Executive Loses Job and Dog After Tirade Against African American Bird Watcher [Updated]

download-4We have long discussed the difficult questions raised by private and public employers punishing employees for postings on social media or controversies in their private lives.  When employers are identified in the media, controversial statements or conduct can have an obvious backlash against the them, particularly if there is an allegation of racist or discriminatory views.  For free speech advocates, this can raise a type of “Little Brother” problem but the First Amendment is focused on state, not private action. This ongoing debate over where to draw the line on private speech has a new controversy with the release of a truly shocking videotape of a woman, identified as Amy Cooper calling police on an African American bird watcher in Central Park. Her employer Franklin Templeton has put her on administrative leave while reviewing the incident.  She is reportedly the head of insurance investment solutions at Franklin Templeton.  Others have called for animal abuse charges to be filed as Cooper was shown yanking around her hapless dog during her tirade. The dog was surrendered to a local shelter for its protection. Update: Amy Cooper was fired shortly after she was put on administrative leave.
      The video is very disturbing.  Christian Cooper tried to get Amy Cooper to leash her dog because he said he was concerned over the dog ruining the habitat for birds.  When she refused, he pulled out a treat to pull the dog away from the underbrush.  She then picked up the dog by the collar and began walking toward him. He asked her to keep her distance and she told him to stop recording her.  The scene quickly melts down with her saying that she is going to call the cops. She can be heard saying “I’m in the Ramble and there’s an African American man in a bicycle helmet. He’s recording me and threatening me and my dog.” She then repeats “There’s an African American man. I’m in Central Park, he is recording me and threatening myself and my dog.” She soon is yelling in her phone “I’m being threatened by a man in the Ramble. Please send the cops immediately. I’m in Central Park in the Ramble, I don’t know.”

The police arrived but found neither Cooper nor the man were present.

It is not clear if Cooper would be charged though it is unlikely.  She clearly clearly suggesting an imminent attack and says falsely that Christian Cooper is threatening her. Section 240.50 allows a charge for anyone who “initiates or circulates a false report” or, “gratuitously reports to a law enforcement officer or agency…an allegedly impending occurrence of an offense or incident which in fact is not about to occur.”  However, such a charge might deter other people from calling police when they are in fear of an attack.

      Cooper, 41, later apologized for the incident in a phone interview with NBC New York. She also returned her Cocker Spaniel to a rescue shelter where she adopted him a couple years ago.  According to Heavy.com, Christian Cooper, 57, is a former Marvel Comics editor who graduated from Harvard and now works as the senior biomedical editor at Health Science Communications.  He is an avid bird watcher.

Amy Cooper is a vice president and head of investment solutions at Franklin Templeton Investments in New York City and a native of Canada. She received a degree in actuarial science from the University of Waterloo in Ontario and a master’s in business administration in analytical finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in 2009.

We have addressed an array of such incidents, including social media controversies involving academics. In some cases, racially charged comments have been treated as free speech while in others they have resulted in discipline or termination. It is that lack of a consistent standard that has magnified free speech concerns.  We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here and here and here).

The fact is that Franklin Templeton has now been drawn into the controversy by association. This case does not raise the type of political speech that we have previously discussed as a growing concern. This is not political speech but an unhinged and deeply disturbing use of what Christian Cooper called “the race card.”  Courts are likely to support employers in holding employees accountable for such controversies.

 

1,389 thoughts on “Executive Loses Job and Dog After Tirade Against African American Bird Watcher [Updated]”

  1. Behold. A woman apparently fabricating a false allegation against a man, weaponizing an accusation she’d been threatened.

    Now, children, when the next allegation comes around, put politics aside, and you just might be more interested in evidence than the political affiliation or identity scale of the accused.

    1. What has politics got to do with this ?

      This is NYC We are talking about two slightly different flavor lefties.
      Both of whom made a series of mistakes.
      None of which are all that serious or warrant national attention.

      As to evidence – we have a video shot by one of the participants, possibly edited.
      We have only their words what came before.

      And the video really does not show us much beyond two people with slightly different values verbally sparring.

      I think this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the left.
      We must identify a victim.

      Instead of looking at the facts and saying – move along people – nothing to see.
      We must weigh out the relative oppression points of a white woman and a dog vs. a black man.

      Interestingly – as has been the case with women for decades.

      The only position for women in the movement is ‘prone’
      Stokely Carmichael 1964

      In the lefts oppression calculus women ALWAYS lose.
      Unless Amy is a post op transexual, she must be the villian – she is white, and while the oppression of women dates to the caves, and they continue to be slaves accross the planet – he is black, and black oppression trumps almost everything.

      See you even have me sucked into this nonsense.

      There is no big story here. Just two people squabling in the park. Both of which made some mistakes.

      Walk Away. There is nothing here to see.

    2. I told them that when they threatened Trump was Putin’s puppet they didn’t listen.

  2. She accuses the black man of threatening her dog, while strangling her Bichon Frise mix or Goldendoodle, or whatever poor dog she had. The dog even jumped on her and fell on the ground in desperation, choking and making strangled cries.

    I have no idea what happened before the camera started rolling, but based off of what was filmed, the lady has a problem. Smart man not to engage, and to just film her self destruct.

  3. As I’ve mentioned before, a business can be affected by employees’ behavior, outside of work, if it impacts its reputation or profits, or puts customers in danger.

    For example, if someone brags on social media that they long to steal from rich people, a contractor would be negligent if they allowed that person unfettered access to a rich person’s home during a remodel.

    The State won’t imprison you for your speech, but an employer should always have the right to fire or discipline an employee if their behavior jeopardizes the business. That includes universities, where professors brag that they want all white people to die, and then go teach a class of white students. Or insert whatever threatening statement that you want. If parents had any ethical backbone, they would not financially support institutions that made SJW and persecuting or brainwashing their offspring, over academic excellence. If people voted more often with their wallets, universities might care about the product they produce, i.e. an education in an environment of higher learning, and not political brainwashing. But they won’t. How many parents decided not to send their kids to Harvard or USC because of the enrollment scandal, or the ongoing discrimination against Asian students? They still view the university name as cache, so no matter what they do, they still pay. And the universities know it.

    Yes, this can be abused, to the point that employees are fired or harassed over political opinions. That is wrong. However, an employer’s right to hire and fire whom they choose should be protected, because that’s their livelihood. There should only be very limited protections that interfere with an employer’s right to choose whom they want working for them.

  4. My God! Are you trying to say…that all women shouldn’t be believed?!

    Or is it that on the identity politics scale, the word of a black cis gendered straight man trumps that of a white woman?

    Or, and I’m just spit balling here, we could just look at the evidence, disregard race and gender, and judge fairly…

    1. My God, are you trying to say you cannot witness any event without trying to pidgeon hole it into your narrow political stereotypes and partisan interests.

      How boring.

      1. My God, is bythebook still confused by the fact that not all women should be believed, based on gender alone, and that this is evidence of it?

        Would a flow chart help? Venn diagram? Small words?

    2. He’s reportedly a gay black man who is involved in “queer stand-up comedy.” In any case, Franklin Templeton fired the white female today. The company made the business decision that appeasing black activists is more important than allowing white women some leeway in calling the police if they feel threatened. There was a similar case in NY where a white woman was fired because she questioned a black man whom she didn’t recognize entering her apartment building. At my office, we’re required to “challenge” anyone we don’t recognize as a fellow-employee, to ascertain whether he or she should be in the building. Personally, I would never challenge a black person, because the blow-back would be on me, regardless of the circumstances. Years ago, I was walking down a corridor past a section of offices under renovation. There was a young black male in there sleeping on the floor! I had no idea who he was or if he should be in the building, but as a white person, I wasn’t about to say anything to him or anyone else about his presence. If I did, the Twitter Mob would savage me, and my employer and other timid whites would all buckle under. So screw it. If I see any black doing anything criminal or even suspicious I’m not getting involved. Just ignore it and preserve my job and privacy.

      1. what one could do is let building security know that there is a possible trespasser. or even just “someone I didnt recognize.” good enough. but yes don’t identify race. or you could give them the hand signal that it’s a black dude and don’t say anything about race. the hand signal is very subtle. it can be passed off as nothing. i wont spell it out. i learned what the signal was years ago from a Chicago PD guy. if you don’t know it, you could ask a cop. like one you trust. younger security staff might not know it, but they will probably guess.

        this is how the world works kids. you can punish people for generalizations but if the generalizations still are supported by facts they will persist and smart people will make use of them

      2. .TIN says:
        May 26, 2020 at 5:33 PM
        “He’s reportedly a gay black man who is involved in “queer stand-up comedy.”

        JT in his posting:

        “According to Heavy.com, Christian Cooper, 57, is a former Marvel Comics editor who graduated from Harvard and now works as the senior biomedical editor at Health Science Communications. He is an avid bird watcher.”

        1. It was reported in The Advocate (gay media) and even on Wikipedia that he’s gay, a comedian, and when at Marvel comics he introduced the first gay character in the X Men superhero series. Do you really think your typical Tyrone is an “avid birder”? No, he is an overly dramatic queen who made a big issue of something a regular guy would ignore. He played the black privilege card to the hilt and is reveling in all the attention his victimhood is bringing him.

          1. Who cares if the guy is gay?

            This is about a woman who could have just leashed her dog and walked away. If it wasn’t between 6 and 9 a.m., the dog should have been leashed. And she was pulling the dog around by its collar while yelling at the guy. There’s clearly something wrong with her.

            You’re really gonna defend this woman? Wow. Gotta laugh.

            1. You seem to think the world must be perfect.

              Have you ever owned a dog ? How about had a toddler out of control ?

        2. this kind of worker is why marvel comics now stinks ‘

          bring back stan lee the man who made marvel great

          well, we can’t. so we have to have this kind fabricating the “heroes’ for the youths

  5. Update:

    Franklin Templeton (@FTI_US):
    “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.”

    1. I remember 20 years ago when a real racist used to get fired from a job.

      now it’s actuaries who work on wall street. lol. karens who are getting fussy over bird sanctuary rules and can’t leash their dogs properly. wow.

      my how far we’ve come

      in another 20 years it may be illegal to keep white folks on staff, just because they’re white. oh wait we already have that it’s called affirmative action.

      watch for it whitey, itz comin. know who’s got your back when it all jumps off.

      1. Yes, they’ve gone nuts. Muh russia muh racism muh TDS.
        Then it’s totally unfairly and politically applied in one direction by lunatics.

      2. Did you not read the story? She was fired because she called the cops and falsely reported that he was threatening her.

        this is to “ya, I know, but I had to make the story about me” kurtzie

        Mr.ka

          1. Paul – did you read Tyrone’s Facebook post? He describes the conversation prior to the filming. He told the woman, “You do what you want and I’ll do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.” She asked what he meant. Then he says he took some dog treats out of his pocket and began calling her dog, trying to get her dog away from her. That’s when she freaked out. It’s all on his FB page.

            1. TIN – you ever work with a woman who did not like what you were doing. That is what is going on here, a clash of wills. Tyrone is trying to keep the unleashed dog out of the bushes where the birds are and Ms Cooper is trying to let the dog run free.

              Now, I do not let people give treats to my dog because my dog will take your arm off. However, her dog seems playful and would take the treat.

              1. Paul – I’ve purchased my last three dogs from dog training schools that contract with law enforcement. The dogs I purchased flunked out of police dog school. They’re good, protective dogs for my wife and kids, but didn’t quite make the cut to be canine officers. The first thing a dog trainer will tell you is that you NEVER let someone lure your dog away from you with treats, or whatever. He doesn’t give a crap about your dog. He is trying to disarm you. Taking away your protection. This women instinctively knew what was going on. He outright admits on Facebook that he told her she’s “not going to like” what he does to her. Then he proceeds to start luring her dog away. That’s why she freaked out. She was essentially alone in the park with him, disarmed, and didn’t know what was going to happen next that she “wasn’t going to like.”

                1. TIN – he never moves from the spot he is in when the camera is on, he tells to call the police and thanks her for doing it.

                  My last two dogs are/were feral, the first one took me a year of hand feeding to get it to come to me. I know the feeding trick on dogs, but his is a one time thing, not a long term thing. He is not trying to break into her apt.

              2. Would you make assumptions about another persons dog ?

                Di not approach a strange dog in the presence of its owner without the owners (and dogs) permission. Maybe the dog was playful and maybe it ends well.

                And maybe you get bit, or the woman attacks you.

                Because if you attempt to do anything with my dog without my permission – one of us is attacking you.

                From what other posters have written here – if True Mr. Cooper was not trying to be friendly with the dog, he was using the treat as a means of luring the dog away from its owner. If True that is theft.

                But even if false it is STUPID.

                If you get bit by a dog – this is going to be a mess for everyone. Frankly I think if you get bit approaching a strange dog with a treat, that is a self punishing act.

                But the law does not view it that way. Almost without regard for what mr. cooper did, if the dog bit him the dog and the woman would be at fault.
                The woman would be in less trouble if she bit “tyrone” herself.
                It will be expensive, and could easily result in the dog getting killed.

                Do not approach other peoples dogs – not without the permission of the owner AND the dog. It is stupid and it is not likely to end well. I am not surprised that the woman felt threatened.

                She was.

                1. John Say – dogs must (shall) be on a leash in the Ramble. Any dog not on a leash is a loose and ownerless dog. Mr Cooper gave Ms Cooper the opportunity to put her dog on the lead or leash. She refused. The dog therefore is a loose and ownerless dog. Mr Cooper attempted to capture it with treats he keeps for these purposes. Ms Cooper goes bonkers and pretends to be threatened by an African-American male, all the while abusing her dog.

                  1. “Any dog not on a leash is a loose and ownerless dog.”

                    False. The fact that you are not at this moment in possession and full control of your property does not surrender your ownership.

                    If you encounter a dog, or a briefcase or a car without its owner present – you are not free to take ownership of it.

                    Regardless, if the owner is present and you do not have permission to do so it is theft.

                    “Mr Cooper gave Ms Cooper the opportunity to put her dog on the lead or leash. She refused. ”
                    Does not matter.
                    That is relevant if you are trying to prosecute here for having her dog off the leash.

                    It has nothing to do with prosecuting him.

                    double park my car on a public road – the police can have the car taken away – if I am not present. But a private party taking the car is stealing it.

                    “The dog therefore is a loose”
                    Yes
                    “and ownerless dog”
                    nope

                    “Mr Cooper attempted to capture it with treats he keeps for these purposes.”
                    The only thing we know about Mr. Coopers actions are the actions themselves and he own words. Regardless the purposes he keeps treats for – presuming you know them are irrelevant. If I have a knife for the purpose of peeling oranges and I stab you with it – that is still assault with a deadly weapon. Why I had the knife is not relevant – unless we are arguing premeditation.
                    I am not sure that there is a premeditated theft statute in NY – but if there was you are making the case that Mr. Cooper is guilty of it.
                    YOUR claim is that he brought treats to the park for the purpose of luring loose dogs away from their owners.

                    “Ms Cooper goes bonkers and pretends to be threatened”
                    Christian threatened to take the dog – there is no pretend here.
                    He might have beleived he was free to do so – as you clearly do.
                    But that does not change the actual facts.
                    Dogs are property. You can not take someone else’s property without there permission.
                    Her mishandling of the property does not change that at all.
                    Your supposition that “loose dogs” are no longer owned is legal nonsense.
                    Even the police – who could legally catch her dog without her permission would NOT be able to take ownership of it, thought they might be able to take CUSTODY of it.
                    Regardless, Mr. Cooper is not law enforcement.

                    “by an African-American male”
                    There is no law I am aware of that says “African american males” are free to threaten to steal your dog.

                    An enormous portion of this idiocy is the presumption that because Mr. Cooper was identified as African american that somehow this is racist.

                    That is false, it is also irrelevant. Ms. Cooper had the minimum requisite conditions to call the police. Even if her description of Cooper was racist – which it was not.
                    It changes nothing.

                    If Mr. Cooper had stabbed her with a knife and she used the N word to describe him to the police – that would be racist. And Mr. Cooper would still be guilty of assault.

                    “all the while abusing her dog.”

                    I though you said you had experience with dogs before ?

                    I have seen dogs abused. I rescued several abused dogs. This was not abuse – except to people who are clueless about dogs and think every pet owner is Ceasar Milan.
                    This was a woman with poor pet skills trying to handle a poorly trained pet in a stressful situation with many things going on at once.

                    In otherwords she was a typical pet owner.

                    The dog was in an ordinary collar, not a choker – not that it matters regarding intent.
                    And was in no danger.

                    My current dog will pull harder on a leash and choke herself, and there is nothing that will stop her.

                    1. John Say – you are very vested in white knighting for this woman. Are you dating her? Again, where does Christian say he is going to steal the dog? Do you read minds at parties? Do you have brochures?

                    2. “John Say – you are very vested in white knighting for this woman. Are you dating her? Again, where does Christian say he is going to steal the dog? Do you read minds at parties? Do you have brochures?”

                      All false and all not arguments.

                      These two people had a complex encounter involving stress and conflict, and they handled it badly.

                      Guess what that is real world. No one is sainting Amy. But that does not make her a clear racist either.

                      Frankly the racism claim is stupid on its face. Are you really going to claim that most of the single women in NYC are racist ?

                      The wise thing for both of them would be to go home and forget about the event.

                      Christian choose to make this into a global issue.

                      What I am pointing out is that by his own account his actions are more seriously wrong than hers.

                      Regardless, he chose not to walk away, and he is providing the proof that her perception that he was a threat is justified.

                      You are the one that keeps repeating this nonsense.

                    3. Not an argument either.

                      You keep shucking and jiving.

                      The facts here are simple. Christian – in his own account threatened her and her dog, both in his words and in his actions.

                      We can speculate regarding what might have happened. Had she not somehow regained control of the dog.

                      Maybe his hypothetical actions would have been innocent. Maybe they would have been evil. But we do not know.

                      Christians threat does NOT justify her initiating violent actions, but it does justify calling the police.

                      Her report to the police on the video matches his own FaceBook post.

                      She said he issued a threat. He quotes his own threat.

                      The facts Christian’s facts, are not on your side.

                      This is not the crime of the century. It is not a big deal.

                      A woman alone in the park walking her dog was threatened by a man.

                      And you beleive that fact pattern hinges on the race of the participants.

                    4. It is the topic of the post.

                      regardless, I am tired of the debate is not an argument.

                    5. “Again, where does Christian say he is going to steal the dog? ”
                      You keep repating this fallacious argument over and over as if it is meaningful.
                      I have clearly refuted it a dozen times in different ways.

                      It is not necescary to narate your threats and actions for them to be criminal.

                      It you encounter someone on the street and say

                      “Do as I ask or you will regret it” – nearly exactly what Christian said – that is a threat.

                      If you then thrust a knife at that person – that is an attempted assault with a deadly weapon.

                      “Do you read minds at parties? Do you have brochures?”

                      I have made no claim to know christian’s mind, or the dog’s or amy’s.
                      I have relied exclusively on their words and actions.

                      Christian made a threat.
                      He made clear that his subsequent actions were premeditated,
                      Then he took action to take possession of Amy’s dog.

                      In many places that is sufficient to convict.
                      Subtitute kid for dog and lolipop for treat, and you will get a kidnapping conviction nearly everywhere.

                      But ultimately being able to convict is NOT the standard.

                      The relevant standard here – because it is Amy that is being glibally dragged through the mud is did christian’s words and actions create reasonable suspicion that she or her dog was in danger.

                      The answer to that is clearly yes.
                      Reasonable suspicion is a low standard.

                    6. John Say – stick with what Christian said in the Ramble, he was trying to control the dog which would do damage to the undergrowth and the ground dwelling birds. Amy, who you are white knighting for some reason, is breaking the rules of the Ramble (maybe even the law) by having her dog off the leash. Amy is the proximate cause of everything that happens.

                    7. “John Say – stick with what Christian said in the Ramble, he was trying to control the dog which would do damage to the undergrowth and the ground dwelling birds.”
                      First – that is not what Christian said. we have to stick with the facts we have not make up ones to suit
                      Second – that is irrelevant. Christian is not law enforcement, and the dog was not attacking him or another person. There is no defense of birds exception to the prohibition against taking control over the person or property of others.
                      He was free to call the police.

                      “Amy, who you are white knighting for some reason”

                      Nope, as others have not posted, and was to be expected to start, Amy is a progressive.
                      Not even close to my cup of tea.
                      I keep refering to this as blue on blue for a reason.

                      Amy should not have had her dog off the leash. That misconduct on her part justifies SOME responses by Christian. It justifies calling the police. It justifes requesting that she leash her dog. It does not justify a threat – other than calling the police, and it does not justify attempting to control another person or there property.

                      “is breaking the rules of the Ramble (maybe even the law) by having her dog off the leash.”
                      Correct and irrelevant.

                      “Amy is the proximate cause of everything that happens.”
                      Was christian entitled to shoot Amy because her dog was off the leash ?
                      Could he poison the dog ?

                      Clearly the answer is no.

                      Amy’s misconduct justifies SOME responses by Christian.
                      It does not justify the threat he issued, and it does not justify attempting to lure the dog.

