re: Judge is a d-bag to IT guy who fixes his audio issues

quote:

---

Him telling her he'll "do what he wants and she won't like it" before trying to lure her dog with a treat is an obviously implied threat. But it doesn't matter whether you think she should have called the cops. What matters is that you realize that there was more to that exchange than the guy's race and the world reacting as though there wasn't is an example of a viral video missing some pertinent information. She didn't get fired because she called the cops. She got fired because people thought her motivation for calling the cops was simply his race.

---

She called 911 and said that a black man was threatening her life. She lied and explicitly cited to his race while doing so. You can attempt to sugar coat it all you’d like, but she knew exactly what she was doing.

The fact we respect judges at all is baffling these days. They are just politicians.

quote:

---

She called 911 and said that a black man was threatening her life. She lied and explicitly cited to his race while doing so. You can attempt to sugar coat it all you’d like, but she knew exactly what she was doing.

---

His threats aren't a sugar coating. Its a crucial piece of information regarding his own culpability in the exchange. And that man had done precisely this thing before.

But the world never got to hear about one whole side of that incident which resulted in her life being torn apart within a day. It was presented as though the man did nothing at all. Just minding his business. That's the point. Even if you find fault with how she reacted, that simply doesn't mean what he did needn't be known or is irrelevant or might actually reveal 2 people - not just one - not behaving rationally.

When the consequence is having your job taken away, the dog taken away and getting death threats from complete strangers I think more information is always better than less.


LINK

quote:

---

I find it interesting that you feel comfortable stating that his saying “you’re not going to like this” and offering her dog a treat is definitively a threat, and yet also stating definitively that her calling 911 and lying about his threatening her life while making a point of saying that it was a “black man” who had made said threat had nothing to do with his race.

One of those two things seems vastly more likely to me than the other; yet, we seem to fundamentally disagree as to which is which.

---

Perhaps it has something to do with him admitting that he used this tactic to deal with unleashed dogs before. "I pulled out the dog treats I carry for just such intransigence." He's admitting there that he wasn't carrying treats to make dogs happy but rather to scare dog owners into compliance. We can add to that the fact that he had appeared before the board that oversees Central Park operations complaining about dog walkers unleashing dogs in areas not designated for it and claimed there that his attempts to get them to comply had resulted in 2 people assaulting him (this was just days before the viral incident). I could go on but the point is that the public knew almost nothing about this because everyone was too busy forming the mob.


By his own admission, this guy set himself up as a park monitor with his own set of enforcement tactics that resulted in multiple conflicts. A pretty standard definition of what people mean when they call someone a "Karen." But she mentioned his race so her life was destroyed and he got a Nat Geo show because that's all the public thought they needed to know.

quote:

---

Perhaps it has something to do with him admitting that he used this tactic to deal with unleashed dogs before. "I pulled out the dog treats I carry for just such intransigence." He's admitting there that he wasn't carrying treats to make dogs happy but rather to scare dog owners into compliance. We can add to that the fact that he had appeared before the board that oversees Central Park operations complaining about dog walkers unleashing dogs in areas not designated for it and claimed there that his attempts to get them to comply had resulted in 2 people assaulting him (this was just days before the viral incident). I could go on but the point is that the public knew almost nothing about this because everyone was too busy forming the mob. By his own admission, this guy set himself up as a park monitor with his own set of enforcement tactics that resulted in multiple conflicts. A pretty standard definition of what people mean when they call someone a "Karen." But she mentioned his race so her life was destroyed and he got a Nat Geo show because that's all the public thought they needed to know.

---

Yes, he used the treats to manipulate behavior, I’ve already acknowledged that. Why do you keep refusing to acknowledge that she explicitly lied when she said he threatened her life?

That judge has the most small dick energy I’ve ever seen in my life.

Bad bot. Shoo

Tuesday. I had my first experience going behind the bench doing IT support during a live court session. It is still kind of nerve racking.

The lady beside the judge couldn't get logged in to her PC. The I.T. support Specialist couldn't fix the issue so I went down to see what was going on. It was just time drift on the PC causing multi-factor authentication to fail.

They carried on with court while I was there. Luckily, the judge I dealt with was friendly and nice. I also didn't crack any jokes. I'm all about cracking jokes, but there is a time and place for it. During a court session, my job is to get in, fix whatever is broke, and gtfo with minimal conversation.

When someone tells me they are having computer/printer issues I often ask them if they tried hitting it with a hammer. That opening generally lightens the mood.

Not sure if it's been posted....but seems to get worse by the hour for the a-hole...

Don't throw stones...

May want to make sure your own house is in order before lashing out and berating everyone else for not following the rules.