Anonymous wrote:I just watched the video ... she’s says he is threatening her and her dog. He DID threaten her dog.

Did you notice her choking her dog out as well? Who really put the dog in danger? Be sure to stretch well before you continue with your gymnastics!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a very minor law that she broke.

You think that lying to the police - falsely accusing someone of threatening her — is “a very minor law”?

He was threatening “to her”. She has a right to make that distinction.

No she doesn't. That word has a legal definition. A lot of people find people with dark skin inherently threatening. Thank goodness they aren't allowed to define whatever they want to as threatening.

Watch the video. She walked up to him. She threatened him. She was very clearly acting. The lengths to which some of you will go to to defend this woman is eye opening and nauseating. Even on camera, literally right before your very eyes, you manage to witness white supremacy in action, and refuse to see it for what it is. It's scary and infuriating.

Well, she got fired from Franklin Templeton, deservedly so. What she did was atrocious.

Christian and his sister also suck for stooping so low to perpetuate the whole "Karen" thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a very minor law that she broke.

You think that lying to the police - falsely accusing someone of threatening her — is “a very minor law”?

He was threatening “to her”. She has a right to make that distinction.

She was acting in a very peculiar way for someone who felt threatened. He was the one that repeatedly asked her to stop coming up to him. Regardless, her employer had the right to fire her racist ass, the dog rescue apparently had the right to take her dog away and now she can enjoy the hell she has unleashed on herself with her misguided distinctions.

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the video ... she’s says he is threatening her and her dog. He DID threaten her dog.

With a treat?

So scary!

I just watched the video ... she’s says he is threatening her and her dog. He DID threaten her dog.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a very minor law that she broke.

You think that lying to the police - falsely accusing someone of threatening her — is “a very minor law”?

He was threatening “to her”. She has a right to make that distinction.

Anonymous wrote:It was a very minor law that she broke.

Repeatedly false accusations to police that a person is trying to harm you (and they are clearly not - he asked her to stay away from him) is a "minor law" to you? That's a pretty serious offense, actually.

But I suppose you're referring to walking her dog off leash. You may consider it minor, but it's still selfish, irresponsible, and illegal.

Anonymous wrote:It was a very minor law that she broke.

You think that lying to the police - falsely accusing someone of threatening her — is “a very minor law”?

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is entitled to their own opinion: I think the sister and to some extent this guy are pretty obnoxious pretending that she put him in danger.

The police responded to an "assault" call. If you don't think that put him in serious danger, then you are deplorable.

It was a very minor law that she broke.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion: I think the sister and to some extent this guy are pretty obnoxious pretending that she put him in danger.

I think she will sue and win against her employer the bank. (Maybe they don’t care and glad she’s gone) Yes she comes across as an entitled b***ch. Yes she broke a minor law by not having her dog properly leased.
However she was approached by a in her mind hostile stranger who threatened her dog. She panicked and called 911 and said a bunch of things she shouldn’t have. But no one can really determine what happened the entire time or to what extent she felt threatened. She owns her own emotions (not that she admits fault but that her emotions are her property)
Therefore the bank her employer should not have fired her based on a Twitter/ media storm. It will be a quiet payout.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to Franklin Templeton on Twitter:

Following our internal review of the incident in Central Park yesterday, we have made the decision to terminate the employee involved, effective immediately. We do not tolerate racism of any kind at Franklin Templeton.

Ummm...that was covered a few pages ago.

No. A few pages ago she was put on paid leave. Effective immediately she is fired. Clean out your desk, no benefits, no reference letter, no job.

Firing was reported on p 31, since you seem weirdly into proving that you have the scoop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to Franklin Templeton on Twitter:

Following our internal review of the incident in Central Park yesterday, we have made the decision to terminate the employee involved, effective immediately. We do not tolerate racism of any kind at Franklin Templeton.

Ummm...that was covered a few pages ago.

No. A few pages ago she was put on paid leave. Effective immediately she is fired. Clean out your desk, no benefits, no reference letter, no job.

Not to argue...because it really doesn't matter, but she was put on leave yesterday when the story first came out.