                      This is not difficult.

                      This not about amy or even christian.

                      It is about how progressives are so fixated on race that they are blind to reality.

                    8. “My current dog will pull harder on a leash and choke herself, and there is nothing that will stop her.”

                      Try a Gentle Leader or a harness. The dog can damage its trachea. Don’t use a long leash.

                    9. Thank you for the advice. She is 12, and we do not walk her very much anymore for reasons such as these, also because she does not have the stamina for a walk anymore.
                      She spends little time on a leash – mostly vet visist because short of sitting on her she will pull and choke herself. Nor is she the only dog I have had that would do that, though she is the most persistent.

            2. Seriously – that is HIS story ? If that is correct, that inverts this entire thing.

              White black, male, female, gay straight, you attempt to take my dog – you are committing a crime, you are engaged in attempted theft.

              At the same time, once the woman retreived her dog, she should have retreated.

              1. John Say – he would have retrieved a “loose dog” in the Ramble. That is not theft.

                1. When the owner is present and has not asked for your help – and in fact has specifically rejected it – that is theft.

                  AS I understand what he admitted to saying – that is a clear threat to take the dog.

                  He did not say “I am going to use this treat to lure your dog and return it to you”.

                  I can assure you that in my town – if you use a dog treat to lure a dog away from its owner – you will be prosecuted and convicted of theft.

                  Whether you are black or white.

                  Normally something like this would not be prosecuted – because it would be his word against hers. But my understanding is that he has opening admitted to threatening to use the treat to get the dog from her.

                  You want to say this should not be treated all that seriously – I am OK with that.

                  But it is much more serious than having a dog off the leash.

                  I would further note that though I do not know the law in NYC,
                  In my state even if the police will not prosecute – she can file a private criminal complaint.

                  In fact she has a number of possible causes of action.

                  Depending on exactly what he has posted on social media, she could have a significant defamation claim. She may also have one against the media and her employer, possibly even Audubon.

                  Further her life has been destroyed – what does she have to lose ?

                    1. Again – read Christian’s FB post – it is readily available, there are several links here.

                      Regardless, you keep arguing the same fallacies.

                      First the standard regarding Amy’s actions is did she have reasonable suspicion.
                      That does not require all the constraints you are imposing.
                      The choices is not Christian is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or Amy is.

                      There is more than sufficient threat that Amy’s actions are justified.

                      With respect to christian AGAIN AND AGAIN it is not necescary to telegraph in detail what you are going to do.

                      If a man with offers a lolipop to a child to get them away from their mother – are you requiring him to specifically verbalize that he is going to kidnap the child ?

                      I can assure you that in my country – and I would bet than in NYC if we substituted a child for the dog that Christian would be in jail now, and would be convicted.

                      If Amy came to the park with a child and the child got away from her and was disturbing Chrisitan’s birds, and Christian told the woman to get control of her child or he would and she would not like it, and then he pulled out a lolipop and offered it to the child if they would come to him. Nearly all of us would recognize Christian as a threat and his actions as a crime, even though he never says “I am going to kidnap your child”.

                      Something is not a crime only if you announce it in great detail ahead of time.

                      Christian made a threat. He followed that threat with ACTION, and that action attempted to separate the dog from its owner.

                      All of this is from Christian’s own recounting of his own words and actions in his FB post.
                      It is not from anything from Amy.

                    2. Tilting at windmills would be more productive.

                      Christian posted his own account of events.

                      He is not shy about the fact that he threatened her.

                      You want to quibble because he did not verbally telegraph the specifics of the threat.

              2. Yes he should have but he did not. She tried to scare him off but it didn’t work so she backed away, quite away.

            1. John Say – I do not threaten people, I promise. I am pretty sure that is what he was doing.

              1. “I do not threaten people, I promise. ”
                Your conduct is not at issue here. I have addressed your arguments. not some conduct I know nothing about.

                “I am pretty sure that is what he was doing.”

                Here is HIS FB post

                “ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.
                HER: What’s that?
                ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
                HER: He won’t come to you.
                ME: We’ll see about that…
                I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.
                HER: DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!!”

                In what world is “But your not going to like it” not a threat ?

                His words. Not hers, not mine.

                Next he is crystal clear that he is attempting to take possession of the dog.
                You can fight over whether that constitutes attempted theft of not.

                But I would love to know where you get the idea that it is moral, ethical, or even legal to do as he attempted. Even if she was violating the law – this is vigilante action.

                Further he explicitly notes he carries dog treats “just for this kind of intransigence”.

                i.e. to act to enforce the law on his own. Premeditated vigilante action.

                https://www.facebook.com/christian.cooper1/posts/10158742137255229

                1. John Say – if Christian was a serial dog thief, the police would have noted it. He probably just controls the animal until a leash can be put on.

                  1. Right, Paul. He stated that he offers a treat to loose dogs because the owners don’t like that, and it prompts the owner to secure her dog on a leash. His objective is to get the the owner to leash her loose dog. Apparently it works.

                    1. No one cares what opinion is on his past conduct, so much of it speculation and hidden, and it doesn’t matter anyway. She doesn’t have an hour to peruse his internet history and come to a conclusion in the woods with no one else around.
                      A clear threat was presented. the dog could have just as easily ran to the thief, then you’d be singing a very different tune. He didn’t have control of the dog, nor the woman’s actions, so his stated intent was to get the dog himself and he took action to do so. That’s a threat no matter what happens next. He convicted himself as 100% guilty in the matter.
                      She knew it and we know it.

                    2. His words are a threat, he is not equivocal about that.
                      The threat in his words is not specific.

                      It does not need to be.

                      Elsewhere I read the possibility that he poisoned the dog treats.

                      I think the odds of that are small. But it is still a potential threat to Amy’s dog.

                      How many times does one have to say:

                      You do not approach or lure or treat a strangers dog without both the permission of the dog and the owner if present, and she was.

                      There are numerous ways the dog could react – few of them good.

                      And based on his FaceBook – Christian is someone who I could suspect of poisoning dogs.

                      But it is not necescary for the threat to be specific. It is merely necescary that the threat was made.

                      Even if Christian had not made a threat – approaching the dog without permission is also a threat.

                    3. “Right, Paul. He stated that he offers a treat to loose dogs because the owners don’t like that,”
                      Reasonable surmise from his words.

                      ” and it prompts the owner to secure her dog on a leash.”
                      Zero evidence of that – you are reading mind.

                      Regardless, he CLEARLY threatens an outcome they will not like if they do not comply.
                      He does not specify what that outcome is, but it involves his use of treats to lure the dogs he makes that clear.

                      “His objective is to get the the owner to leash her loose dog.”
                      His objective is not the question.
                      Can he threaten to shoot the dog to get the woman to put it on a leash ?

                      The existance of a legitimate objective does not justify all possible actions to secure that objective.

                      “Apparently it works.”

                      We do not know that. We only know that his carrying treat is premeditated and that he intends to use those treats to compel conformance.

                      I do not know how he can legitimately use dog treats to compel conformance with leash laws. If someone wishes to postulate a way I would be interested to hear.

                      Luring the dog away from the owner is not legitimate.

                      But the existance of a hypothetically legitimate response MIGHT provide a non-criminal option for Christians conduct – though he did not take that hypothetical whatever it is.

                      But such a hypothetical does not alter whether Amy is legitimately threatened.

                      If I say “Leash your dog or I am going to do something you will not like”.
                      And my intention is to make fart sounds, I am not threatening a crime.

                      But Amy does not know that. It is reasonable for her to presume that my threat is criminal. That may not be true, But Amy is allowed to call the police in response to an unclear threat that probably includes real harm to her or her property, but might be something begnign.

                      Responding to Christian with actual force – would require that she meet a higher standard. She would need to be more certain that his threatened acts would cause harm and that her response was proportionate to the harm

                  2. “John Say – if Christian was a serial dog thief, the police would have noted it. He probably just controls the animal until a leash can be put on.”

                    Talk about mind reading and assumptions.

                    Regardless, if in the presence of its parent and without permission you lure a child into your car with a lolipop with the claimed intention of taking it to children and youth – you are still going to be arrested.

                    Next, Christian did not say – “leash your dog or I will”.
                    He said you will not like what I do if you do not do what I want.

                    That pretty much rules out the benign possibilities you have telepathically presumed.

                    Next – why do you beleive police would have noted ?

                    It is reasonable to presume Christian is a serial actor – his own remarks confirm that he has done things like this before. That should set off all kinds of creepy red flags.

                    But I can easily construct hypotheticals where Christian’s conduct is bad, but the police are not drawn in.
                    But we do not get to posit hypotheticals. We must deal with the facts as we know them, and Chrisitans words as he documents them.

              1. John Say – you forget that case where the lawyer couple was raising dogs for a prisoner and the dogs got loose and killed a neighbor. Think they were charged with murder.

                1. I am not forgetting anything.

                  As I have noted before – no matter what stupid behavior Christian engages in with respect to the Dog – Amy and the dog are going to pay.

                  That is just another reason for Christian to be less of an ass.

          1. Do you own a dog ? Or perhaps have a child ?

            It is difficult to get them to do what you expect them to.
            Perfectly trained dogs (and children) exist primarily in the movies.

            The dog was out of control – likely because the situation was tense and dogs sense that.
            She was in a difficult circumstance and not sufficiently skilled to deal with it.

            These are NOT uncommon things.

            One of the problems with this entire mess is that so many are trying to overlay politics and race and other nonsense on what is just a messy situtaiton that two people handled poorly – an ordinary occurance.

            The world is NOT perfect. Maybe after we plumb the depth’s of Ms. cooper’s social media we will find she is a latent KKK member, more likely we will find a typical NYC left wing white woman who has likely just been massively red pilled.

            I am not especially defending her – she made alot of mistakes – so did he. Ordinary people do that all the time.

            That is one of the reasons it is generaly unwise to confront strangers, over minor things.

            I would also ask do you think that Mr. Cooper would have been as confrontational if this were Mr. Tee with a loose rotweiler ?

            Some people have suggested he should have called the police.

            What was wrong with doing NOTHING ?

            It is not necescary to force every stupid rule in the world down other peoples throats.

            It is also not wise.

            I rant and rave and curse about the bad driving of others – from inside my car, with the windows up. I do not beep at them, I do not roll my windows down and give them the finger, I do not ever get out of my car. I do not care how stupid their driving was.

            When you confront another person about their conduct – YOU ARE A THREAT – and so are they. It is possible they will respond – “sorry, it will never happen again”. It is about as likely they will get angry and possibly violent.

            Do not buy trouble you do not need. Leave strangers alone – especially if all you are looking to do is piss on them.

              1. “John Say – I think that dog wanted that treat that Mr. Cooper was offering. 😉”

                Again a “bad fact” for Mr. Cooper.

                But otherwise irrelevant.
                And I do not try to read the minds of people – why would I read the mind of a dog ?

                The dog is Ms. Cooper’s property. Not Mr. Cooper’s.
                Mr. Cooper is NOT law enforcement. He is a vigilante.

                One of the problems with vigilante’s is that often their actions are themselves crimes more serious than those they are acting against – ask the McMichels

                1. John Say – Christian is a Karen. Amy is a Karen. Tim Pool called it. I still do not know why you are white knighting Amy. She is the proximate cause. You can ask your wife what that means.

                  1. You keep claiming I am “defending Amy”.

                    Only specific actions, and even there only against claims that they are obvious examples of racism.

                    Everyone could have handled this better.

                    Amy could have leashed her dog.
                    Christian could have done nothing or called the police rather than personally confront her.
                    Even confronting he is just obnoxiousness.
                    But he went past obnoxious and moved to threatening.

                    Amy is the proximate cause for LEGITIMATE actions on Christians part.

                    But if I deficate on the side walk, you are not free to threaten my property or safety in retailiation. You are free to call the police. You are free to ask that I correct my misconduct, you are NOT free to compel that – you are not the police.

        1. If you try to treat my dog without the dogs or my permission – you are a threat.
          There are a large number of bad outcomes that follow from that.

          I am a dog lover and a dog owner. I will carefully approach strays and I have separated dogs that were fighting.

          But I would not do as Christian Cooper did. Some dogs will be respond friendly to treats from strangers, some will attack you, most will key of the emotional state of their owners – and particularly women with dogs expect their dogs to be protection from strangers.
          A dog who might be approachable alone could justifiably attack you in the presence of its owner.

          Further a woman alone in the park who brought her dog for protection is likely to treat a man who is approaching her dog with treats as a threat – and reasonably so.

          Mr. Cooper may not have intended to be threatening. But he was, and he was lucky that the dog did not attack. And the dog is not racist.

          The dog does not know anything about leash laws or bird sanctuaries. But most dogs treat strangers aproaching their owners as threats – because quite often they are.

      3. Kurtz – Nobody’s got whitey’s back. The blacks stick together. The whites destroy each other. So be ready to defend yourself when another Sheldon Francis comes for you, because nobody else is going to give a 💩.

        1. TIN’s got a mighty big chip on his or her shoulder.

          All she had to do was leash the dog and walk away.

    2. Was she being racist to her dog or to her accuser?

      Just a spat. No actual evidence of racism whatsoever. If they were both Caucasian her behavior would still be objectionable.

      1. Both of their behavior was problematic.
        Guess what, that is the real world.
        All interactions are not perfect.

        And frankly, I do not care if she was racist.

        The police and government are there for protection against unwanted force.
        Not objectionalable speech. That goes for both of them.

    3. Americans also summarily and completely reject and “do not tolerate racism of any kind.”

      Americans have made the decision to terminate the coerced-under-the-duress-of-brutal-post-war-military-occupation, improperly

      ratified and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” resulting from the tirade and the racist “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe”

      Lincoln.

      By Lincoln’s own witnessed affidavit:

      “If all earthly power were given me,” said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, “I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” After acknowledging that this plan’s “sudden execution is impossible,” he asked whether freed blacks should be made “politically and socially our equals?” “My own feelings will not admit of this,” he said, “and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”

      “One of Lincoln’s most representative public statements on the question of racial relations was given in a speech at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857.6 In this address, he explained why he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would have admitted Kansas into the Union as a slave state:

      “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …

      “Racial separation, Lincoln went on to say, “must be effected by colonization” of the country’s blacks to a foreign land. “The enterprise is a difficult one,” he acknowledged,

      “but “where there is a will there is a way,” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

      – Abraham Lincoln

  6. This is in response to “Cindy Bragg”. Like most Trump disciples, you can twist around a factual secenario to excuse racism and make black and brown people look bad. Fact is, this white woman refused to leash her dog, which was bothering birds in a bush, and a bird watcher asked her to comply. Now, according to “Cindy Bragg”, when this woman, with fantastically poor judgment and overwhelming arrogance starts dragging around her dog by the collar and calling the police and falsely accusing the man who requested her compliance with committing a crime, the real issue is that the man is trying “to take advantage and be a victim”. Cindy is a true Trump disciple, proven by her warped view of this incident. If there is an incident between a black and white person, the black person is automatically wrong, but if the facts don’t establish fault, then the black person is trying to take advantage of the situation by playing victim.

    1. Natacha:

      “This is in response to “Cindy Bragg”. Like most Trump disciples, you can twist around a factual secenario to excuse racism and make black and brown people look bad.”
      *************************
      Well shades of complexion did a pretty good job on their own here. Is Cooper the Lorax and now speaks not only for the trees but their inhabitants? Both of them should have walked on and done nothing. Cooper had no right to admonish our tightly wound loon nor feed her dog and she had no call to phone the cops on the antics of Dr. Doolittle here. Move along and let others be.

      1. The dog was in the midst of a planned and planted bird habitat which requires dogs on a leash. As a serious birder he asked her to get the dog out of there. He was within his rights when she resisted and being reasonable. His race has nothing to do with anything here except her brandishing that as threatening in her phony police call

        1. Here’s a link to the park regulations stating “Dogs must be leashed at all times in the following locations: … The Ramble …” – https://www.centralparknyc.org/rules
          How ludicrous for anyone to suggest that someone lacks the free speech rights on city land to ask someone to abide by the rules.

          1. Committed:
            Show me the regulation where it says “anyone observing a violation automatically becomes a cop if he’s a ‘serious birder'”! PETA people and their ilk are weird.

        2. bookie:

          Like most Leftists, he dreamed of being a power mad tyrant. Call the cops and move along. What’s a serious “birder”? Some guy with feathers?

          1. We do not actually know as certain any of this.

            What we know is what people have said.

            The concept of some managed bird habitat does say something about those involved.

            Actual nature – where birds really live, has preditors and prey, it is not managed. It just is.
            There are dogs, and wolves, and hawks and foxes and groundhogs.
            Real nature is messy and dangerous – to humans, to dogs, to birds.

            What is being described is not nature, it is a zoo for birds. It might be a nice zoo,
            but it is artificial and just made to look like someone’s fanciful idea of nature.

            New Yorkers should go somewhere and try living in real nature for sometime.

            Central Park is many things – even nice.
            But it is not actual nature.

    2. Natch….I’m married to an attorney and therefore want to know what transpired before Christian Cooper selected an appropriate time to start recording. What else happened between them?

      1. Watch the link to the ABC News article in JT’s column. She resisted putting her dog on the leash and reacted harshly to his feeding uit a treat to get it out of the bushes. He stops the recording and says “Thank you ” when she finishes leashing the dog.

          1. Do not ever feed another person’s dog without the permission if the dog AND the owner.

            There are an enormous number of reasons this is a bad even dangerous idea.

            Nothing this woman did comes close to that stupid.

            For many people – particularly women alone their dog is their protector. Trying to make friends with their dog makes you a threat.

            1. John Say – that dog does not look like a protecter but it does look like a bird hunter.

              1. I agree, BUT

                Are you ready to bet the possibility of getting bit on that ?

                I have a lab. She is friendly and behaves very similar to the dog in this clip, except she is bigger. If I was not present – treats are love and she would take “tyrones” treat and hive him a long lick. But if my daughter were present the Lab would take “tyrones” hand off.

                Even when the owner is present and I ask first and receive permission from both the owner and the dog I am incredibly careful approaching a strange dog.

                It is always dangerous, and if it goes badly – you get bit, but the dog may be killed.

                Before the lab I had a black Shepard mix. If you approached my wife while the dog was present without her permission – she would shred you.

                And she liked to chase and hunt birds too.

                There is no way of knowning for certain.

                Further it is self evident from “tyrone’s” own story that there was tension between the two over the dog BEFORE he approached.

                Almost all dogs are sensitive to that.
                I have seen dogs that were animated mops attack fearlessly and futilely when they thought their were threatened.

                Anyway there is plenty of stupid to go around here.
                One need not make this about race to find rampant stupidity on all sides.

                At the same time – we do not generally criminalize obnoxiousness and stupidity.

                The fact this has people – even Turley’s attention proves how tremendously bored we all are.

                This is nothing.

                  1. “John Say – do you understand what the dog is doing to the birds?”

                    I do not care. It is not a relevant fact, neither birds nor dogs have rights.

                    Regardless, the dog is doing what dogs do in nature.
                    The birds are doing what birds do in nature.

                    We do not charge dogs or birds with crimes.

                    And nature does not give a frack about our laws.

                    1. John Say – what dogs are doing to the underbrush, etc. are key to why the dogs have to be on a leash. BTW, there is the Law of the Jungle.

                    2. “John Say – what dogs are doing to the underbrush, etc. are key to why the dogs have to be on a leash. BTW, there is the Law of the Jungle.”

                      Does this “law of the jungle” specifiy that dogs may not deficate in the woods, or hunt birds ?

                      I think not.

                      I do not mostly give a crap what rules new yorkers have for Central park.

                      But I do take odds with some presumption that those rules follow from nature or some inherently correct set of principles.

                      NY has leash laws because it values the safety of others and the protection of birds over the freedom of dogs and the convenience of their owners.

                      NY may be entitled to do so, but it is still an arbitrary elevation of one set of values over another. There is no objective truth at interest, nor does this have anything at all to do with Nature.

                      Central Park is not nature. It is a place where humans have imposed their will on nature, and arbitrarily re-structure the rules.

                      Again i have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with claiming that those rules based on subjective values represent objective truth.

                      But that is an entirely different argument that is much much broader.

            2. back when i had dogs, they used to dislike black people. lots of dogs seem to have such an instinct. one wonders why

              then again my dogs were never taught to “like” strangers. they were taught to obey and that means heel, sit, etc. until told otherwise.

              say is right, it’s foolish to try and make friends with stranger’s dogs without permission. it’s poor etiquette for people unfamiliar with dog handling. that mexican american guy cesar was fantastic about dogs. i remember him from when i used to watch tv like a decade ago. and rarely even then, since it’s worthless and has been for a long time

              1. The woman was not very good with her dog.

                But the vast majority of people aren’t.

                I have had numerous dogs my entire life – all different characters.

                Some have been better trained than others. But ultimately I am NOT Ceasar Milan.
                My dogs listen – when they want to.

