A fruitloop 'Karen' gets her just deserts.

[Sophisticated Sarah]

amare32 said:

Both parties are at fault TBH. One is an SJW/Karen who was freaking out and could've diffused the situation and taken her dog away from the guy.

The guy was a busybody and could've just said his piece, go watch some birds and then head off to a nearby safe space to cool down.

I don’t think so. He has every right to question her for not abiding by the park rules, could be she was unaware of the need to keep her animal on a leash.

[J4CKO]

amare32 said:

Both parties are at fault TBH. One is an SJW/Karen who was freaking out and could've diffused the situation and taken her dog away from the guy.

The guy was a busybody and could've just said his piece, go watch some birds and then head off to a nearby safe space to cool down.

How is she a Social Justice Warrior ?

She was not trying to promote Racial Equality, she didnt like that someone had asked her to put her dog on its lead and saw her arse and escalated it. She called the Police and reading between the lines, she was implying

"I am a lone female, there is a big scary black man here and he is probably going to rape and murder me, come quickly and deal with him however you see fit, preferably harshly and violently"

Not very SJW ish.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

Amazing there are people so Liberal they can actually argue her case?

[bigandclever]

Dr Doofenshmirtz said:

Amazing there are people so Liberal they can actually argue her case?

I’m liberal, but I’m not that thick

[Octoposse]

Kent Border Kenny said:

JagLover said:

Just curious about responses like this sometimes.

The woman has lost her job, and her dog too it seems, and now some are joyful that she might be jailed as well. Because clearly she needs to have her life completely destroyed for one "thought crime"

It wasn’t a thought crime, it was an actual crime, and the reason that it’s serious is that she knew that with the tone of immediate threat and hysteria in her voice that there was a chance that she could get him shot.

Quite so. Professionally I frequently see people's lives "completely destroyed" (actually, that's an exaggeration, but no matter) for stupid moments of madness, or single or chains of poor decisions.

It can be horrible, especially when they take other people (think parallel situations involving driving) or families (especially if they're a "breadwinner") with them. There but for the Grace of . . . . etc.

But sympathy and empathy in conversation or social media seem generally in short supply unless they're people 'like us' (pretty, white and middle class in this case (not that I'm pretty, but you know what I mean)) . . .

Getting controversial, but when they're not "like us", the reaction's more likely to be more: "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" or whatever the expression is?

Yes, I feel sympathy (especially as we don't know whether there was something particularly stty going on in her life at the time), but am quite capable of simultaneously believing that she can quite rightly have the book thrown at her. Adult. Responsible. Accountable.

[ben5575]

Fundoreen said:

Plenty that think like her in the USA . She would breeze into her next job but for the fact she let her guard down and the world saw the ugly inside.

Whilst the other person could have been shot dead by the police whilst out bird watching.

It's almost the definition of this white privilege thing

[amare32]

Sophisticated Sarah said:

amare32 said:

Both parties are at fault TBH. One is an SJW/Karen who was freaking out and could've diffused the situation and taken her dog away from the guy.

The guy was a busybody and could've just said his piece, go watch some birds and then head off to a nearby safe space to cool down.

I don’t think so. He has every right to question her for not abiding by the park rules, could be she was unaware of the need to keep her animal on a leash.

I did say he has the right to question her and just move on with his day. Equally the woman could've seen the park signs and realised she brought her dog to a protected part of the park. Both didn't back down and it resulted in this incident.

[otolith]

amare32 said:

I did say he has the right to question her and just move on with his day. Equally the woman could've seen the park signs and realised she brought her dog to a protected part of the park. Both didn't back down and it resulted in this incident she committed a crime which could have led to him being killed or incarcerated.

Fixed that for ya.

[PorkInsider]

paulguitar said:

amare32 said:

Both parties are at fault TBH. One is an SJW/Karen who was freaking out and could've diffused the situation and taken her dog away from the guy.

The guy was a busybody and could've just said his piece, go watch some birds and then head off to a nearby safe space to cool down.

Have you completely lost your mind?

Rhetorical question, presumably.

[Dont Panic]

Seems the guy agrees with me oddly enough, doesnt want it to go any further.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/black-birdwatcher-target...

[TonyToniTone]

Dont Panic said:

The job loss aspect as a punishment does not sit well with me at all, its simply put someone who may well be a model employee and capable too out of work.
The jailing or other punisment applied by law if it happens is the right course of action.
Making that kind of false allegation in the current climate of distrust could have held fatal consequences.
Shes an idiot for claiming he threatened her life so I dont feel sorry for her at all in that respect.

Dont Panic said:

Seems the guy agrees with me oddly enough, doesnt want it to go any further.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/black-birdwatcher-target...

No he doesn't agree with you, he thinks she has been punished enough.

[TheJimi]

Dont Panic said:

Seems the guy agrees with me oddly enough, doesnt want it to go any further.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/black-birdwatcher-target...

No, he doesn't agree with you.

You were trying to say that her employer sacking her and the dog organisation taking the dog back amounted mob rule.

That's very different to what the guy is saying.

[B'stard Child]

I have every sympathy for her



Mainly because apparently when I don't have sympathy for someone I'm in the wrong.................


Lets see how this plays out

[citizensm1th]

B'stard Child said:

I have every sympathy for her



Mainly because apparently when I don't have sympathy for someone I'm in the wrong.................


Lets see how this plays out

I am betting that it was your wife who told you that

[Starfighter]

Dont Panic said:

Seems the guy agrees with me oddly enough, doesnt want it to go any further.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/black-birdwatcher-target...

I am not sure that police would need the victim's co-operation for a prosecution. The video evidence alone proves that she lied about the circumstances to the police.

Edited by Starfighter on Thursday 9th July 23:22

[Kermit power]

vikingaero said:

This is the recent UK Karen who has been sacked by her employers:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8495375/W...

Seriously? How on earth are they managing to call one white European woman racist for attacking another white European woman?

[paulguitar]

Kermit power said:

Seriously? How on earth are they managing to call one white European woman racist for attacking another white European woman?

Because the attack was for 'speaking too loudly in Polish' according to the headline!

[don'tbesilly]

paulguitar said:

Because the attack was for 'speaking too loudly in Polish' according to the headline!

If you take the headline at face value that's the conclusion most will arrive at.

Reading the article it's one group's version of events against the other group's version of events, and one could believe either of the two versions.

[paulguitar]

don'tbesilly said:

paulguitar said:

Because the attack was for 'speaking too loudly in Polish' according to the headline!

If you take the headline at face value that's the conclusion most will arrive at.

Reading the article it's one group's version of events against the other group's version of events, and one could believe either of the two versions.

Fair enough. I think the point is that there doesn't need to be one white and one black person (for example) for a racist situation. I could cross the border 14 miles from my house into Wales, start yelling at someone for being Welsh, and that would also be racism.

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

paulguitar said:

don'tbesilly said:

paulguitar said:

Because the attack was for 'speaking too loudly in Polish' according to the headline!

If you take the headline at face value that's the conclusion most will arrive at.

Reading the article it's one group's version of events against the other group's version of events, and one could believe either of the two versions.

Fair enough. I think the point is that there doesn't need to be one white and one black person (for example) for a racist situation. I could cross the border 14 miles from my house into Wales, start yelling at someone for being Welsh, and that would also be racism.

No, no it would not.