometimes future.