                I do not walk my lab much anymore – she is old, and when she goes out for a walk on a leash she pulls incredibly hard and is straining against her collar and sounds like I am choking her. And all she has to do is not pull and she would be fine. But short of my jogging, she is going to be gasping as if I am killing her.

                I had another lab that was quite friendly – she would jump and spin and lunge, and foam and froth and bark on a leash. If you encountered her – you would be sure she was rapid. But all she wanted was to make freinds – with anyone. She was not agressive, she was physically exhuberant. Happy. If someone tried to rob us – she would show them the silver.

                Every dog is different. Do not make assumptions about other peoples dogs.

                One in 100,000 dog owners is Ceasar Milan. The overwhelming majority are like this woman – incapable of controling their dog in a complex situation.

                I would also note people do not all want the same thing from their dogs.
                While my dogs are protectors, they are also friends – man’s best friend.

                My lab jumps into bedrolls over with her belly up and her tougue hanging smiling insanely saying “rub my belly, that will make the whole world better” and it does.

                And that despite the fact that she is old and deaf and blind and arthritic and can barely make it onto the bed anymore.

                But for all her innate Labrador – I will be anyone’s friend qualities – she will try to kill you if you approach my daughter unwanted.

                Do not make assumptions about other people and their dogs. It is unlikely to end well.

                And unless you have a dog or an unruly toddler – close to the same, do not cast judgement on someone else’s handling of their dog.

                We are just not mostly Ceasar.

                1. In my view she was keeping a tight hand on the collar so he couldn’t snatch the dog. After all he already tried to.
                  When she approached him and told him to stop filming her threats didn’t work so she backed away again, obviously scared, keeping an eye on him and facing him.
                  She did get the leash attached I believe toward the end of the video (and why did it end there ?), but didn’t let the dog reel out on it, because he could then snatch the dog release the leash and boogie.

                  1. It is not necescary to speculate.

                    He threatened to take the dog.

                    He is a threat. She has reason to see him as a threat after she retrieved the dog.

                    Frankly this should have ended when they separated.

                    There is an entirely separate matter regarding his posting the video.

                    I do not know the law here, but he did not have her permission.
                    It is highly likely he has no right to post the video of her.
                    It is pretty clear from the video that she gave him no right to record her.

                    There might be some issues because it is in public. But she pretty explicitly denied him the right to record her.
                    Further there is a difference between recording and publishing. Maybe you have a right to record people in public, but publishing after they have explicitly denied permission is dicier.

                    I do not think the video alone constitutes defamation – but depending on his comments along with the post, it could easily be defamatory.

                    Anyway she needs a good laywer – I would suggest the firm that represented Nicholas Sandman. In addition to Mr. Cooper there is a raft of other targets for a defamation lawsuit, as well as several others.

                    She should also file a DMCA takedown notice.

                  2. Just to be clear – short of her engaging in clear misconduct, I do not care if her behavior on the video is perfect.

                    We are obligated not to commit crimes. We are not obligated to handle every encounter with others perfectly.

                    As I have noted – she is not Ceasar Milan. She is an ordinary dog owner with a poorly trained dog, and poor ability to manage the dog. Like I said an ordinary dog owner.
                    She is not required to be Ceasar Milan either.
                    Few of us are.

                    There is possibly a single small act of actual misconduct on her part – having an unleashed dog where the dog was required to be leashed.

                    That is the least consequential wrong in this entire mess.

                    Everything else on her part and most everything else on his,
                    is ordinary people blundering imperfectly through a conflict.

                    When they separated they all should have walked away and forgotten this.

                    Christian posting this is on a completely different level.
                    It may constitute a variety of torts and crimes.
                    It is certainly not the act of someone letting it go.

  7. This was posted by Christian Cooper’s sister Melody, who thinks it’s fine to use a racist derogatory term like “Karen” when describing Amy Cooper.. I am sick of the double standard. The black privilege posses have NO desire for us to all live in harmony and unity! They are liars if they say that…..Look at their actions. They HATE white people more than they love unity.
    Melody Cooper @melodyMcooper

    Oh, when Karens take a walk with their dogs off leash in the famous Bramble in NY’s Central Park, where it is clearly posted on signs that dogs MUST be leashed at all times, and someone like my brother (an avid birder) politely asks her to put her dog on the leash.

    1. Cindy Bragg – Melody Christian is correct. Amy Cooper is a Karen, a racist Karen, a scofflaw Karen.

        1. mespo – a Karen is a person who reports you to your manager, your boss, the HOA, the police, etc.

                    1. Cindy Bragg – Karens come in all races and genders. God made them all equally annoying.

                    2. And the blog has its very own “Karen.”

                      Come to think of it…more than one.

                    3. Anonymous – we used to some real Karens of both sexes. I think we are down to a few now.

        2. a “karen” is a middle aged white woman who has a sense of entitlement and is obnoxious and often calls the managers to complain about the workers.

          this is now an internet meme

          but a “karen” is also the kind of woman who attacks her own husband and then calls the cops — on him. the type exists.

          just like other “stereotypes” they emerge from facts

            1. Some black chick came up with the name “Karen” to stereotype this kind of behavior, and in response, whites are referring to black men who engage in stereotypical behavior as “Tyrones.” It’s childish either way.

    2. Yeah, we need more people of good will like Cindy who look at people as people, not racial stereotypes. Maybe she and Sqeaky can bake Mr Cooper a cake and welcome him into the neighborhood.

    3. You know Cindy Bragg when you write Black people hate White people more than we love unity, that’s true because you (White people) don’t stop your hate. You hate Blacks systematically, politically, economically, socially, culturally, religiously, physically. No matter what we achieve you seek to tear it down and you don’t stop until you do. You don’t stop your whiteness, we are reminded of your sh*t everyday in our normal everyday lives. We can’t just live our lives without you interrupting it in some egregious way. You hate us as much as we hate you. If this planet was relinquished of White people this world would be a much better place. White people are subhuman species who possess a subset of genomes so bellicose and wanton-like with a fragile mental mind. White women hate Black women but love a Black man’s dick. White men hate Black men because of their penile incompetencies but secretly lose all control of their loins for Black women. Your species are jealous, hateful and you add nothing substantial to human kind but your diseases. Whites are the cankersore of human beings.

      1. You’re not taking up that much rent-free space in anyone’s head. Quit thinking the world revolves around your a**.

      2. Jae’s obscene, racist anti-white racist screed shows exactly why whites need to stick together

        WPWW ORION

      3. Jae- “Whites are the cankersore of human beings.”

        You just proved some of the comments above about blacks hating whites. On average, they seem to do. They don’t much care for Asians either. Essentially all of the hate-crime attacks on Asians the media try to blame Trump for are committed by blacks. Somehow that fact is often left out of the narrative.
        You do have a point, though, all of the places where whites are few are paradises on Earth–Haiti, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Detroit….

        1. I’m thinking Liberia would be an excellent place for Jae. The country was founded by 5,000 former American slaves who were repatriated to Africa following the Civil War. They can’t feed themselves, despite the lush growing conditions of the African coast, and YouTube has videos of them reverting to cannibalism. Yum yum 🍽

        1. mespo………Ya know, the one thing that really impresses me about current black activists, is their total embrace of the act of forgiveness.
          It’s a beautiful thing to watch .

          😉

          1. Cindy:

            “mespo………Ya know, the one thing that really impresses me about current black activists, is their total embrace of the act of forgiveness.”
            ****************************
            Oh they’re “turn the other cheek” crowd for sure. I think it’s now called twerking! 😀

        2. Mespo– “Maybe she should get her counseling in some country more to her liking?”

          Very good idea and from what Jae says about whites we can be sure it will be a lovely country indeed with no pesky whites around.

          I do wonder what they will eat. White farmers in America and Europe provide a lot of the food they consume. They need it after killing or evicting the white farmers who used to feed them before.

      4. “f this planet was relinquished of White people this world would be a much better place.”

        So there would be utopia?

        1. Who will feed and house the blacks if the sucker whites aren’t around? Asians? Hispanics? Don’t count on it, HaHaHaHa!!!!

      5. Well Jae, you should lose your job, have a twitterstorm and national msm rip you to shreds, be labelled a racist forever, and take the same spot they put the woman with the dog in. Congratulations.

        I also congratulate Seth and CTHD and the rest of them who didn’t have a fit and type up a tirade against Jae, your immense hypocrisy seems to be ever present even when your texts are not.
        Laughing

  8. My god, Turley is actually making this a free speech issue?!! I can’t believe it. The problem isn’t what the woman said, it’s that she said it to the police. She said she was being threatened when she clearly wasn’t. Freedom of speech doesn’t included the right to falsely accuse someone of a crime. And this is after his silly post on Ilhan Omar.

    Turley is having a very bad day.

    1. yyy:

      “Freedom of speech doesn’t included the right to falsely accuse someone of a crime. And this is after his silly post on Ilhan Omar.”
      ************************
      She’s a hyper loon but I don’t see where she is racist. Identifying him by race doesn’t make you a racist anymore than identifying his male gender makes you a misandrist. Now if you heard an epithet or some other overt derogatory claim like oh say “I’m being harassed by a weenie” now maybe you’ve got something to complain about. Oh and “silly” is not a word I’d associate with Ilhan Omar; I’d prefer “subversive.”

      1. I’m not commenting on whether or not she exhibited racism. I commented because I’m astounded that Turley would paint this as a free speech (off the job) issue. And ‘silly’ is my description of Turley’s post on Ilhan Omar (‘Rep. Omar Declares That She Believes Biden Is A Rapist But Should Be The Next President’). You can look for my comment there if you wish.

          1. Everyone is free to be stupid. We all occasionally exercise that freedom. But as ‘This is absurd’ mentioned earlier, “calling the police for frivolous reasons is an offense under New York law.” I’m not saying she should have been charged; the point is that her call to the police is not protected speech. Given that, I don’t understand why Turley would examine this incident as a (possible) violation of the woman’s freedom of speech.

            1. The woman was objectively wrong about several things – but she was subjectively right.

              Actually criminal speech requires that the speaker knows they are wrong.
              This woman felt threatened more than the objective circumstances permitted.
              That is not a crime. It is poor judgement. Reporting an amplified threat is more poor judgement.

              Just as beleiving that birds have rights and that there is no place for dogs in nature is objectively nonsense.

              There is greater objective error on the part of the woman.

              But mostly this is a conflict of personal – not societal values gone mildly wrong.

              If this is our idea of systemic racism – then racism in this country is nearly gone.

              Both of them should have just left each other alone.

              What I find quite interesting is that in another era, the black man would have been in serious trouble. A white woman in a park claiming fear of a black man – even in new york not all that long ago could have had serious negative consequences for that black man.
              No One sane doubts that – and just as the womans fears were not objectively justified – similar fears on the part of the black man were not justified TODAY.

              But lets look at the outcome of this. In a minor conflict where both parties were wrong though not equally – the white woman is being derided all over the internet, she has lost her dog, she has lost her job, people are calling for her to be arrested.

              Sounds to me like the white woman is experiencing much the same irrational response that the black man would have a few decades ago.

              1. John – I totally agree. The female overreacted. We don’t know why. Maybe the covid lock-down made her stir crazy or she is on the autism spectrum or is just hyper-sensitive. The black guy had no business threatening that “she’s not going to like what he’s going to do” and then trying to lure her dog away from her. But in the end, it’s all been blown out of proportion. Both exhibited poor judgement, and mild shaming might be useful. But she’s had a ton of bricks dropped on her because she’s a white female. She’s lost her job, her dog, is being trashed all over the Internet, people are calling for her arrest and the black guy is planning to sue her. Where is the proportionality? Will the mob not be satiated until she is utterly destroyed, driven to suicide? There’s something seriously wrong with the savage bullying we see here. Especially when practiced by whites against their own kind. The sheer seething hatred spewing her way by blacks is not surprising. They live a very violent existence. But what’s wrong with these white people who are joining the mob? They disgust me the most.

                1. I generally assume that women who are in public alone with dogs have the dog for protection because they already feel threatened.

                  We are fixated on all the layers of history and oppression regarding the black guy.
                  He is a black guy – so all less than friendly responses to him must be racism.
                  Further as he is black we entitle him to presume he lives in a racist world and use instances like this as proof of racism.

                  It is trivial to invert this. This was a woman out in public alone. Women have been oppressed far longer than blacks. If we must view everything in the world through the lens of oppression. Why not her view ?

                  One in 7 women are raped. That happens today – it is not about slavery 2 centuries ago.

                  If Christian is free to beleive every white woman who does not kowtow to him is a racist – why can’t amy be afraid that every man who approaches her unwanted in a park is a potential rapist ? It is not like women never get raped in Central Park.

                  My point is that if we have to layer some conflict of values in a public park with centuries of oppression and try to pretend this is more than it is, there is a perfectly good narative of oppression that works for Amy here.

                  In fact if Christian was not black it is near certain almost everyone who see this completely differently.

                  Christian and the rest of us are all free to see this through some lens of racism if we wish – despite no evidence to support that.

                  But that is not the only lens that can be applied.

  9. Good point Cindy! The follow up questions to anyone saying that the man was just trying to protect the birds is, who distributed this video and why?

  10. I always try to feed stranger’s dogs in the park after I accuse them of murdering birds.
    I get bad reactions, I can’t imagine why.
    I can’t imagine why your killer canine is allowed to destroy birds…
    Here, little bird killer… eat this…!!!!

  11. My other question is what happened to these birds? Is the bird population so fragile that they can’t handle seeing a cocker spaniel sniff through their territory? Are they no longer able to hop to a branch beyond the dog’s reach? Are birds so fragile now that if humans don’t step in, they will flee our favorite bird watching grounds? The obvious answers to all of these questions is no. Ms. Cooper overreacted, and she should be held to account for it in some way. The idea that she should be suspended, or fired, is between her and her employer. Mr. Cooper overreacted too, however, as this particular confrontation did not have to happen. It involved a busybody interceding in a private citizen’s life who happened to be breaking an ordinance. This incident should’ve been between the park attendants and Ms. Cooper.

  12. “.. he said he was concerned over the dog ruining the habitat for birds. When she refused, he pulled out a treat to pull the dog away from the underbrush.”

    Let’s all pretend we read and comprehended the article before going into partisan racist idiocies. Too late.
    Translation: I’m stealing your dog by giving it this “food” to lure it to ME.
    At youtube the claimed brother of the filmer posts, and whines about the dog being unleashed but leaves out the part where his claimed brother tries to steal the dog with who knows what kind of “treat”. Perhaps something that would have hurt the dog had the dog eaten it. A proper diet often includes dog food without corn, a common additive in treats.

    Let’s further analyze. This crazy black man is going on a rant that the dog is ruining life for the birds, when the dog is merely on the ground or walking between bushes.
    I guess I’d be wondering what kind of psycho I had encountered when they started babbling the birds lives are in danger because a dog is in the park on hoof?

    Right? I mean is everyone a mind controlled bot here ?
    Just think of it – some whacko comes up and starts wailing your dog is killing the birds he loves- your dog is just doing it’s thing, no feathers or dead bird carcasses anywhere. Then the whacko pulls out some food and is trying to get your dog to come eat it ! He just said your dog is a bird murderer, and now he has something in his hand he wants your dog to consume!

    Later, being a stupid woman, and the black fool being a stupid idiot too, a stupid idiot cut short clip by another stupid idiot is posted for stupid idiots who can’t understand what happened.

    1. I’m stealing your dog by giving it this “food” to lure it to ME
      ______________________________________________________________
      If he was trying to take the dog, the proper terminology would not be “stealing the dog”, it would be rescuing the dog.

      1. Badumbump.
        I hate to give lawyerly defense advice but…
        Are you certain she wasn’t trying keep the dog from swallowing whatever the perp fed it ? That explains the choke hold on the collar. She initially was trying to get to the dogs mouth to remove whatever it was the weirdo fed it it seems to me – right at the beginning of the video with the dog lying in between fer feet. So she holds on to keep the dog from swallowing as it jumps up while she tries to get the guy to flee so she can safely remove the ‘you’re a bird killer’ treat from the dogs mouth.

        Oh, speaking of that, are choke collars outlawed because of ‘abuse’ ?

        Looks like we have a concerned pet owner defending herself and her beautiful cocker spaniel from some crazed birdy wacko feeding the dog God knows what.

  13. Should a person’s life be destroyed because of a tirade in a park? Viral video without full context is always suspect. What happened before the video started to prompt such a reaction from the woman? There is more to this ‘story.’

      1. I like dogs too. But her treatment of the dog was NOT unusual.

        She was in a tense situation. The man was clearly confrontational, and she had to bring the dog under control, control herself and keep herself safe.

        She should not have had the dog off the leash, but once that was the case, she had a lot to deal with

        She did it badly. But most of us do not behave perfectly under stress.

        Conversely the man CHOSE to start a confrontation.

        While he was right about the dog being required to be leashed,
        and regardless he was right to ask for his own safety – though he should not have approached the dog.

        I am also deeply suspicious of someone who does not own a dog who carries dog treats to a park.

        Would he have offered a treat to a fox ? A Ground Hog ? All animals domesticated or otherwise should be assumed dangerous. Many dogs are teritorial and even trained to be protective of their masters. A third party can not predict their response.
        No should the presume to be able to.

        1. jbsay – he may carry the treats because he has encountered other New Yorkers who have their dog off the leash and are bothering the birds. And he, himself, may own a dog, but not bring it because it disturbs the birds.

          1. “he may carry the treats because he has encountered other New Yorkers who have their dog off the leash and are bothering the birds. And he, himself, may own a dog, but not bring it because it disturbs the birds.”

            All possibly true. All proof of idiocy.

            I would further note that while your hypothetical is not established.
            If true it still reflects a values conflict with the woman.

            Christian values birds – more than dogs.
            Amy values dogs more than birds.

            The ten commandments does not resolve that conflict of values.

            It is possible based on other posts here that New York law might.

            But even that does not really mean there is a Right resolution of that conflict.

            One of the core problems with this whole story is that under the ordinary everyday stupidity of each party, is near certain a conflict of values.

            That conflict does not have a resolution. There is not a right answer to whose values are correct. Thought there MIGHT be an answer to whose values are reflected by the law.

            There is also alot we do not know. I pretty much always assume when a woman has a dog in public that the dog is going to be very protective.
            I also assume that women with dogs in public have the dog atleast partly for protection.
            That is not always true. It is often True.

            My wife was the victim of a violent crime decades ago. For about 20 years after she did not go anywhere without two dogs.

            She would have been threatened by anyone who tried to approach her with her dogs.
            She would especially be threatened by a black man – as the person who assaulted her was a black man.

            Is that completely rational ? No. But it is not racist either.

            We do not know about either this woman or this man. We should not be making assumptions about their motives.

            I do not know much about what Christian was up to. I do not care about his love of birds, or whether he is gay. or black.

            I do not know about Amy.

            But I do know that any man who approaches a woman with a dog in a park without her permission is going to be perceived by that woman as a threat.
            Whether the dog should have been on the leash or not. Whether the dog was disturbing a bird sanctuary or not.

            This is not so much about “right and wrong” as about lots of stupidity by all, and lots of near certain false assumptions by both.

            And the perfect example of something that everyone should have walked away from and breathed a sigh of releif when it was over.

            Turning this into a great internet phenom – we must be bored silly,

            Either that or our standards of outrage are incredibly low.

            I am sure I can find a half dozen real crimes in my small city today that merit more attention than this.

            1. John Say – first, Amy was originally in the wrong having her dog off the leash. Second, Amy’s dog is a danger to the wildlife. Third, as a ranking member of the New York Audubon Society, Christian was trying to protect the Ramble. Fourth, as stated by Christian, this sort of thing had happened before which is why he carried dog treats. Fifth, Amy did not leash her dog when requested and per the regulations of the Ramble. Sixth, the s$$t hit the fan.

              1. “Amy was originally in the wrong having her dog off the leash.”
                There is some debate over that, but lets accept that as true.
                It is a tiny offense.

                “Second, Amy’s dog is a danger to the wildlife.”
                There is not such thing – nature is a danger to wildlife. Dogs are a part of nature.
                Government protection of “wildlife” is inherently idiocy.
                Nature is dangerous to itself and all those in it all the time.

                Amy’s dog was a danger to a bird sanctuary – that is NOT wildlife.
                It is more like a zoo. It is NOT nature.
                Central Park is NOT nature. it is a park managed by the city of new york.

                In real nature there are not rules about dogs on leashes.

                “Third, as a ranking member of the New York Audubon Society”
                That is not a public office and it comes with no police powers.
                His membership in Audubon is meaningless.

                “Christian was trying to protect the Ramble.”
                He is neither law enforcement nor the owner of the Ramble, he has no power or authority to protect it.

                “Fourth, as stated by Christian, this sort of thing had happened before which is why he carried dog treats.”
                So he is a serial thief. This is not a good fact for you.

                He MIGHT have a limited priviledge to try to secure unleashed and unattended dogs.
                Note MIGHT, he would still be obligated to return them to their owners.
                They are not his property.
                Further he is NOT law enforcement so he has no power to take them into “custody” against the will of the owner.

                “Fifth, Amy did not leash her dog when requested and per the regulations of the Ramble.”

                Christian if he was so inclinded could ask law enforcement to fine her and retreive the dog. But he has no right to steal the dog. So long as she is present – he must have her permission. Which he clearly did not.

                “Sixth, the s$$t hit the fan.”

                Judge, I stole the dog because ” the s$$t hit the fan” is not a valid theft defense.

                So long as this was a he-said she said – there would be little chance of it being prosecuted.
                But as I understand it he has admitted to trying to lure the dog – he explictly threatened her with that consequence if she did not do as he said.

                You can not as an example say “leash your dog or I will stab you”.
                Most of us understand you can not commit assualt to mitigate a summary offense.
                You also can not threaten a felony.

                Further once you make a threat – you are a threat.

                Ms. Cooper justifiably felt threatened by Christian because he had threatened her.

                Was her conduct “beyond reproach” nope. But his was worse.
                She committed a minor summary offense.
                And she eventually leashed the dog.

                He threatened theft. I do not know NY law, so I do not know if a threat to commit theft is a crime – I suspect it is.

                Regardless, he was a clear threat, and she legitimately called the police.

                1. John Say – you are really white knighting for Amy. Do you have the hots for her? What is going on here?

                  1. Not an argument.

                    I have stuck to the facts – what each of them did, what they said.
                    I have specifically used Christians record of his own words and actions.

                    Regardless, this is not about Christian and Amy – you are the one fixated on what is in others heads, or things not in evidence. Or the persons rather than their words and actions.

                    I suspect that in person I would find both of them dreadful people.

                    I doubt there are many people in NYC that I would find tolerable.

                    As I have noted repeatedly, the odds of finding anyone in central park that is not a left wing progressive are small. I could bet heavily that both Christian and Amy are typical NYC left wing progressives with a miniscule chance of loosing.

                    But for Christians own words documenting the threat and the use of the Dog Treat – if Christian had been arrested under this fact pattern I would be defending him.

                    And as I have said repeately – this is just blue on blue. This is two progressives behaving mildly badly in central park.

                    “it is a tale
                    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                    Signifying nothing.”

                    We are here discussing it because progressives seem to think this is some egregious proof of racism.

                    Numerous posts here reference Trump or Texas or … making it clear that somehow this is political.

                    It is only political because the left is trying to layer politics in where they do not exist.

                    This is not some glaring act of systemic racism and white privildge.
                    This is a woman justifiably scared when her dog and therefore her safety are threatened, who responded less that perfectly – as normal people due under stress.

                    But there is a fundimental difference between Amy and Christian.

                    If you want to prosecute Amy for letting her dog of the leash – go to it.
                    But beyond that her actions are RESPONSES to Christians.
                    Christian INITIATES all other actions.
                    The first threat is from Christian.
                    The first act to carry out a threat is from Christian.

                    Christian was NOT subject to stress when he made his choices.
                    He has no excuse for poor choices.

              2. “Fourth, as stated by Christian, this sort of thing had happened before which is why he carried dog treats. ”

                Paul, I have been following this discussion somewhat surprised. I thought this morning when I read this that it was a near meaningless post and now I see the replies amount to over 400. Why I don’t know but I added a reply discussing the deaths in Chicago which are a big deal. This is a garbage dispute between two people. (I followed it because John Say’s responses were so on target.)

                If Christian carries dog treats and gives them to dogs without the owner’s permission because he is angry then we have a man who needs therapy (she does a well) and needs to be told to stop. I find his type of justice far more dangerous than what is not uncommon in the bramble, dogs off leash. His kind of justice for insignificant actions can lead to someone getting killed.

                1. Allan – I agree with you about the violence in Chicago this weekend and I have been trying to disengage from tilting at this windmill. I think much earlier in this massive conversation I mentioned walking my dog in a bird sanctuary. Well,that is a sanctuary for ground owls. Or it was until people decided to drop off their excess cats there and the cats ate the owls. No more ground owls. We had to clean out the cats, which was a mess, because the place is not trimmed and then reseed the owls. They are hanging in and people and not dropping off as many cats these days.

                  The Ramble requires dogs to be on a leash. It is a requirement, not sure if it is a law. Uncontrolled dogs screw with the ground birds, which is a problem for both the birds and the birders. So, Amy Cooper, with her unleashed dog is the proximate cause of all the problems. Then she makes a racist phone call, and even I, a translucent white guy, can figure out that it is racist. We saw what happened in Minneapolis. It could have happened to Christian Cooper because of the actions of Amy Cooper.

                  1. “The Ramble requires dogs to be on a leash.”

                    NYC requires that dogs be on a leash though at certain hours dogs are permitted to be off leash in Central Park or at least in certain places in Central Park. I think it is wise in NYC to keep one’s dog leashed but one can see dogs unleashed. So what? Is it new that people don’t follow all the rules?

                    In NYC there are laws against jay walking. Is that an excuse for a person to take his car and scare the daylights out of a foolish person crossing in the middle of the block because the driver has to put up with people that don’t strictly abide by the rules? When the light turns at a corner so the driver can make a right hand turn and people keep crossing in front of him does that give him the right to push the pedestrians out of the way with his bumper?

                    Don’t you think there are a lot more important things going on?

                    “Uncontrolled dogs screw with the ground birds, which is a problem for both the birds and the birders.”

                    Just like jaywalkers are to cars. The solution to the problem is not for an individual to take the law into his own hands especially in an area where no other people may be in sight and the act committed by the other person is nearly insignificant. Do you really believe he should have acted like an idiot because the other person acted like an idiot by not leashing her dog?

                    “So, Amy Cooper, with her unleashed dog is the proximate cause of all the problems. ”

                    Is she the cause? She was stupid, but it sounds like he planned to get even with all those people that have unleashed dogs in the bramble. If so his actions were premeditated. Which is worse, a premeditated action that leads to a bad encounter or a foolish woman that didn’t leash her dog?

                    “Then she makes a racist phone call”

                    What was racist about what she said? Let’s say you saw a young male steal your bike and you report it to the officer nearby. You point to the area where three young men are all of the same size wearing similar clothing. The policeman asks you which one, the Chinese guy, the black guy or the white guy. Is that a racist question?

                    1. Allan – all she had to do is keep her dog on the leash. Or later, when calling 911, just say there is a man threatening me. According to John Say, Christian was threatening the dog, so she was wrong there to.

                      I admit that during my early years I was a scofflaw. I drove on an expired license for 3 years. I piled up 200 parking tickets (which I got out of, btw), I have jaywalked and I even lived in sin.

                      Still, Amy is the proximate cause of all the problems.

                    2. Paul, when she reported to the police “There’s an African American man threatening my life,” she deliberately lied, escalating the relatively innocuous confrontation to the level of a death threat. There is absolutely no evidence that he made any serious threat to her. She certainly could be criminally prosecuted for making a false police report that a crime (the “death threat”) had been committed by him.

                    3. What was the lie ?

                      He was african american.

                      He did threaten her.

                      She was a woman much smaller than him alone in the woods with her dog,
                      And he threatened the dog who is their for her safety.

                      If this is your idea of a lie, you have a very bizarre idea of falsehood.

                      I will also give you some free advice.

                      The cost to factual errors is low, If you make enough factual errors your credibility diminishes, but you can rebuild credibility by avoiding errors.

                      Most of the time factual errors are not moral errors.

                      When you levy moral accusations – “she lied”, you enter an entirely different domain.
                      The burden of proof for a moral accusation is on you, and it is high, all gray areas go to the person you accuse. If the only thing you do is fail to prove a moral accusation that costs you your credibility AND your integrity. The most certain way to be permanently labeled a liar is not to lie about facts, But to falsely accuse others.

                      However much care you take with facts, take 100 times as much care about leveling moral accusations at others.

                      It is tempting to lob moral accusations thoughlessly. But the cost for being wrong is very high.

                    4. The odds of a criminal prosecution here are near zero.

                      Even if charges were filed – it would be political and they would be dropped over time.

                      Further this does not even come close to a good false reports claim.

                      do you really want women in the woods alone to think twice about calling the police when they are threatened ?

                      We do not expect the kind of precision you are demanding from 911 calls. or police reports.

                    5. “Allan – all she had to do is keep her dog on the leash. ”

                      All the pedestrian had to do was wait for the light to change in her favor. Is that an excuse for a car to push her out of the way with his bumper?

                      “Or later, when calling 911, just say there is a man threatening me. ”

                      Doesn’t one normally identify an assailant with the best possible information? Is the policeman supposed to arrest everyone because the only identifiable feature you can provide so happens to be the most distinctive? I don’t condone any of the woman’s actions but I don’t accept the premeditated actions of (am I permited to provide the gender?) the man.

                      “According to John Say, Christian was threatening the dog, so she was wrong there to.”

                      Ridiculous if I am correct about the point you were trying to make..

                      “Still, Amy is the proximate cause of all the problems.”

                      To you Amy is the proximate cause. To me the man wanted a hostile encounter with someone he could intimidate. If it were three big men carrying bats I don’t think he would have acted in the same fashion. So if my guess is correct the man was preying on women or someone he perceived to be weak. Which is worse a woman walking a dog unleashed or a man preying on women?

                    6. Allan – have you seen the pics of Christian? He could probably handle himself against three guys with bats. Christian is noted for helping new birders, not preying on the weak.Besides, they would have to have their dogs off the leash for him to have a problem with them.

                    7. What you say is irrelevant or unknown. He might be the nicest guy, but based on what was shown and reported by Turley he acted improperly. He was carrying dog treats. For what? It looks like it was a premeditated action to promote a hostile encounter with another because he was angry about unleashed dogs. If it were three men with bats despite what you say it is doubtful he would have acted the same. Therefore, I can’t conclude that he wasn’t preying on a woman or anyone that appeared weak to him.

                    8. Allan – Chrisitian’s own account of events confirm that his carrying dog treats was specifically to deal with this type of occurance.

                      There is no question there was premeditation.

                      The only question is what response is it that Christian had planned.

                    9. John, whatever plan Christian had was not well thought out. That is the lesson here. Confrontations have unpredictable results and since the two were strangers they had no way of judging what was meant by the other person’s statements or actions. She says she wanted the dog to run and I could see why she chose the bramble. He could have stated why he thought her actions were improper (even that can be dangerous) but he chose to take it one step further heightening the risk of a more dangerous confrontation.

                      These things aren’t worth it. There are far more important things going on in the world. I thought this post of Turley’s was almost a joke because an unleashed dog blew up big time when 10 kids were killed in Chicago with 40 wounded. There is something wrong with our priorities.

                    10. Very wise observations.

                      I go ballistic at the stupid driving behavior of others. I shout and froth and fume and foam.

                      I do so entirely from inside my car with the windows up and I never touch the horn.

                      No matter my anger and my venting and my righteous indignation, I am NOT going to trigger a confrontation.

                      These get entirely out of control fast. They are unpredictable. They do not tend to end in sane ways or with rational vindications.

                      I think the outcome of this was entirely wrong – and quite obviously.

                      At the same time the truth, the facts, the law, were never going to be the determining factors in the outcome.

                      Amy has been thoroughly destoryed. She is going to have to rebuild her life from ash.
                      For what ? Letting a dog off a leash ? Calling 911 when she was threatened by a big black man ?

                      Many people observed that this could have gone the other way. Amy’s call could have brought Police storm troopers and ended with Christian dead.
                      The news right now makes it quite clear that outcome is possible.

                      We can blame that on racism. Though I would note that Police coming in as storm troopers and killing people over trivial offenses – though rare happens, and it happens even to white people.

                      Christian’s confrontation with Amy could have ended unbeleivably badly for him to.

                      Confrontations are unpredictable and impossible to control.

                      So do not piss on people when it is not important.

                      Confronting Amy over her dog was dangerous to all – even if Christian was right.

                    11. Dog treats? Have you ever been attacked by an unleashed dog? I have, when walking through a park. The owner was 200 yards away. If I had had a dog treat for the beast it would have been distracted and not come after me. Carry dog treats? A great idea if you want to avoid being chewed up.

                    12. Christian was not being attacked, and he made it clear he did not have treats to protect himself.

                      Frankly he is an idiot. No sane person deliberately tries to attract a strange dog.

                      As you noted it can be dangerous.

                    13. Wrong! He said he had treats because when he encounters a dog off-leash (a frequent occurrence) he finds that if he offers a treat the owner does not like it (naturally) and the owner then leashes up the dog. Objective obtained.

                    14. RDKAY – we have Christian’s own words. We do not need your interpretation of them.

                    15. “Dog treats? Have you ever been attacked by an unleashed dog? I have, when walking through a park.”

                      My dog was almost killed by an unleashed dog. It was near impossible to get the other dog off him until someone familiar with the dog gained control. Afterwards I carried bear spray and a police stick. We notified the authorities and finally traced the dog to his owners and then had to push the prosecutor to prosecute. I would not have created a confict with the owners if I had seen them. People with such violent dogs can be violent themselves.

                      You are providing a reason for carrying them but not for using them in this situation. We have to deal with the present situation not one that didn’t exist.

                    16. Allan – Didn’t you read the man’s explanation? Once again, he carries treats so that when he sees an unleashed dog, he offers a treat. This prompts the owner – who does not want his dog eating a strange treat – to leash up the animal and take it away. This is simple and effective, and does not warrant a false police report that the man is threatening the lives of the owner and the dog.

                    17. RDKAY, “Allan – Didn’t you read the man’s explanation? Once again, he carries treats so that when he sees an unleashed dog, he offers a treat. This prompts the owner – who does not want his dog eating a strange treat – to leash up the animal and take it away. ”

                      I thought I already answered this but I don’t see it. You have proven the case against Christian that he premeditated a conflict where he thought he would prevail without any significant objection. That is the problem with making assumptions about how others will react when you do things you ought not to do (touch or feed another person or their property without permission). His premeditation if so demonstrates he was being a jerk and enterring dangerous territory.

                    18. Allan – how much of a scofflaw are you? How many regulations have you broken during the coof?

                    19. Paul, it makes not the slightest bit of difference how many regulations I broke or didn’t broke to the story under discussion. All it does is confuse the issue and potentially make you more confused than you already are. 🙂

                    20. Allan – just answer the question. Your answer as to your scofflawitry goes to your defense of Amy and her killer dog.

                    21. “Allan – just answer the question. Your answer as to your scofflawitry goes to your defense of Amy and her killer dog.”

                      Paul, this has nothing to do with the question at hand.

                    22. Allan – Your Honor, would you order the defendant to answer the question.

                    23. “Allan – Your Honor, would you order the defendant to answer the question.”

                      Paul, ‘your honor, would throw you out of court for wasting the courts time.

                    24. “Allan – you are no considered unreliable.”

                      Paul, now you are not even making any sense.

                    25. John Say – you would be amazed at what I have gotten past judges. 😉

                    26. Admitting violating the rules of criminal or civil procedure is not a compelling argument.

                      And please do not tell me that you are actually a lawyer.
                      My oppinion of most lawyers is already too low.

                    27. No it does not Paul.

                      This is a fallacy.

                      Vallid arguments rest on the FACTS.

                      Not emotions.
                      Not the person arguing against you.

                      Allan’s motives, his character, or anything about him is irrelevant to the truth of error in his argument.

                      A true argument is valid even if made by Hitler.

                      Confine yourself to the actual facts.

                    28. John Say – first person to mention Hitler to win an argument, loses the argument.

                    29. Once more: I was attacked by an unleashed dog. I would have liked to have been smart enough to carry with me a dog treat so that I could have distracted the beast. This is SELF-DEFENSE. It is not a premeditated attack against a dog. Anticipatory SELF-DEFENSE. Got it, Allan?

                    30. “Once more: I was attacked by an unleashed dog. I would have liked to have been smart enough to carry with me a dog treat so that I could have distracted the beast. This is SELF-DEFENSE. It is not a premeditated attack against a dog. Anticipatory SELF-DEFENSE. Got it, Allan?”

                      That would be fine if you were acting in self defense. There was no threat to Christian and if there were he would be throwing the food. You can listen to the tape and what Christian said. Got it, RDKAY?

                    31. Where is the evidence that he actually gave the treat to the dog? So far as we know, he was only ready to offer it. But she grabbed and leashed the dog after a minute. Mission accomplished. Of course she went into her hysterics act. She wasn’t so frightened (not at at all, actually) that she backed away from the scary black man. Instead, she aggressively advanced ON HIM and angrily pointed her finger in his face – the poor terrified woman.

                    32. RDKAY, listen to his words later on. What you are doing is creating a scenario to suit the outcome you desire.

                      She was wrong to not leash her dog.
                      He was wrong to threaten her and if it was premeditated then he is “doubly” wrong.

                      All the other stuff is essentially meaningless. Can’t you separate the legal facts from all the craziness?
                      Why do you want to support either of them? Are you the type that only wants to get even?

                    33. “Where is the evidence that he actually gave the treat to the dog? So far as we know, he was only ready to offer it.”
                      That is all that is necescary – an attempt, which he admitted to.

                      “But she grabbed and leashed the dog after a minute. Mission accomplished.”
                      accomplishing a goal – even an arguably legitimate one does not justify illegitimate acts.

                      ” Of course she went into her hysterics act.”
                      So. Her emotional state is relatively irrelevant.

                      ” She wasn’t so frightened (not at at all, actually) that she backed away from the scary black man. Instead, she aggressively advanced ON HIM and angrily pointed her finger in his face – the poor terrified woman.”

                      And then backed away.

                      Yes, Both of them should have left.

                    34. “I was attacked by an unleashed dog. I would have liked to have been smart enough to carry with me a dog treat so that I could have distracted the beast. This is SELF-DEFENSE. It is not a premeditated attack against a dog. Anticipatory SELF-DEFENSE. ”

                      Not the fact pattern of this matter.

                      There is no claim that the dog “attacked” anyone.

                      Christian did not claim his use of treats was to defend himself,
                      but to lure the dog to punish the owner for their “intransigience”.

                      That is vigilantism. It is also theft. It could be robbery.
                      If it was a child it would be kidnapping.

                    35. The relevant standard here is did Amy have reasonable suspicion to beleive that Christian was a threat.

                      That is trivially true. That is all that is necescary to make Amy’s call legitimate.
                      You can paste whatever emotional labels you want. The facts are what matters.

                      If a jury sought to convict Christian the standard would be is there reasonable doubt that Chrisitian illegally threatened Amy and her dog.

                      Christian clearly threatened Amy and her dog.
                      But the actual threat is deliberately nebulous.

                      Is there a possible reading of Christian’s threat that is not a criminal threat ?

                      The most obvious legal threat is “I will have the police prosecute you for a dog off its leash”. That is a real threat, and a legal one.
                      It is also unfortunately for Christian not consistent with his remarks.

                      But a jury would be perfectly free to find that Amy felt criminally threatened,
                      but it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that christian criminally threatened Amy.

                      All threats are not crimes.

                      There is a complication here – because Christian acted on the threat – he attempted to lure the dog with a treat.
                      That and his comments on the treat are all “bad facts”

                    36. Instead of telling us what he said
                      Quote what he actually said.

                      The media does this all the time.
                      Your paraphrase is inaccurate.

                      Though I would note, yours is STILL problematic.

                      You seem to understand that dog owners would not want dogs to eat treats from strangers.

                      You do not seem to grasp that is because it is a potention THREAT.

                    37. It is simple and effective to shoot people who have their dogs unleashed.

                      It is also illegal.

                    38. What part of Amy’s call to 911 is false ?

                      Chritian is african american.
                      He did threaten her and her dog.

                    39. Saying that Christian could have handled three guys with bats does not help your case.

                      It gives Amy more reason to be concerned. She would have been well aware that she was significantly overmatched. She could not fight, she could not run, she could not protect herself or her dog and the dog could not protect her.

                      You claim that Christian has a record as a good person.
                      I am not sure that people who threaten others and who plan ahead as he clearly did for this kind of encounter are “good people” but lets assume he is.

                      How does Amy know that ?

                      How can she determine whether the person who has just threatened her is gentle jim or Mike Tyson on a rage ?

                      You say that Christian would only have problems with people whose dogs were off a leash.

                      Your back to reading minds – badly.

                      While we must judge this instance based on the information available to Christian and Amy at the time – not there entire CV, Christian seems to me the type of person who is certain that his values trump all others and that he is free to impose them.

                      Why do I think that – because he says pretty much that.

                      “You will do as I demand or I will act and you will not like what I do.”

                      Only in your brain is that not a threat.

                      You claim he did not mean anything serious by it.
                      How do we know that ?

                      You say he was not specific enough.

                      You have the standard backwards.

                      When threatened, it is not the role of the threatened party to rewrite the threat in the most benign possible way.

                    40. Allan,

                      Your making alot of assumptions about Christian. Based on the additional information we are getting – those assumptions sound reasonable.

                      But fundimentally Christian and Amy must be judged based on the information (and lack thereof) that each had at the time.

                      Amy’s dog should not have been off the leash. That is a legitimate proximate cause for SOME responses. It is NOT for all conceivable ones.

                      Christian’s own record of events has him threatening her.
                      The threat is not specific, but he makes it clear she will not like it.

                      Paul makes a big deal about its not being specific. But he is 180 wrong.
                      Had Christian said – if you do not leash your dog I will call the police – that would have been a legitimate threat.

                      But because Christian was not specific Amy must guess, does he intent to call the police ? Attack me ? Attack the Dog ? Poison the dog ?

                      I would further note that even making friends with the dog without the permission of the owner is an escalating threat. A woman alone in the park with a dog – even a coccker spaniel, is likely to consider that dog protection. And any strange male as a threat – regardless of race. A strange male is not sufficient threat to call the police. But is still a threat. Making friends with the dog can be perceived with disarming your protection.
                      And that is giving Christian credit. “You will not like it” does not sound like “making freinds with the dog”.

                      Anyway we do not need to speculate about Christian or Amy.

                      We have the facts at the time, and their actions must be judged based on what each knew, not what we know now.

                    41. “Your making alot of assumptions about Christian. ”

                      I think I qualified that type of statement because you are right they are all assumptions. However, that is what we must do when we look at each side. We have to look at how each could have interpreted the events. Add to that NYC has been under continuous threat from the Covid virus and people have been locked in their small apartments for a prolonged period of time. That can cause people to react differently than they normally would have, but again we don’t know.

                      In NYC I think it best for the dogs and people that dogs be leashed unless in an area designated for unleashed dogs. She was wrong and I don’t like what I saw of her and believe her intent (unknown) in using African American was abominable, but I also don’t like people whose actions against others are premeditated to get even (also not proven but likely) and can inflict discomfort.

                      “Poison the dog ?” is a legitimate concern because to get even with a dog’s behavior people have poisoned dogs and other animals. I don’t think this guy intended to do such a thing but his premeditated actions make one more suspicious.

                      As you say, except under extraordinary conditions one should never approach another person’s dog without getting the owner’s permission.

                      Both were terribly wrong but I am concerned because the matter of race plays such a big part in this story. As I questioned earlier, would this woman have lost her job if he wasn’t black? Racism is horrid, but here we have a woman who lost her job and my bet is that she wouldn’t have lost it if the man was white. What that means is a whole other story that seems to be left out of the discussion.

                    42. Given what we have learned – I think your assumptions are all reasonable.

                      But when examining this event we mostly must deal with the knowledge that each of the parties had at the time – not what we have learned since.

                      I am not sure how much the lockdown effected the events in the park.

                      But our tremendous boredom must be a factor in our amplifying this non-event into something that has cost this woman her job. and her dog and her future.

                      Initially I was concerned that she gave up the dog. To me that seemed callous.
                      But then I realized – that to keep the dog, she must leave NYC.
                      She can not possibly walk that dog anywhere near her current home.

                      This has made her a target.

                      Frankly I think she is going to have a rough time staying in NYC.

                    43. John, her first problem is she no longer has a job and her reputation may have been severely damaged. I don’t think she should have been fired for that single incident but that is up to her company. I think her company is afraid of what will happen to them if they dont fire her. That is not a good thing. Now a days it seems too many decisions are made for the wrong reasons

                    44. She had one hope after this.

                      Take the red pill.
                      This was a red pill moment for her.

                      It would have cost her all her friends, it would have required starting a new life with new friends somewhere else. Taking the red pill would have opened up an entirely new life.

                      But she chose the blue pill.

                      The problem with that is – it will still likely cost her her friends and job but it will not bring new friends and a new life.

                      So long as she sticks with the blue pill she is a paria.

                    45. “Allan – all she had to do is keep her dog on the leash.”

                      You do not seem to understand the concept of time.
                      She made that mistake. That ship sailed.

                      Contra to your claims before – that sole fact is NOT the proximate cause of everything after.

                      We are not entitled to murder someone because they jaywalked.

                      Christian was not free to threaten anything beyond calling the authorties to enforce the law. Assuming they even gave a damn, which appears to be another left out part of the story – the authorities in Central Park do not give a damn about the Ramble, and Christian took it upon himself to remedy that.

                      “Or later, when calling 911, just say there is a man threatening me.”
                      Of I am threatened by a black man I am going to say black man to 911,
                      If he is hispanic, I will say hispanic. Whatever the most obvious characteristic of that person will be used to describe them.

                      That is not racism, it is information.

                      “According to John Say, Christian was threatening the dog, so she was wrong there to.”
                      A threat to the dog of a woman alone in the park is a threat to her.
                      Even mop dogs are going to be viewed by their owners as protection.
                      No matter how little they are.

                      If Amy had mace for personal protection and Christian attempted to take that from her – that would be a clear threat.

                      “I admit that during my early years I was a scofflaw. I drove on an expired license for 3 years. I piled up 200 parking tickets (which I got out of, btw), I have jaywalked and I even lived in sin.”
                      So what.

                      “Still, Amy is the proximate cause of all the problems.”

                      Nope. Amy’s actions justify only a limited response on Christians part and he exceeded that. That is his mistake, not hers.

                    46. John Say – this has now reached the point of OCD. You need a therapy session.

                    47. Yes, you keep making the same long ago refuted arguments over and over.
                      Mixed with a small assortment of fallacies.

                      If you have a better argument to make – make it.
                      I am responding to you. If this is repetitive, it is because you repeat the same poor arguments. If you think this is OCD you are accusing yourself.

                    48. Paul can not distinguish between his personal values and facts.

                      Dogs screw with the underbrush – SO ?
                      Dogs do in nature what dogs do in nature.

                      Nature does not give a shit about human laws or human values.

                      We see the same thing in his rant about cats and owls.

                      He values birds – which is fine. But he not only expects all others to share his values, but beleives he is entitled to impose those values on nature and that it will comply.

                      Facts about birds and dogs do not alter the story. The relative value of birds and dogs to some people do not alter the story.

                      Amy broke the rules of the bird sanctuary – from what I can tell rules that are honored entirely in the breech.

                      But even if that were not so. She broke the rules. That is not a mortal sin. She is not going to hell for it, and Christian is not free to threaten her or her dog for that sin.

                      If I were to guess christian and Paul share some traits.

                      The both oppose the death penalty – except for people who bring dogs or cats into a bird sanctuary.

                    49. John Say – the NY Park Service does not want dogs in the underbrush of the Ramble, so they require dogs be on leashes at all times.

                    50. “John Say – the NY Park Service does not want dogs in the underbrush of the Ramble, so they require dogs be on leashes at all times.”

                      So ? You are totally off topic. There are myriads of places I can take that

                      why is there even a new york park service ? Parks are not a legitimate function of government.

                      Does NYPS actually enforce those rules ? From what i am reading they do not.
                      Any government edict that is not enforced is dangerous. If you are going to make law you are obligated to enforce it. If you will not, then do not make law.

                      Why are you fixated on the intentions of the regulation ? We can debate the merits of the law if you want.

                      But in this case we clearly have a law that Amy violated. It is a minor law. and aparently not one that is enforced, but still a law.

                      No one has argued that she did not violate it.

                      No one would be completely freaked out it Christian called enforcement and they fined her.
                      But that is the limits of the consequences for that, and Christians only legitimate response was to call for enforcement. He is not the bird police, he is not free to enforce it himself. Honestly neither he nor you should be lecturing about it either that is so very “Karen”. Call enforcement or let go. No moral posturing, no lectures presumptive that your values are supperuior to those of others because they are backed by a law no one enforces.

                      Certainly no threats – beyond calling enforcement.

                    51. ““John Say – the NY Park Service does not want dogs in the underbrush of the Ramble, so they require dogs be on leashes at all times.”

                      Paul, during certain times and in certain areas every time a light changes one can have thirty people violating the law by crossing the street in front of cars. when they were supposed to wait. Does that give the car owner who has the right of way the legal justification to put his hand on the horn and leave it there while moving the car in such a way that it might touch and push some of those pedestrians?

                      In both cases Christian and the driver, those upset by an infraction of the law are taking threatening action against other people. Can you tell us the theoretical difference between the two? Do you know what most drivers do? They slowly move waiting as the crowd of people crossing stops. That sometimes costs a couple of lights.

                    52. Allan – if the motorist went through the intersection on a green and a pedestrian stepped out in front of him, the motorist would not be held liable for the accident.

                    53. Paul, you are answering your own questions not the questions under discussion. You completely neglected what I said about the realities in NYC. If the motorist continued driving under the circumstances mentioned above and hurt or killed one or more people he likely would be indicted.

                      Whether it be pedestrians jay walking when the light isn’t in their favor or walking an unleashed dog, those that are upset by those wrongful actions have no right to threaten or injure the other party.

                    54. Allan – I live in a state where the person next to you may be armed to the teeth. The fact that New Yorkers, in my opinion, are rude and insane, has nothing to do with who is in the right. Central Park has a set of regulations for which you can be fined. Amy was committing a fineable offense. Christian was trying to get Amy to comply with the law/regulations of the Park. Amy is the proximate cause.

                    55. Paul, no one has said Amy shouldn’t have kept her dog on a leash, but that does not give Christian the right to threaten her, give her dog a pet treat, touch the dog or Amy. What makes his actions worse is they sound like they were premeditated with the intention of creating hostility where he felt he had the power to force people to do his bidding which isn’t a right Christian has even though Amy should have leashed the dog. The rest of the stuff has nothing to do with the question at hand.

                    56. Allan – Christian never attempted to touch Amy, his entire goal was to get her to leash her dog. Something she eventually did.

                    57. Paul, you are making excuses for Christian’s bad and likely premeditated behavior. He attempted to separate her dog from her, give the dog a treat which since he could be a nut might have had poison, and potentially take the dog. None of that is acceptable behavior. He was taking the law into his own hands and since he was bigger and stronger than she we can see cause for significant concern on her part.

                      The fact that she didn’t leash the dog is not a reason for him to do those things just like a driver doesn’t have a good reason to run over a jay walker.

                    58. Allan – according to you, Central Park and NYC is the Wild West. Of course Christian is taking the law into his own hands. It quickly solves the problem and life goes on.

                    59. “Allan – according to you, Central Park and NYC is the Wild West. ”

                      That is not true. Will you show me where I compared NYC to the Wild West? If you don’t do I do what you have been doing to david Benson for months? 🙂 Retract or prove your claim.

                      “Christian is taking the law into his own hands. It quickly solves the problem ”

                      It didn’t solve the problem. People will continue to walk their dogs off leash in the bramble. Will some trouble makers walk their dog off leash just to have a bit of violent fun at Christian’s expense?

                    60. “Allan – do you understand hyperbole?”

                      Do you really want to go there ?

                      Do we know have to look at every statement on this – yours, mine, christians amy’s and determine if they are hyperbolee ?

                      Regardless, there is plenty of evidence that Amy is stressed out, and not completely rational. That is a common response to stress.

                      We do not expect perfection from people.

                      There is little evidence that Christian is stressed, All his actions seem to be thought out and intentional, some even planned.

                      That is NOT a good fact for him.

                      Finally none of them appear to be engaged in hyperbolee.
                      But if either was – it would be Amy.

                    61. John Say – stay in your own conversations. The hyperbole was about a Wild West comment.

                    62. “Allan – do you understand hyperbole?”

                      Of course I understand hyperbole, Paul. Do you know what facts are? When you are creating a case you use fact. When you are arguing a case you can use hyperbole but it can bite you in the a$$ because no one can tell when the facts stop and hyperbole begins. Then both your hyperbole and facts can be torn apart as has occurred here.

                      I believe that in your case even you no longer recognize the facts because you tried to prove yourself correct using hyperbole instead of facts. You didn’t confuse me. You confused yourself.

                    63. “Allan – I never confuse myself. 🙂”

                      Paul, confused persons seldom recognize their own confusion. 🙂

                    64. Allan – I take several high level trivia tests every day and I get most of them right. Are you sure you are not the one who is confused and is doesn’t recognize it.. 🙂

                    65. “Allan – I take several high level trivia tests every day and I get most of them right. Are you sure you are not the one who is confused and is doesn’t recognize it.. 🙂”

                      Perhaps you got so used to trivia you forgot how to think. 🙂

                    66. “Allan – nup 😉”

                      Paul said: ““Allan – according to you, Central Park and NYC is the Wild West. ” but he refuses to show where I compared NYC to the Wild West. He needs to stop making accusations he cannot prove. Paul -yup 🙂

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/26/insurance-executive-put-on-leave-after-tirade-in-central-park-against-african-american-bird-watcher/comment-page-2/#comment-1957594 The actual statement is 2 replies above.

                    67. Allan – are you trying to set a world’s record for the number of responses on a subject on a Turley blog? My understanding is that the number is over 800 now. How high do you have to get?

                    68. “trying to set a world’s record”

                      Paul, you are the main contributing factor so ask yourself that question. You got tangled up in trying to prove a bad position right and you haven’t stopped since. Doesn’t make you look good my friend. Just admit when you are wrong and things will get better. 🙂

                    69. Allan – my initial stand is that Amy needs to put her dog on the leash and it all end. What is wrong about that?

                    70. “Allan – my initial stand is that Amy needs to put her dog on the leash and it all end. What is wrong about that?”

                      Paul after traveling into space and getting lost you have finally made it to the first statement along with a bit of space nuttiness.

                      I think everyone agrees that Amy broke the rules and didn’t leash her dog. Bad Amy. That is not ” and it all end. ” as you put it. Christian didn’t like that and acted in a way that was also bad. Bad Christian. It appears more and more that Christian’s actions were pre-meditated. Doubly bad Christian.

                      You made some statements that were wrong. Do you know how we know they were wrong. Anonymous agreed with you giving you the kiss of death. Bad Paul. 🙂

                    71. Allan – there are so many Anonymous that I am not sure who is supporting me.

                    72. “Allan – did you know we added a new Anonymous last night?”

                      Paul, At least the new anonymous can feel secure that the old anonymous will always stand holding his place at the bottom of the barrel.

                    73. What is wrong with that is that you are not accurately stating your own position.

                      Separately you are probably innaccurate. It is pretty evident from the many remarks that Christian has made that this is an issue for him, that he has deputized himself as the Ramble leash law enforcer and that Amy just had the misfortune to be his first victim

                      So no Amy leashing her dog would have only ended this for Amy.

                      Beyond your “position” is true(ish) but not correct.

                      My family was in an autimobile accident a year ago that nearly killed them all (they are fine now), Had they left 5 minutes earlier or later the accident would not have occured.

                      But no one would call their departure time the proximate cause of the accident,
                      despite the fact that “but for”leaving when they did they would not have had the accident.

                      Further your “position” is a deliberate effort to obfuscate Christian’s culpabilty.

                      If I do a rolling stop at an intersection and you blast through at 80mph the other direction and kill me, is my failure to stop the proximate cause of my death ?

                      This is not even fundimentally a legal question such as stop signs and speed limits.

                      It is a moral one.

                      So let me ask it to you bluntly and simply.

                      Does a small error on the part of a person allow the person who observes it to respond in any way they want ?

                      Amy’s actions were volitional – choices.
                      Christians actions were volitional – choices.

                      Christians actions while in response to Amy’s were still free choices.
                      And you are responsible for your own free choices, – not matter what might have provoked you.

                      I am libertarian – individual liberty is a core value for me – as it was for those who created this government, and the most significant thinkers on government from the 18th centruy forward.

                      But we are not free to do whatever we please – we are specificaly barred from initiating force against others. We can respond (proportionaly) to force with force, but not initiate it.

                      Amy’s leaving her dog run was at the very worst a dimunative use of force.
                      Any force response by Christian was morally obligated to be proportionate.
                      Christians response was NOT proportionate. It was also not self defense.
                      It is therefore a violations (a small one) of the Non-Aggression principle. Which is both a libertarian foundational principle and the foundation of criminal law and government.

                      Christians choice/response dances very close to a crime – a minor one, but still a crime.

                      If the law requires your bank to clear snow withing 24hrs, and they fail to do so are you justified in committing armed bank robbery ?

                      The chain of causality you presume requires either no free choice on the part of Chrisitan or a justified and proportionate response.

                      Amy’s conduct can not be the cause of all possible outcomes that come after it.

                    74. John Say – keep to the facts, dude. You are emotionally involved.

                    75. How so ? If you are going to make an assertion – you should be able to support that assertion.

                      I have actually completely stick to the facts. You are the one who keeps getting into areas of emotion.

                      I do not know Amy, I do not know Christian. I do not like either of them.

                      I can not see any emotional attachment to either.

                      But if some argument I have made is an appeal to emotion – point that out.

                    76. John Say – you have told us your life story. What does that have to do with the facts? You are spending so much time defending Amy, regardless of whether you like her or not, it is evident you are emotionally involved.

                    77. “John Say – you have told us your life story. What does that have to do with the facts? ”

                      There was but a single purpose to that – to rebutt your nonsensical claims to know my own past, thoughts, or experiences. You made radically false assumptions about me with no basis. My life story is not relevant EXCEPT the rebut your efforts to pretend that you know me, and that your false presumptions about me are relevant.

                      “You are spending so much time defending Amy,”
                      I am not defending Amy at all. I am addressing bad facts, bad arguments and fallacies argued by others such as you.

                      “regardless of whether you like her or not, it is evident you are emotionally involved.”
                      Back to reading minds, and idiotic arguments that feelings are relevant.

                      Your claims about my “emotional involvement” are both false and irrelevant.
                      Just as every other claim you have made to know or understand me.

                      What does it take before you grasp that pretending to know the mental state, emotional state, or life experience of the person you are arguing with is ludicrously stupid and near certain to be wrong.

                      Need I refresh your memory about how horribly wrong you have been in your guesses regarding me already ?

                      If you do not want my life story – do not pretend to know my life story.
                      If you make a fallacious argument based on the pretense of knowledge that you can not have, you should expect the possiblity that you will step on landmines and blow yourself up.

                      Regardless, most every venture afeild we have had has been follow irrelevant claims by you.

                    78. He does not need to admit error.

                      Just quit trying to rehash the same ground and get different results.

                      The real scope of this issue is rather small.

                      Much of this debate is extraneous.

                      The entire debate over the leash and the law is mostly extraneous.
                      The park rules require the dog leashed (or under control).

                      I highly doubt either Amy or Christian knew the nuances of the law.
                      But they both knew the dog was not free to run around in the Ramble – which it probably was doing – though we have no direct evidence of that.

                      I will be happy to thrash the leash law for another 100 comments,
                      but even if the law specified exactly a 6ft leash – which it does not, and specified lethal injection as punishment. that would not change the issues.

                    79. Paul, you constantly try to make this about the people, me, allan, yourself, rather than the facts.

                      I know nothing about you, except what you write, and I have no way of knowing whether that is true.

                      I have written of myself, you have no way of knowing if any of that is true.
                      While it is, that is irrelvant to the argument.

                      The facts are what matters. This is not about you or allan or me.
                      Trying to make it so is narcisist and a logical fallacy.

                    80. “Allan – Christian never attempted to touch Amy,:”
                      Unknown. We have only Christians account of anything prior to the video.

                      “his entire goal was to get her to leash her dog.”
                      Back to mind reading.
                      Also irrelevant.

                      A legitimate goal is not a justification for an illegitimate act.

                    81. John Say – according to Melody, after the dog was leashed, Christian went back to birding. Amy has not said Christian threatened her after she leashed the dog.

                    82. I do not care what Christian did later.
                      It is irrelevant whether he saved infants from a fire or robbed a bank.

                      It is also irrelevant whether Christian further threatened her after she leashed the dog.

                      You seem completely unable to confine yourself to the small set of actual facts.

                      There is a very small possibility that something Melody says that Christian says can be used to impeach Christian. But in all other ways Melody is not a witness.

                      Complying with a threat does not change the fact that the threat was issued – and acted on. What happened after is irrelevant.

                      I do not care whether christian is black or white, gay or straight male or female.

                      Nor do I care of the same an many other attributes regarding amy.

                      I do not like either of them. But that is irrelevant.

                    83. NO!!!

                      Your concept of proximate cause is infinite.

                      Summary violations do not ever justify private parties from any enforcement beyond calling the police PERIOD.

                      There is no “You jaywalked, I get on free murder” proximate cause rule.

                      You have pushed this claim since the start.

                      It is OBVIOUSLY stupid.

                      By your logic the police were free to murder Floyd – because he committed some minor offense.

                      Even the police – who can do much more to enforce the law, than Christian can, are still limited in what their response is.

                      IF the police were free to do anything they wanted once the observed a summary offense, our jails would be empty, no one would make it to trial without being killed.

                    84. John Say – ask your smarty-pants wife if reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy? Now you are just being silly.

                    85. “John Say – ask your smarty-pants wife if reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy? Now you are just being silly.”

                      My Wife is an appellate criminal defense lawyer. Regardless you dragged her into this with your assumption that i had zero understanding of violence against women, or racial discrimination. You have stepped deep into dog shit every time you pretend to know my life, my motives or my thoughts. In addition to being wrong, both your life and mine are irrelevant to the debate. Facts, logic reason.

                      My profession is logic.

                      reduction ad absurdem is a valid logical method more than 2000 years old.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

                    86. Goodwin’s law is about comparisons to Nazi’s it does not apply when the reference is to real nazi’s.

                      Hitler is a real, I did not compare to Hitler or Nazi’s

                      I asserted an actual logical truth.

                      A true statement does not become false because Hitler made it.

                      If Hilter troubles you substitute anyone else you think is evil and wrong.
                      Stalin, Mao, Trump, Obama.

                      Or more simply – guilt by associations is a fallacy.

                      You should acquant yourself with logical fallacies.

                      Or maybe not, because if you removed logical fallacies from your arguments you would have nothing to say.

                    87. “Allan – if the motorist went through the intersection on a green and a pedestrian stepped out in front of him, the motorist would not be held liable for the accident.”

                      Probably false.

                      In much of the country pedestrians always have right away.

                      That said. I will also provide the advice I gave my son and daughter while teaching them defensive driving.

                      If you try to look for the mistakes of others then:
                      Maybe they will look out for yours.
                      Maybe you will avoid a accident that is not your fault, but will still take up your time.
                      Maybe someone will not be hurt.

                      Put simply, “Its not my fault” is not the response of a good person.

                      The decription of this as “Two Karen’s in the park” is excellent.

                      As Allan noted – I have not defended Amy with respect to misconduct it is pretty likely she
                      did – though I did realize more recently that the only evidence the dog was ever off the leash is Christian words in his FB post.

                      We do not have any of the misconduct that lead to the video in the video.
                      We have only Christian’s FB posts to rely on.

                    88. “Paul can not distinguish between his personal values and facts.”

                      John, when people live in such close quarters these more trivial questions arise with enhanced vigor and frequency. The question becomes how do we meet the needs of citizens where rights are continuously conflicting with one another. We live in an approximate similar spectrum but I believe are on different sides of that spectrum so I don’t want to get into a long drawn out discussion as to our differences. Our similarities are far more important in the present situation we face.

                      For NYC to function it has to live in a special world where we both have objections otherwise such a city could not possibly exist. Those special needs create even more craziness and outright fraudulant behavior. The only way to survive is to accept the Constitution and the fact that states can have their own Constitutions that do stupid things and reflect ideas that conflict with the ideas in the DOI.

                      Central Park and the Park System of NYState are very important to the people that live in proximity to these areas. Ask any New Yorker how they feel about Central Park and virtually all will opt for such a park even though they have their own personal difficulties with the rules and how it is set up. Understand that underneath the government agency are also private agencies funded by private donations that help maintain aspects of the park that otherwise would be on a downhill trend. It is that type of private money, ideas and workproduct that is very much responsible for the Park, the High Line, the Museums and many other things that make NYC and enjoyable place to be. An unleashed dog in the bramble is an infraction very low on the list.

                      I don’t know how you would solve the conflicts inherent in a NYC environment. I live with them when I am there even to the extent of who is permitted to do things in my own apartment and what can be done but prefer the freedoms I have elsewhere.

                    89. What I see with Central Park and your exegesis of it is another example of how things go wrong when government acts outside its legitimate domain.

                      Our values are provided privately.

                      So you are clear I am not attacking the things that make New York attractive.

                      There are many museums and parks and theaters and …. in my community – probably more on a per capital basis by far than NYC.
                      They are private. They are also substantially cheaper than their NYC equivalents.

                    90. “There are many museums and parks and theaters and …. in my community – probably more on a per capital basis by far than NYC.
                      They are private. They are also substantially cheaper than their NYC equivalents.”

                      John that is a very debatable thought that depends on how you define the variables. I don’t think you realize the number of museums in Manhattan alone, what they contain or the numbers that view them. People who were born and died in Manhattan aren’t even aware of the many museums that exist that they may have passed by on a regular basis. or even live next door to. Likely, you know a couple of big parks in NYC but have you ever seen a pocket park? One day in my own area I decided to look at all the pocket parks. (free, open to the public and maintained by the privately owned building in the same location). I was amazed at the number of parks I didn’t realize existed or I had never walked into and those parks were within a tiny radius accessable in less than a ten minute walk. How about a public park that is within a sky scraper that is free to the public? How about an elevated park that is two miles long where only people walk? How about the parks (one could say one park) that encircle all of Manhattan so people can walk, skate or ride bicycles on the rivers on both sides. How about parks that are underground?

                      No. NYC cannot be built in a purely Libertarian environment. If you think closely, perhaps you can see why I value our federalist system under the Constitution based on the DOI in the fashion I do. Take note I am lucky and have more than one home so I enjoy the benefits of more than one place.

                    91. I am aware of the number of Museums in Manhattan – are you aware of the number of people ? And do not get me started on Parks.

                      Convicted sex offenders are not allowed to live within 200′ of a park or a school. The local PD’s mapped the city and found there was almost no where that a sex offender could legally live.

                      In my country probably 1/5 of the entire country is parks. maybe more.
                      Huge ones and tiny ones, Private ones and public ones.

                      I am a 10m drive from a wildlife sancturary where possibly millions of geese and ducks stop for a bit headed north or south each year. And that does not count the permanent residents.

                      People are free to value whatever they personally wish.

                      If museums are your thing – Manhattan is probably a better choice – as good as any here might be, they can not afford the art in Manhattan.

                      But if you want nature, birds, …. Manhattan is a poor choice.
                      Aside from all else I mentioned, I am 30min from a gigantic Boyscout camp (private),
                      and 45min from private campgrounds that abut the apalachian trail and are nearly as large as my country. If you are patient along with the birds you can spot bears.

                      And if you are so inclinded you can hike all the way to Georgia – or Canada.

                      Each of us is free to value whatever we want. And if what you want is in Manhattan – live there. But if you are really into birds – you are in the wrong place.

                    92. John Say – Canada says their border to the US is closed, especially NY.

                    93. People are free to value whatever they want. I am sure there are alot of parks in NYC.

                      But they are not nature or natural. In nature dogs chase birds, dig holes, and poop,
                      and it is not called destruction – it is called nature.

                      Some of the parks near me are so large that if I take my dogs to them they can run free for hours, and never meet a person or another dog. They can poop and dig and chase birds, and no one needs to clean up after them – because it is nature, it is huge and it will not notice a bit of poop and a couple of holes in a couple of thousand acres

                    94. “But they are not nature or natural.”

                      John, NYC is a densly populated area but is relatively tiny. One doesn’t have to stay in Manhattan if one wants the country. That is why many well to do New Yorkers have other homes close by either in the mountains or on the beaches. NYC is not a good place for people that do not like crowds and like a lot of woods surrounding them.

                      When I was a kid I used to go across the Hudson to NJ where I would hike through the hills overlooking NYC. I like the mountains and woods so I go out west and visit nature in the wild doing some crazy things that I remember today with horror. Until recently when at home in NY I used to take my dog to what is now called Roosevelt Island right across the river that my building was on. It had a huge empty area where my dog could run and play with only a rare passer by. That ended when they built the FDR Freedom Park some years ago. It wasn’t huge,4-5 acres but I’m not that big needing such a large area. It was convenient.

                    95. I am not trying to make this some contest.

                      NYC will wax and wane as it appeals to more or less people.

                      My entire county has a fraction of the people in NYC, and frankly I think it is overcrowded.

                      We each have our own values.

                      My personal skills are in high demand in places like NYC and CA.
                      I could double my income trivially. But I would also double my cost of living.

                      My home is about 5500 sq ft on 2 acres in the woods. My brother owns a home in Berkley. It is probably 5 times the price, and 1/4 the size. He spent more for earthquake proof foundations for a tiny addition than I paid for my entire property.

                      I could make much more in SF or NYC but much would cost more, I would gain somethings and lose others. I am happy.
                      That is what counts.

                    96. “No. NYC cannot be built in a purely Libertarian environment. ”

                      Exactly as is – probably not. When people are free to persue their own individual values you do not end up with exactly the same thing as when values must be acheived by manipulating force.

                      Does that mean that a city the size of NYC could not exist and in fact be better with less government and more accomplished through private efforts to reach values ?

                      Absolutely. Without the slightest doubt.

                      Regardless, my goal is not to change NYC,

                      But “Don’t tread on me”

                    97. John, I focused on museums because there are state parks and federal parks whose area is far bigger than NYC. I also explained that one’s view depended on how one observed the variables. Do you wish to look at a museum based on numbers, square footage, what they contain etc. Even the NY Public Library contains a museum aside from the building and its furnishings which is a museum by itself.

                      “In my country probably 1/5 of the entire country is parks. maybe more.”

                      Is that country or county? How about in your city? How many museums and how many square feet of museum. In your city how much of it is park? 14% of NYC (30,000 acres) is operated by the Department of Parks. That does not include any parks owned by developments, State or Federal Parks. I am not sure if that includes the parks maintained by private buildings where the public is free to use at will.

                      AS I told you I have more than one home. I have one in Manhattan because I love Manhattan or used to, but I choose to live elsewhere chosing one place as my permanent residence. The home I call home is different than NYC.

                    98. There are lots of museums in my county (not country, sorry).
                      It is a tourist mecca and there is an enormous number of museums wrapped arround our unique tourist draw. I have little interest in those as they litterally drill local history into you starting in grade school and drag you off to local museums all focused on some facett of that local history and culture. Further nearly all our museums are private, they are explictly intended to make money – though they are still far cheaper than most in NYC and that is ignoring that parking in manhattan costs more than a family visit to a local museum where parking is free.

                      But this is not a contest. I do go to NYC (or more likely DC) to see things that are just not here. And New Yorkers come here in hordes to experince out local culture, history, and art. But they are not coming for Cezanne or the ballet. and though we have good ordestra’s and theater – all privately supported, No one would come here for them if they could go to NYC.

                      If NYC has 30,000 acres for 10M people then to be comparable my city should have 180Acres. We have cemetaries that large. There are two major parks in the city that are probably 4-5 times that, there are innumerable smaller parks. And not far outside the city are parks with more total acreage than NYC parks. And slightly further than that are parks the size of Manhattan.

                      Regardless, this is not some contest. No one sane doubts NYC has some attractive and relatively unique features. Nor do I doubt you can find trees.
                      But you are not going to find actual Nature in NYC. You will find “managed nature” where humans decide what matters and then must expend significant energy to bring that to the fore.

                      And that is the conflict of values that is at the core of this. Amy – and I would venture an enormous number of manhattanites want a place to safely let their dogs run.

                      Christian wants a place where birds are not disturbed by dogs.
                      Those two values are not compatible in the density of NYC.
                      New York government has paid lips service to Christian – giving him a part of the park and laws to preserve it. But does not really appear to be expending the energy necescary to truly give Christian what he wants. NYC is wisely choosing to ignore the leash laws – because there are far more people with dogs that need to run than birders, and not enough space for both.
                      Christian – and too many others are blaming Amy for ignoring the rules.
                      But that did not happen in a vaccuum. The combination of giving the birders what the wanted while failing to enforce the rules allowed the government to appear to be meeting the needs of multiple groups without the resources needed to actually do so.

                      Christian appears to have won a great victory for birders.
                      But that is likely to be a phyric victory. There are just not enough birders and far too many dog owners, and not enough space for both.
                      In some form or another this conflict will return.

                    99. Why do I care ? There are no charges that can or should be brought, against Amy.

                      There are charges that can be brought against Christian but probably should not.

                      Regardless if NYC thinks that it is policitally wise to send a message to women that they must place their own safety second to progressive political correctness – then go for it.

                      I am sure Trump will be happy to regain the women’s vote.

                    100. John Say – you are in denial, buddy. You are heavily emotional vested in this subject and defending Amy.

                    101. “If NYC has 30,000 acres for 10M people then to be comparable my city should have 180Acres.”

                      The proper comparison would be the number of acres within your city’s limits to the number of acres of park. All of NYC might just fit into a tiny corner of your city. It is not big enough to have large acreage of forest land. It is not meant as a natural nature preserve. It is a financial center among other things and in Manhattan alone somewhere up to 2 million enter daily to go to work. Add to that 65 plus million tourists a year plus the >1.6 million that live in Manhattan. I don’t know if that includes those that have residencies elsewhere.

                      “Christian wants a place where birds are not disturbed by dogs.”

                      Everybody wants more than they have whether in your hamlet or the megalopolis of NYC. In fact many that live in NYC have multiple homes that can include large ranches, forests etc. in one of their other homes. People don’t pay NYC prices if they don’t like it despite the lack of space for the dogs to run.

                      I’ve been in the bramble a lot of times and there is plenty of space for both. Most of the times I see very few people if any. The two of them need therapy or they should live with anonymous and learn how lucky they are with what they have.

                    102. My county – not my city is just about 3 times the size of NYC according to Wikipedia.
                      I find that hard to beleive as it takes very little time to drive accross my county in either direction and far more to cross just manhattan.

                    103. I have criticised the government ownership and operation of the amenities in NYC that new yorkers value.

                      I do not expect new york to change. The entire world knows that Rent control is disasterous and corrupt – yet NYC has had it far longer than I have been alive.

                      I doubt NYC gets fixed.
                      But the least we can do is to not replicated the failures of NYC to the rest of the country.

                    104. “I have criticised the government ownership and operation of the amenities in NYC that new yorkers value.”

                      John, I can understand that but it has improved the lives of millions that later create better lives for the country and the world. Rent control is not a positive amenity. It is a curse that destroys the best the city has to offer. Don’t confuse socialistic policies with amenities that are public goods. Just to make you feel better I believe most of those amenities I love would die and disappear but for private donations or deals made in the public interest between private and public entities.

                      “But the least we can do is to not replicated the failures of NYC”

                      NYC has many failures but over all it has been a tremendous success. Under Giuliani the city thrived and I thought of staying longer in the city. Under DeBlasio I am think of selling my home. You might think it is a lousy life there but that is your perspective. I personally don’t like living there so I only go for short visits and all those visits are fantastic. I am not a tourist, I have a home, so I can really enjoy the city and when I get home I go to the roof garden and view the city, the rivers, the lights and bridges all that are beautiful and make life more interesting.

                      The public must like what they see. They are willing to pay tremendous prices to live in cramped space and often the space is not the best equipped. Zillow 2019 “The median list price per square foot in Manhattan is $1,371, which is higher than the New York average of $660. The median price of homes currently listed in Manhattan is $1,550,000 while the median price of homes that sold is $945,500. The median rent price in Manhattan is $3,450, which is higher than the New York median of $2,900.” You like metrics as a form of proof. I think those metrics demonstrate NYC is far from a failure. Another metric is growth. Probably the largest building project in the world (in one are) is likely Hudson Yards on the west side of Manhattan.

                    105. “I can understand that but it has improved the lives of millions”

                      Of course it has. Cuba has not actually failed – yet, and even the USSR collapsed only because it was unable to improve standard of living as fast as the west.

                      If we disregard the constant bloodshed Socialism works – often. Standards of living rise, people are better off relative to where they were before.

                      But they are inarguably worse off than any system closer to a free market.

                      Not only that but we have very good data on this. We have two separate measures that almost certainly are interdependent.

                      We know that across almost any interval of time for which we have data, that rise in standard of living inversely correlates to size of government – down to government sizes of 19% of GDP – we can follow the same trends down to government sizes of about 5% of GDP with 19th century data of poorer quality.

                      We do not know the lower bounds – though it is certainly below government size of 19% of GDP.
                      Basically for every 10% of GDP that government spend the rate of increase of standard of living decreases by 1%.

                      We get very similar results when we look at the impact of freedom and growth in standard of living.

                      Government size is just a substitute for reduced freedom.

                      Does NYC improve over time – absolutely.
                      Would the rate of improvement increase with less govenrment and more freedom.
                      That is what the data says.

                      There are multiple other ways to demonstrate the same result.
                      The same outcome can be demonstrated not just by real world data,
                      but by applying the laws of economics – which are just immutable patterns of human behavior.

                    106. John, there is no country of any size that exists with a pure economic system. They are almost all if not al hybrids. We have no choice but be pragmatic and compromise. That is how the 13 States were able to get together and create the USA. I do not believe in socialism and know it doesn’t work. Capitalism has its problems but it is the best system that exists. NYC is far to socialized but not because of parks and museums rather things like rent control and an overbearing government with too many regulations an an inability today to do anything without paying immense amounts of money to satisfy all the rent seekers.

                      In the next election I can chose to throw my vote away and vote for a third party or vote for the candidate that is closest to what I believe while pushing Congress and other leaders in my direction. I don’t choose to vote for perfection. Perfection is the enemy of good.

                      When you bring up Cuba the way you did it sounds to me that you believe only in black and white. There is a whole spectrum in between and I can concentrate almost 100% of my abilities on moving the nation in your direction (since we are so far to the left now) that it doesn’t make sense for me to say if it isn’t my way I’m leaving. That kind of attitude will insure the nation’s movement towards the left.

                      In NYC’s case a change in mayor (Giuliani) created a wonderful shift in NYC but NYC is on the left so now we have another mayor that is destroying the city. Understand that large congested urban areas are more likely to move in a leftward direction. That is because there is more social interaction so one can’t just throw up their hands rather they should work towards a better city.

                      Does that mean outright socialism? No. Rent Control that you mentioned failed miserably and caused hardship for the poor as well as the city. WE know it doesn’t work yet those with leftist ideas based on a type of religious faith can’t learn lessons from the past and certain aspects of rent control are being put back in.

                      I don’t find anything wrong with significant city involvement in the major parks. They are public goods. I am concerned with the corruption involved along with the politics and the inability for the city to make things work. The classic example of that is the Wolman’s Rink that was out of service for years even though the city paid huge sums of money to reopen it. Trump did that task with his own money in record time under his own budget far less than city expenditures. He recouped the capital he put into it with the money paid to buy tickets and after that money was returned the ice skating rink was returned to the city. Not a bad deal for the people of NY.

                      Do you think Central Park, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the other large museums are complete products of the city. They aren’t. Donations and citizen groups keep the cash flow and things working in a way that could not be accomplished by the city.

                      I appreciate you libertarian viewpoints and probably support most of them to a point. However, I’m not going to go for perfection at the expense of the good.

                    107. Government and particularly democracy are structurally incentivized to grow.
                      It is irrelevant whether that is actually in peoples best interests.

                      I do not know what a “pure” system is. We do have a pretty good idea what works and what does not. The problem is that in markets the incentives near universally work towards our betterment. In government the nearly universally work towards our detriment.
                      But for all its problems some govenrment is necescary.

                      “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

                      There were compromises involved in creating this country. But with one glaring example they were small and fundimentally there was just disagreement on how to best accomplish a near unifromly shared objectect. Government sufficiently powerful to actually government and yet sufficiently constrained to allow individual liberty.
                      There was little disagreement on that. Today we are not close to agreement on the scope of government much less how to attain it.

                      The evidence I used was not specific to socialism. Socialism is merely one form of big government. The core reason socialism fails is that government fails more as it grows.
                      The specific form is not critical.

                      Absolutely bigger failures of government are more consequential than smaller ones.
                      The city will not collapse over the failure of park rules. While it might over housing rules.

                      But it all adds up. One big failure, may have less net impact than 10,000 small ones.

                    108. “Today we are not close to agreement on the scope of government much less how to attain it.”

                      John, The failure is that we have permitted society to fragment and the elites to run the governent. That is what makes Trump so refreshing yet at the same time so hated. He threatens the elites in government whose existence is based on payoffs of one type or another. Trump is not an insider so he threatens the entire system or representitives use for their own advantage.

                    109. The “public goods” argument is circular.

                      We can call parks public goods, we have called education a public good and that has worked abysmally. The left wants to make higher education a public good and yet for all the problems of our higher education system it is far superior to that of Europe which was once the best in the world, but now it is a poor quality public good.

                      We seek to make healthcare into a public good, Housing, nothing prevents food from becoming a public good.

                      Calling something a public good, is just saying – we are going to have a little bit of socialism.

                      Are public parks the hill I want to die on ? No.. But lets not pretend that they actually would not function better if they were not a public good.

                      There is a single criteria determining what must be a government function, and what must not. That is a very simple test.

                      Is force necescary ?

                      If a problem can not be solved without the use of force, it is within the exclusive domain of government. National defence, punishment of crime. Enforcement of contracts, enforcement of torts – these are not things that can be accomplished without force.

                    110. “The “public goods” argument is circular.”

                      John, the public goods argument is a touchy thing because of a vision by some that everything can be a public good so we therefore can’t have any. That type of logic fails in the long run and that is why no pure libertarian world can exist because it would have to depend solely on the good will of other persons most of the time.

                      Think of a moderate sized city where the sidewalks and streets aren’t considered pubic goods. Each store would have a different side walk perhaps on a different level and some might not have any at all building their store right up to the street. Are you assuming the the streets lined with moving cars is not a public good and each street can be a private entity? Perhaps we could have toll booths for every store.

                      Yes, the idea of a public good has to be restrained as does the idea of purely libertarian country. I don’t care if your city does things that are crazy as long as your city/ state are working within the boundaries of the Constitution which by the way gives power to the states under our federalist system. All I have to do is choose the best location for me to live in.

                      Understand, just because I believe in our federalist system I don’t give up recognizing that governments should be severely limited. I believe a lot of things that we designate in part or in the whole as public goods have negative effects not positive ones. I am simply accepting reality.

                    111. Provide a bright line definition of what constitutes a public good ?

                      Your attack on my argument only works logically if there really is such a thing as a public good, and it is sufficiently clearly identifiable that we can all agree on it.

                      Otherwise noting that public goods is circular and always will fail a reductio ad absurdem EXCEPT for those that beleive everything is a public good, is a valid argument.

                    112. “Provide a bright line definition of what constitutes a public good ?”

                      John, there is no bright line and there is always creep so indeed a problem exists in defining public goods, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or might exist at one time but might not exist in another.

                      Perhaps the line should be drawn as to what is not a public good and I leave that in your good hands. In the process you can tell us how to manage the zigzagged streets that are mixed with cars and pedestrians. Don’t you think that should be a local issue?

                    113. “John, there is no bright line and there is always creep so indeed a problem exists in defining public goods, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or might exist at one time but might not exist in another.”

                      Law and government are about bright lines.

                      Government is force. there is no room for “creep” in the use of force.

                      The social contract is explicitly about the legitimate and illegitimate use of force.
                      We vest MOST of our natural right to use force in govenrment – reserving only self defence and defence of others. In return we expect that government will only use force when justified. Justification is NOT some vague concept. It requires bright lines.

                      “Perhaps the line should be drawn as to what is not a public good ”
                      Absolutely positively NOT!

                      The domain of human behavior is near infinite. Within that domain the overwhelming majority of possible behavior is the legitimate free choice of the individual.

                      The central premise of the social contract is that the domain of government is small.

                      We are clear and specific in what is prohibited and everything else is permitted.

                      As to zig-zagging streets and pedestrians – try TORTS.

                      An enormous amount of law and especially regulation can be handled by torts.

                      A major advantage of torts is that it is a posteriori not a priori.
                      There is no tort for a harm that MIGHT have happened.

                      Specific conduct is not prohibited. Harming others is.

                      You keep making the assumption that because something is done in a specific way by government in your experience, that it was always done that way and that there is no other way to do it.

                      Most problems have many solutions. Some better than others.
                      The use of force is rarely the best solution.

                      Any government solution is always the use of force.

                    114. “Law and government are about bright lines.”

                      John, that is why there is no law defining what a public good is. There are also no specific rules and definitions of force by government though non-specifically we can see laws that frequently need to be adjudicated. Both the concepts of public goods and unlawful excessive government force belong in the same box. One might claim you will know it when you see it.

                      “The social contract is explicitly about the legitimate and illegitimate use of force.”

                      Where is the “social contract” defined or put into law in the Constitution?

                      “As to zig-zagging streets and pedestrians – try TORTS.”

                      How do torts come into play? Torts exist in contract law. No one signed on the bottom line that the streets would be straight.

                      “You keep making the assumption that because something is done in a specific way by government in your experience, that it was always done that way and that there is no other way to do it.”

                      Why do you keep making that claim when over and over again I nave said there are different ways of handling things. Sometimes a common good exists and is needed in a particular time frame and a particular location. If the streets end up zigzagged it is because the owners of each individual property chose the way they would look unless they made a contract with one another. Unfortunately there are frequently holdouts so that decisions can become a free for all. This is where your particular arguments fail, not that I want them to fail, but they do.

                      You are the one that says you don’t like the idea of public goods so tell us specifically how you will manage the problem in a reasonably effective manner. If you can then I guess we can say that that particular needed solution was not a public good.

                    115. So we agree there is no clear definition of public good.
                      I am going to return to this.

                      I am going to divide government use of force into two parts.
                      Each must be proper.

                      The first is what constitutes legitimate law.
                      I would have defined that by specific principles.
                      I think that is relative easy to do.
                      First a law must not merely claim a public purpose, it must accomplish it.
                      I will call this the utilitarian principle
                      Government may not use force except to produce a greater good.
                      O do not use greater good in an abstract sense, Claiming a good purpose for a law is insufficient. I am using greater good in the utilitarian way. the sum of the benefits must be greater than the sum of the harms – direct and indirect.

                      Criminal laws. Contract laws, torts all meet that quite easily.
                      Little if anything else does.
                      And that is a bright line.

                      Utility is necescary but not sufficient.

                      The use of force mus always be structured to infringe on rights to the least possible extent while still meeting the utility requirement.
                      This is a pretty bright line too.
                      If a less infringing way to acheive the same ends exists, then the law is invalid and immoral.

                      Last a law must have and maintain super majority support.
                      I am not talking about voting.
                      I mean that nearly all people must choose to obey the low without the use of force.
                      You could call this the efficiency standard, or you could say that the law must reflect established norms. Essentially the law may only proscribe people from doing what few people actually do. Few people murder others.
                      The efficiency part is relevant because if laws were generally disregarded but for enforcement then the cost of the law is high and government becomes a serious burden to society. This is fundimentally the same as saying a law must proscribe what nearly all of us already accept as immoral.

                      Maybe there are other criteria for justified law, but that is a solid start.
                      The tests above are bright lines or close.

                      Returning briefly to public goods, A bright line definition of a public good would be something that government can provide while conforming to all the above proscriptions.
                      That would be national defense, law enforcement, courts and prisons.
                      I do not hink anything else can meet the criteria above.

                      Returning to Law creation.

                      Our constitution chose a different approach. Rather than defining principles,
                      It directed that the constitutionally specified government powers were within the domain of government.

                      I think the end result is close to the same. but this requires that the constitution be understood as written.

                      I would note that the constitution itself enshrines the principle of least infringment by specifying that rights exist and that government must infringe on those the least possible.

                      Once we have made clear bright line law we must enforce it.

                      One of the reasons we must be very careful about the laws we right is that all law is imposed by FORCE.

                      Was the police officer who killed George Floyd permitted to do so while enforcing a counterfeiting law ?

                      The answer is yes. And it must be. If a Law can not be enforced it it requires killing the person violating it, then most will resist to the point that the police can not enforce.

                      But the police are not free to kill everyone accused of counterfeiting.
                      But they are allowed to respond to those refusing to comply with the law with proportionate force to that being used to resist.

                      Bright lines – atleast far brighter than we have now.
                      Further rooted in principles and concepts that are near universally held.

                    116. “First a law must not merely claim a public purpose, it must accomplish it.
                      I will call this the utilitarian principle”

                      John, laws exist for many reasons and sometimes the reason is wrong. The greater good might not be served because the definition of the greater good varies with the individual who may not have your understanding of what the greater good is. You have put into conflict your rationale with the democratic process.

                      “Last a law must have and maintain super majority support.
                      I am not talking about voting.
                      I mean that nearly all people must choose to obey the low without the use of force.”

                      Rules of basic behavior as I have said numerous times before are developed over the millennia. Hammurabi didn’t create the rules, he codified them. You seem to be willing to replace the years with a static opinion that occurs at an instant. That opinion could change the next day, week or year so I don’t find your rational as satisfying as you do though I believe it can be a starting off point where a different ending might occur.

                      “Returning briefly to public goods, A bright line definition of a public good would be something that government can provide while conforming to all the above proscriptions.
                      That would be national defense, law enforcement, courts and prisons.
                      I do not hink anything else can meet the criteria above.”

                      What about zigzagging roads in a highly populated area that becomes more populated by the day or the Seatle problem? There was no workable market answer that you cared to suggest for either of these problems.

                      “specified government powers were within the domain of government.”

                      Federalism and even the 9th amendment did not hold the states to that criteria.

                      “Once we have made clear bright line law we must enforce it.”

                      There may be a clear bright line for an instant but that line is not assured to remain so bright at another time or at another place. Bright lines in justice due to the inability of man to recognize all the variables can lead to total injustice.

                    117. Dave: “You keep making the assumption that because something is done in a specific way by government in your experience, that it was always done that way and that there is no other way to do it.”

                      Allan: Why do you keep making that claim when over and over again I nave said there are different ways of handling things.

                      Allan: You are the one that says you don’t like the idea of public goods so tell us specifically how you will manage the problem in a reasonably effective manner. If you can then I guess we can say that that particular needed solution was not a public good.”

                      Your first and second statement contradict.

                      There a many ways to solve these problems outside government. I do not know them all, they are not all known. There is no requirement to specify how a problem will be solved.
                      There is not even a requirement that a problem is solveable. Because there is no currently known answer to faster than speed of light travel does not mean it is a government problem.

                      Regardless, you have inverted the burden of proof. Government must demonstrate when it wishes to enact law, that it meets the criteria about.

                    118. “Your first and second statement contradict.”

                      How,? John I don’t see it as a contradiction. There are different ways of handling things but if something must be handled within a time frame there must be a time when the decision is made. If a solution will be figured out many generations away that is not a solution for the generations in close proximity to the problem.

                      A man is drowning while two lifeguards decide the best way of rescuing him. They might actually come up with a better solution than they would have initially but that man is long dead. That delay represents perfection being the enemy of good.

                      Seattle is waiting for an answer. Your answer was insufficient. That leads to the city’s death where the capital for replacement might not be available. The capitalists, based on what they would have seen, thought investing in a new city would be too risky based on the former actions.

                      “Regardless, you have inverted the burden of proof. Government must demonstrate when it wishes to enact law, that it meets the criteria about.”

                      Did you forget that government is the people?

                    119. Allan – that is a bad analogy. As a former Water Safety Instructor there are ways of saving someone depending on how far they are from you. That is the only decision you have to make.

                    120. “Allan – that is a bad analogy. ”

                      Paul, obviously you missed the point behind the analogy. There are times to act and there are times to discuss things. The drowning man needed to be rescued immediately and not have to wait until the method of rescue is fully debated.

                    121. Allan – lifeguards are usually assigned a section that is theirs. They do not discuss it.

                    122. “Allan – lifeguards are usually assigned a section that is theirs. They do not discuss it.”

                      Yes, Paul, that is exactly the way it is generally managed and that was the point of my using the analogy. It was pointing out a style of management that was wrong.

                    123. “Think of a moderate sized city where the sidewalks and streets aren’t considered pubic goods. Each store would have a different side walk perhaps on a different level and some might not have any at all building their store right up to the street”

                      I do not have to imagine it – such places are real.

                      Some people think they are quaint.

                      Regardless business owners in particular have an interest in attracting customers – that means among many other things provide access in an attractive and appreciated way.

                      Businesses spend enormous sums making their facilities attractive and accessible to customers.

                      Do you think that would end without government ?

                    124. “Businesses spend enormous sums making their facilities attractive and accessible to customers. Do you think that would end without government ?”

                      You live where there is lots of space. That is not true for everyone. Not all businesses or people think the same and some think their smoke stacks to be beautiful.

                    125. “You live where there is lots of space. That is not true for everyone.”
                      The amount of space does not matter. The need/desire for businesses to do the best possible under the circumstances to appeal to customers is universal.

                      Living densely is a choice too.

                      “Not all businesses or people think the same and some think their smoke stacks to be beautiful.”

                      Absolutely – and my point. If a business does not “think” they way its customers do, it will not last long.

                      Using your example if a business thinks a smoke stack is appealing and its customers mostly do not and that is important to them or another identical business does nto have a smokestack – that business will fail.

                      Conversely if an private individual thinks differently than the community he is free to do as he pleases so long as he does not actually harm others.

                      The business actual has the same right. But its need for customers compels it (without force) to respond to the wishes of others.

                      Every reasonable regulation ever conceived was preceded by people and businesses acting in the way they were ultimately forced to.

                      Humans switched from wood to coal – because coal was actually cleaner and safer, even though it was more expensive.
                      They switched from coal to oil – because it was cleaner – paying a premium for oil.
                      They switched from oil to gas – because it was cleaner.
                      They switched from gas to electric – even though more expensive because it was cleaner.

                      I am a big environmentalist, but I do not agree with the specific purportedly environmental choices of many so called greens. CO2 as an example is good for the planet, even warming should it actually occur is a large net positive for most life on earth.

                      But if you personally choose differently. If you wish to leave carbon free – that is OK – your choice. If most people wish to live off so called green energy – whether I think that is good or bad – they are free to choose to do so. If their free choices result in the markets slowly either increasing the price of my preferences or less and less providing it, compelling me to change – that is fine. But if others – in minority or majority come together through government and force me to behave as they wish – that is not fine. That is immoral. And you cannot acheive purportedly moral ends through immoral means.

                    126. “The amount of space does not matter. The need/desire for businesses to do the best possible under the circumstances to appeal to customers is universal.”

                      John, that is not realistic. People appeal to customers in different ways and sometimes one person’s appeal hurts another person’s interests. What do you do then? Certainly you don’t believe that all businesses have the same interests, do you? Your examples do not deal with one to one human interaction where they both disagree. Your examples are not pertinent to the discussion.

                    127. “John, that is not realistic.”
                      Completely realitic. Businesses do it all the time in those ares government does not interfere

                      “People appeal to customers in different ways and sometimes one person’s appeal hurts another person’s interests. What do you do then?”
                      Are you talking about Actual harm to another ?
                      I am not as an example free to poison your water to serve my customers.
                      That would be a tort.
                      Or are you just talking about not providing one potential customer with what they want.

                      A rich man and a poor man enter the Ferrari dealership both after a car.
                      One many not get what they want.

                      That is how things work.

                      Though I would note that it the Masseratti deal can produce a car as appealing to all as the Ferrari, but both the rich man and poor man can afford it.
                      Then Ferrari loses, that is how markets work.

                      “Certainly you don’t believe that all businesses have the same interests, do you?”
                      Nope but so long as they are complying with justified laws (see other post).
                      Each is free to balance the interests of select potential customers with its own interests to try to profit the most while delivering on promises.

                      “Your examples do not deal with one to one human interaction where they both disagree. Your examples are not pertinent to the discussion.”

                      Of course they are. The entire purpose of free markets is to solve exactly the type of problem you note, and to do so maximizing utility. And nothing ever devised comes close to matching market performance on that.

                      Specifically the type of problem you say markets are bad at – are the ones they are best at and the ones government is worst at.

                      When values differ, Government choses winners and losers, always in the way that benefits those in power the most. Sometimes that means responding to a majority of the electorate. Sometimes that means responding to a powerful special interest.

                      But pretty much never as a gigantic system designed to optimize utility (the common good) – that is how free markets work.

                    128. “Completely realitic. Businesses do it all the time in those ares government does not interfere”

                      John, I didn’t realize that you believed all businesses thought alike and would therefore reach the same conclusion. Hogwash, but I don’t want to try and change that opinion.

                      The Ferrari is a direct purchase. Solving the city’s problems involves a lot of areas of thought not just who bids the highest price. Surely your understanding of business matters is far greater. Take it to Seattle. Take it to how capital is obtained.

                    129. “Are you assuming the the streets lined with moving cars is not a public good and each street can be a private entity? Perhaps we could have toll booths for every store.”

                      In much of the world infrastructure is private.

                      There are several cities in China right now where everything is handled privately – roads, sewer everything. It works quite well.

                      You should not assume that just because you have not seen a different approach that it does not exist.

                      Even in NYC what we now call public transportation was entirely private until the 30’s I beleive. Busses in the US were nearly entirely private until the 60’s.

                      Prior to the brooklynn bridge all suspension bridges – possibly all bridges in this country were private. Brooklyn bridge was started privately. But Tamny hall stepped in and took over. That should not be an argument for bridges being public goods.

                    130. “In much of the world infrastructure is private.”

                      John, which large country has the best overall economy?

                      “There are several cities in China right now where everything is handled privately – roads, sewer everything. It works quite well.”

                      I’ve spent a good amount of time in Asia. My last recent trip to China was for over a month. They have done miraculous things especially in areas formerly unbuilt and not heavily populated. Don’t think for a minute that what you see is totally private. In the end the private persons follow the lead of the government and when there is conflict the government wins.

                      “You should not assume that just because you have not seen a different approach that it does not exist.”

                      Why do you say that? I don’t. I don’t even object to private roads. There are toll roads that are quasi private. There are PUDs where all the roads are totally private. That is their business until they obstruct the ability of others to get from one place to another.

                      “Even in NYC what we now call public transportation was entirely private until the 30’s I beleive. Busses in the US were nearly entirely private until the 60’s.

                      I have no objection to private transportation systems. Take the system included in the Constitution, the Post Office. Should it continue? There are arguments pro and con but IMO private concerns should be able to compete on a level playing field. I believe in todays world where government expands everywhere that we should permit private competition. I don’t wish to live in a world where we can press a button and everything is turned into private hands. We would have anarchy.

                      “Prior to the brooklynn bridge all suspension bridges – possibly all bridges in this country were private. Brooklyn bridge was started privately. But Tamny hall stepped in and took over. That should not be an argument for bridges being public goods.”

                      You have to look at time and place. The railroads going east to west went through areas where there was virtually no population. They built their own bridges and that was great. If I have a choice between government and private doing the same thing with the same results I always pick private.

                      Are you advocating the sale of all NY bridges to private companies? They can sell the bridge and the tolls can be divided between the new owners and the legislators that assisted in the transfer of the bridge to a private entity. (You do realize that not all the bridges leading in and out of Manhattan have tolls, right?)

                    131. That large country with the amazing economy had double the improvement in standard of living in the 19th century compared to the 20th with less regulation. And double the improvement in standard of living in the 20th compared to the 1st.

                      Nor is that pattern time or technology constrained – i.e. the decline in growth we see in advanced societies is NOT inevitable or the product of advanced society.

                      China and india have enormous populations. Both have had explosive growth in the last 50 years. Both have done so in the modern world. Both have risen from abject poverty to relative prosperity. But China has outpaced india with double the growth because even though they have a totalitarian govenrment they have had far less regulation.
                      India started with a tradition of mass bureaucracy and has increased growth as it has overcome that. Meanwhile China is becoming more totalitarian rapidly and there are strong signs of very serious economic weakness.

                      Regardless both have experience the same kind of growth the US experienced in the 19th century – or even more, but while mostly growing modern 21st century businesses.

                      Put simply the slow growth of the US and Europe is NOT normal.
                      It is NOT a natural outcome of higher standards of living.

                      I would further note – I used some examples from China. These are NOT the norm for china. They are artifacts of the growth of the country and the response of businesses in areas where government did not keep up. But more importantly even if not pervasive they are proof that the problems you keep raising are and have been successfully resolved in the past and the present without governent.

                      I am NOT in any instance saying that – THIS particular solution is the best way to solve any problem. I am saying that government should stay out of it, and many different solutions will be found and the best ones will prevail and that may change over time.

                      I am not trying to sell china. Only examples that what we view as the way things must be aren’t set in concrete.

                      Elenore Olstrom won a Nobel prize for demonstrating that most “tragedy of the commons” problems have actually been solve perfectly well – better, without government than with.

                      Mist people find it very hard to get past the fact that the government solutions that they see all arround them are NOT the norm historically, and infact would not be the norm now BUT FOR FORCE.

                    132. “That large country with the amazing economy had double the improvement in standard of living in the 19th century compared to the 20th with less regulation. And double the improvement in standard of living in the 20th compared to the 1st.”

                      John, that improvement didn’t avoid a lot of government interference. I am not for large government. I am for smaller government but I can’t claim there was no benefit from the actions of government. You lay claim to the incredible economic growth in China when government pulls all the strings even when they let limited capitalism exist. That is entirely wrong. Recent posts are basing too many arguments on examples that aren’t even pertinent. It is extremely difficult to defend a position with few if any exceptions in a world where conflict is more natural than its lack.

                      If you wish to lay claim to lack of regulations having a stimulatory effect on economies then we have no disagreement and you will surely vote for Trump. He has done tremendous deregulation while the opposite party and some from his own party tried to remove him from office.

                      “I would further note – I used some examples from China. … they are proof that the problems you keep raising are and have been successfully resolved in the past and the present without governent.” Certainly not in China where if you pose a threat you can be killed or incarcerated. I don’t doubt that in many cases we would have done better without so much government. You are creating arguments from me that don’t exist so you can knock them down. So can I because those are not my arguments.

                    133. Peak 19th Century TOTAL US government never exceeded 8% of GDP – during the civil war. It was closer to 3% of GDP for most of the 19th century. That is TOTAL government, not federal government
                      And standard of living rose 4 times as fast as under Bush/Obama.

                    134. John, though I agree with the substance of your argument, growth is impaired by too much government involvement, due to the many different variables I don’t find your argument satisfactory.

                    135. What is it you do not like ?

                      I would notes there is massive amounts of data to back this up.

                    136. I am not committing my vote.

                      But if you are asking me whether Trump is a better president than Bush/Obama, there is no contest.

                      If you are asking me whether Any of the 2019 democrat contenders is even close to as good a choice – no contest.

                      It is possible that I might pick one or two of the 2016 GOP candidates over Trump.

                      I would further note – and several leading libertarains who were anti-trum in 2016 have noted, that Trump has been more libertarain in accomplishment than it is likely that any actual libertarain who was magically elected could have been.

                      I voted for Johnson in 2016. On every issue Johnson remains a better choice.
                      I can further list several major areas Trump is bad.

                      But I doubt Johnson would have appointed as libertarain a gaggle of judges – he would have nominated better people, they would not have gotten approved.

                      I doubt he would have cut as much regulation.
                      He would have tried. But the courts, the “deep state” would have owned him.

                      I expect trump to win in 2020, and if he can start an economic recovery, he will win in a landslide.

                      That is a prediction not an endorsement.

                      I am not a Trump supporter.
                      I am not black and white. I can criticise him when he is wrong and praise him when he is right.

                      Nor am I stupid.

                      I attacked Trump in 2016 for being too fawning over Putin, it was a very bad look and uncharacteristically politically stupid of him.

                      At the same time when the first nonsense that Putin helped Trump and that Trump colluded with Russia was pushed I called bullshit.

                      Trumps core policies weaken Putin.

                      Trump is Not a retread cold warrior or a neo-con reliving the glory of standing toe to toe
                      with the USSR.

                      But he will do what is in the US interest and several major US interests are detrimental to Putin. Trump is capable of calling Putin a “great guy” and still “releasing the fracken”
                      ir demanding that Europe start working to defend itself, or guaranteeing European natural gas so they could stand up to Putins fossil fuel blackmail.

                      Trump si Putin’s nightmare – not hostile, and damaging.

                      No rational person could buy the Trump/Russia nonsense.

                      And now we are learning that Brennan, Clapper, Comey – the rest of the purveyors of this garbage – they knew it was false too, and sold it too us anyway.

                      That is not Trump support.
                      That is just not idiocy.

                    137. “I am not committing my vote.”

                      Earlier you did. You are making progress.

                      I don’t find an objection to your opinions on Trump. They are valid. I might have some different opinions but they are valid as well. Your comment “Trump is capable of calling Putin a “great guy” and still “releasing the fracken”
                      ir demanding that Europe start working to defend itself, or guaranteeing European natural gas so they could stand up to Putins fossil fuel blackmail.” demonstrates that you are thoughtful and recognize that Trump acts in certain ways for a reason and one has to think deeper than one level.

                      On a different subject, Russia is not the Big enemy nor has it been the Big enemy for quite awhile. Outside of nuclear weapons its power is continuously diminishing. The Chinese are the Big threat and their power has increased tremendously over the years. Trump recognized that early on while people like Biden and the powerful Democrat supporters are in the hands of the Chinese though not necessarily totally happy about it.

                    138. “Earlier you did. You are making progress.”

                      No, I have said if you gave me specific choices and put a gun to my head. I would pick trump.
                      There are no guns to my heard and I have more than 2 choices.

                      I have never committed to how I will vote in the world we actually have.

                      I voted for Johnson in 2016.
                      I will likely vote for Jorgensen in 2020.
                      But that is not set in concrete. There are circumstances I could vote for Trump.
                      At this time there are none that would get me to vote for Biden, but the election is 5 months away. Things could change.

                    139. “No, I have said if you gave me specific choices and put a gun to my head. I would pick trump.”

                      Yes, that sounds like something you could have said but I believe you said more here and in our prior discussions when you used the alias dhilli. I seem to remember a discussion about that with you under the dhili alias.

                      “I will likely vote for Jorgensen in 2020.”

                      John, in essence a big part of the vote is based on what SCOTUS will look like. That seems to be where you direct a lot of your anger, activist judges. That is a major place where our country lives or dies. It will be one of the two candidates so a vote for anyone else is the same as not voting especially since the issues are so clear cut. When one votes they are voting for what is likely to be done. A Biden vote means a Sotomayor or worse since the party continues to degenerate. It means more government and HERO type legislation as proposed by the Democratic House. A vote for Trump means another Gorsuch type on SCOTUS and deregulation along with a better economy. I hope my type of legislators will replace the old and should Trump win along with both houses that the next concern will be a combination of fixing America rather than the world and a permanent plan to become financially responsible. (Balanced budget amendment, term limits, making our legislators change the nature of their stripes from self-serving to serving the nation)

                    140. Allan;

                      with respect – I will decide my own vote. I will do so for my own reasons.

                      Some of those you and I share. Some we do not.

                      “so a vote for anyone else is the same as not voting”
                      Nope. The TP took power because they made it clear, the GOP would meet their needs or lose elections – democrats would win. They were unwilling to have rhino’s to avoid democrats. The far left wing of the democratic party is posing a similar problem for democrats at the moment. Biden must get the votes of both moderates and sandersnista’s to win. Good luck.

                      If either party wants the libertarian vote, they had better pitch to libertarian values.

                      If I vote for Jorgensen and as you fear Trump loses. Two big things happen
                      first it is clear my vote counts ALOT – because had trump gotten it he would have won.
                      Next, Biden is elected and F;s up by the numbers.

                      Long ago there was a book called “the devils advocate” I beleive. It was a sort of orwellian dystopia where the hero/anti-hero joined the oppressive govenrment and became the most oppressive of all – deliberately, to cause it to fail. big government fails – the bigger and more oppressive it the faster and harder it fails. I would prefer a less brutal transition. But I am not affraid of the left. The bear the seeds of their own destruction.

                      Trump is president as a response to Obama. The post 2008 GOP recovery from oblivion was because Obama and Dems tilted left. Had they government more moderately we would have a permanent democratic majority.

                      Instead the democratic party is coming apart at the seams. They learned nothing from 2016. I honestly think the odds of a democrat victory in 2020 are slim to none.
                      I suspect the GOP will make gains in the house – maybe retake it, and hold the senate.
                      And Trump will be strongly re-elected.
                      That is my guess.
                      But say I am completely wrong.
                      You are right – many things will go to hell.
                      Which will assure that democrats tenure is short lived.

                      For me to be wrong, Biden would have to do what Obama did not – successfully govern from the center.

                      What are the odds of that ?

                      Next,

                      I have no problem with Judicial activism. I hope Trump’s appointments are “activist” as hell. I want them to strike down laws and regulations that have been around for 100 years. The constitution tasks the courts with enforcing the limits on government in the constitution. They are also tasked with protecting our rights – not merely enumerated ones. That is highly activist.
                      I do not want them to defer to congress – which Scalia frequently did. I want them to follow the constitution.

                    141. ” I will decide my own vote.”

                      John, of course you will. What I was providing was my reasons for voting for Trump even though he doesn’t fulfill all my criteria.

                      “Trump is president as a response to Obama. ”

                      When Obama was running your logic was the logic of some of the libertarians that thought like you. Obama won. Do you think we are better off today then we were pre Obama?

                      At the very least I am voting for the Supreme Court to help stop the bleeding. I understand all about sending messages but IMO they should be sent at a lower level for at the very least the court system needs to be protected from furhter deterioration.

                    142. “When Obama was running your logic was the logic of some of the libertarians that thought like you. Obama won. Do you think we are better off today then we were pre Obama?”

                      Your going to have to explain that.
                      Obama was not a response to Trump, nor to Bush. He was elected because of the financial crisis.

                      Neither argument is particularly libertarain.

                      Every argument I make is not libertarain.

                      There is no correct libertarain response to what color do you prefer.

                    143. The basis of my comment was how much you liked the win of Obama over a bad alternative. It has to do with Trump’s selection of Supreme Court Justices over the selection made by a Biden. The selection will not be made by the libertarian candidate except through any influence he might have on Trump if Trump wins.

                    144. I am not interested in continuing a discussion of how I will vote or what I should think about voting or what I might have thought about other choices, or how much I value the courts relative to other issues.

                      It is likely we come close to agreeing on Trump’s merits and demerits.
                      We do not agree on their weight.

                      You are free to weight things your way and I mine.

                    145. “I am not interested in continuing a discussion of how I will vote ”

                      I don’t particularly care, but you talk so much about original intent and then back off of it to promote your own type of Libertarianism. You are full of conflicts.

                    146. If something is not constitutional, can government do it ?
                      I hope we are both agreed it can not.
                      We might have slight differences on the criteria for constitutional.

                      If something is constitutional.
                      Does that make it:
                      Wise
                      efficient
                      moral ?

                      Each of these are independent criteria.

                      The constitution stops unconstitutional acts.
                      It does not stop all unwise, immoral, or inefficient government acts.

                      Not addressing this again

                    147. OOPs, checking the time stamp I see you weren’t done with this discussion when you said you were.

                      “If something is constitutional.
                      Does that make it:
                      Wise
                      efficient
                      moral ?”

                      It makes it constitutional.

                      John, stop trying to justify your arguments that have failed over and over again. This last attempt wasn’t any better than the former ones, but your next to the last paragraph might indicate that you have taken a giant step in the learning process.

                    148. >“You keep talking about an originalist interpretation of the Constitution but when I talk about the Constitution, Federalism and the founding fathers you refuse to accept the original prinicples of Federalism.”

                      >>False. I refuse to accept that we are writing supreme court briefs – because we are not.

                      False, false and false. The discussion significantly revolves around the constitutions written by the states and whether those states have a right to involve themselves in the construction of state roads. We don’t need Supreme Court briefs to discuss that. All 50 states have dealt with road building. I don’t think there are any Supreme Court cases that dispute the states ability to be involved. There may be tangential cases but you can skip them because we are talking about a the generalized ability states have.

                    149. “Why do you say that ?”

                      Because you default to government sollutions to your “public goods” problems and assume there are few alternatives – such as toll roads.

                      ultimately consumers pay for everything – either provided publicly or privately.

                      It is a tautology that consumption comes from production.

                      But HOW is infinitely variable.

                      We are here posting on Turley’s blog. Government is not paying for it.
                      I am not paying for it directly, Turley is not. Yet a “public good” is being provided privately, and in this instance not as a fee for service proposition.

                      That is merely one way to privately pay for things.

                      I am not advocated for toll roads or private bridge companies

                      HOW goods and services are privided and paid for is an issue for the market to resolve.

                      That is actually extremely important.

                      The internet is as an example typically a fixed monthly fee for unlimited service.

                      Telephone WAS traditionally pay for what you use.

                      For decades I was told the internet was going to be metered eventually.
                      In the end Telephone became a fixed fee unlimited service.

                      It is possible we are seeing the same occur in medicine.
                      More and more we are seeing subscription medical services.

                      If I can cadilac insurance for my family for 23K/year, or the same service with a 10K deductible for 10K/year – which should I buy ?

                      If I now have an HSA to cover the 10K deductible and my doctor offers a monthly service family package at $200/month I have about 7K for tests and specialists, and emergencies. Better still more efficient and better service is inccentivized.
                      And there is no government in 100miles.

                      Is that the answer ? I do not know. I do not care. It is not for me to figure that out.

                      It is for the market. There might be an even better wat I have not thought of.

                      One of the problems with “public goods” being provided by government is that even looking for better ways is completely stiffled.

                      Innovation NEVER occurs in government and rarely if ever even in big business.
                      Innovation occurs near the bottom. It occurs with the people who have an abundance of ideas and few resources. It occurs with people who are not already well off but are driven to be wealthy. It occurs among the people we most desparately crave to regulate, the ones most likely to break the rules, to take risks, even with other peoples lives.

                      It occurs among the people we most want to and least ought to regulate.

                      And it does not occur at all in piblicly provided public goods.

                    150. ““Why do you say that ?”

                      Because you default to government sollutions to your “public goods” problems and assume there are few alternatives – such as toll roads.”

                      But I don’t, John. My comment with regard to a public good is that sometimes a public good exists. I have even stated that if a severe problem exists that can be solved privately I would opt for the private solution. Your response to the zigzagged roads was tort law. But that is not a response until a contract exists unless one wants to make up contracts out of thin air. You have taken a hard-line Libertarian solution but are unable to defend it in all circumstances. That should tell you that the hard-line should be softened a bit. You don’t want to soften it at all so you have been making up scenarios that you blame me for when those scenarios are not mine. Along with that you are providing theory substantially unrelated to the discussion that I don’t disagree with.

                      You discussion has led to HSA’s. Do you think I disagree? In the past I was in part responsible for advertising that Congress should not get rid of MSA’s so certainly I like the idea behind HSA’s but what does that have to do with our discussion?

                      Off topic you say: “Innovation NEVER occurs in government” Your realize the space program led to tremendous innovation that is used by the public on a regular basis. NASA was in part privitized and I think that is good.

                    151. As is being noted with SpaceX.

                      We are merely dealing with a slightly different model.

                      The innovation in the space program the entire program has always been private.
                      What is different with SpaceX is even less government control.

                      NASA did not innovate. NASA told the markets what it wanted.
                      Markets innovated.

                      But I want to go one step further – eliminate NASA.

                      We have numerous competing private space companies. They do not need and should not have any government funding. They do not need and should not have any government regulation.

                    152. “The innovation in the space program the entire program has always been private.
                      What is different with SpaceX is even less government control.”

                      Without the government program the innovation no matter who produced it would not have been necessary at that time. The government set the objective and it was fulfilled by government and private industry. When faced with the zigzagged roads government set the direction and private concerns fulfilled the objective.

                    153. “Without the government program the innovation no matter who produced it would not have been necessary at that time. The government set the objective and it was fulfilled by government and private industry. When faced with the zigzagged roads government set the direction and private concerns fulfilled the objective.”

                      All correct, and unless there is a legitimate purpose associated with the protection of individual rights, then both correct and wrong.

                      The govenrment may demand our wealth and redirect resources and innovation for a legitimate govenment function – I have adressed what those are already.

                      Going to the moon is not among them, defense of the nation is.

                      When government decides to redirect innovation and resources and wealth for a purpose outside the domain of government then it steasl from us what we would have done on our own – whatever that was, in return for what it has chosen for us.

                      You say the certain innovation would not have been necescary at the time. I do not honestly know that is true and neither do you.

                      But I do know that free markest will focus innovation on what ordinary people most value.
                      Government will focus on the choices of powerful politiicans.

                      Innovation will happen regardless, but government driven innovation crowds out the private innovation we want more.

                      We are seeing private space programs now. We are also seeing that they innovate significantly different from government programs. Must as an example is not affraid of breaking things. And in fact the secret to Musks ability to developer much faster than government is his willingness to break things.

                      The government has produced the SLS as the means of getting us back to the moon.
                      In innumerable ways it is little advance beyond the Saturn V.
                      And the SLS is not here yet. The Falcon 9 heavy is not quite as capable as Saturn V or SLS, But it is far far far cheaper and reusable. Musks current return to the moon plan involves multiple Falcon 9 Heavy’s – but at lower total cast than SLS or Saturn V.
                      And Must is following with Projects in varying state of completion that are much bigger and more powerful that SLS and Saturn V and will get us to Mars. It is likely they will be radically different before complete, but they are still progressing rapidly, and much farther along than a government program.

                      And personally we should just get NASA and government out of it entirely.
                      Musk seems to think he can make money in the space business, and given that is cost to put a ton into space is already far below that of SLS and SLS does not yet exists, and when it does will be competitive with delivery systems 60 years old.

                      Would we have gotten here earlier without government ? Who knows ? Who cares ?

                      We are supposed to get here when people acting though the market value it sufficiently for the market to provide. Not before,

                      Or to paraphrase an old commercial – I am not going to pay alot for that rocket.

                    154. John, I’m not sure of your point in this latest posting. I am going to try and respond putting pieces in their proper place.

                      The federal government should function based on the Constitution. It has gone beyond the Constitution and we both agree with that.

                      You talk about going to the moon. That has both a military component and other. The military component cannot be separated from the other so it is a legitimate function of government according to the Constitution. There will be no clear point between military and other so it will be dealt with politically.

                      Moving on to zigzagging streets and Seattle flooding. Contrary to some of your arguments the Federal Constitution has nothing to do with those improvements. Those improvements are based on state constitutions that conform with the Federal Constitution. the 9 justices have little or nothing to do with these projects.

                    155. The space program has a military component,
                      Going to the moon does not.

                      “The military component cannot be separated”
                      It can quite easily.
                      The saturn V has an LEO payload of 140,000KG.
                      That is more than 2 M1A2C Tanks.
                      5 Minuteman III’s – that is the entire rocket.
                      of 600+ of the nuclear warheads carried by the Minuteman III
                      Approximatly the equivalent of 10 KH-11 spy satelites.

                      About 5 times the payload of the space shuttle.

                      There is just plain no possible military need for that.
                      And the entire rest of the space program had no military purpose.

                    156. “The space program has a military component,
                      Going to the moon does not.

                      That all depends on the military advantages of using the moon as a base. You look at the world in terms of things and money. The military component of space is the technology one has and our desire should be a technological advantage that protects the nation. Technology is developed by the creation of new things. What things should or should not be built by government end up being debateable but protecting our nation from potential enemies is a primary duty of our government.

                    157. “That all depends on the military advantages of using the moon as a base. ”
                      if is 50 years later. We still have no military base on the moon.
                      I think that my case that our trip to the money was in all ways premature is established.

                      “You look at the world in terms of things and money.”
                      Nope, value, money is just a proxy for value.

                      “The military component of space is the technology one has and our desire should be a technological advantage that protects the nation.”
                      i.e. a value

                      “Technology is developed by the creation of new things.”
                      Things we value

                      “What things should or should not be built by government end up being debateable”
                      Government does not build things, it pays for them.

                      “but protecting our nation from potential enemies is a primary duty of our government.”
                      Are their enemies on the moon ?
                      It has been 50 years since we were there, no one else has been their since.
                      Any fear of attacks from the moon was incredibly premature

                    158. I would not with respect to HSA’s

                      There should not be such a thing – or more accurately government should have nothing to do with healthcare.

                      It should be between me and the market how to provide myself the best healthcare at the lowest cost.

                      Subscription medicine is just the market inovating to destory the inefficiency and moral hazard of insurance covering something that is really a commodity not a risk.

                    159. “There should not be such a thing – or more accurately government should have nothing to do with healthcare.”

                      I agree. The federal government should have nothing to do with healthcare. But government has involved itself and has caused harm to people. We have seen this involvement get worse over the past 3/4 of a century without any likelihood that government will bow out of healthcare. HSA’s were offered to move the dial back and help people at the same time in an attempt to partially recreate a temporarty free market substitute while dialing things back. Do you have an all or non attitude or are you willing to dial things back incrementally? Doing absolutely nothing is not acceptable.

                    160. “You do realize that not all the bridges leading in and out of Manhattan have tolls, right?”

                      I do not care. I do not presume that tolls will be the way that the costs are paid for.

                      Maybe CNN will pay for a bridge and to maintain it for the naming rights and advertising value.

                      Maybe it will be a subscription service.

                      Maybe businesses will get together to pay to have bridges built to bring in more traffic.

                      There are infinite possibilities – more than either of us can imagine.

                      And that is the point. Or atleast one of them.

                    161. “Maybe CNN will pay for a bridge and to maintain it for the naming rights and advertising value.”

                      I think you are getting tired John. Do you really think that CNN can afford to buy the 59th street bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge or any of the others? Of course not. However, let’s assume we have to build one of these bridges over again without government involvement. How would you accomplish that feat?

                    162. The brooklynn bridge and every US suspension bridge built before it was built priviately.

                      Further as noted regarding NASA, Nothing is built in this country publicly.

                      Some things are paid for publicly, and their construction Controlled publicly.

                      Even the public payment is iffy. Governments borrow massive amounts of money from PRIVATE lendors, And then pay the lendors back over time.

                      So the actual functions of govenrment are merely control and moving money that is not theirs arround.

                      I beleive it was during the bush administration An atlantic weather satellite started to fail prematurely. NASA had no unscheduled space on the shuttle and no other avialable launch capacity. They had a spare weather sattelite but no means to get it up.

                      The private reinsurance industry – the people who write the policies that back the insurance companies if a huricane strikes. came up with a couple of billion to get a launch slot on Arriane. But NASA refused to turn over the satelite.

                      So the raised more money to fast track the construction of a private weather satellite.
                      When that looked like it was going to be successful, NASA found room on the Space Shuttle and the spare went up, and there was no loss of coverage in the area where Huricanes form.

                      All of this was because the value of even a few days extra warning of a huricane along the US coast is PRIVATELY worth billions a year.

                    163. I don’t disagree with reducing government’s size and restricting what it does. However, you still haven’t solved the problem of zigzagging roads. However, whereever there is a solution to that problem or the Seatle type problem I would prefer the private solution. In the meantime the inferior government solution sometimes has to suffice.

                    164. You keep positing this zigzagging roads problem and demanding I solve it.

                      There are so many false premises.

                      Why am I to beleive there is a problem ?
                      Why am I to beleive it must be solved ? Or solved now ?
                      Why am I obligated to solve it for you ?

                      We do not demand that govenrment have the answers before we give them hudreds of billions.

                      You used the space program. Government did not start with the solution for going to the moon. It started by claiming a problem only government could solve existed and then demanding our wealth to solve it.

                      I do not accept that you have presented a problem – life is not perfect, Things can stay as they are until the markets decide a specific problem is worth solving – and that may be never and I am fine with that.
                      Free markets do not start with “the answer”. They start by deciding if a problem can be profitably solved. If it can’t it should not be PERIOD. We have infinite problems facing us
                      We will not solve most of them. We will solve those that we are best able to and able to afford to and value the most. That is how markets work.

                      Markets may eliminate the zigzagging roads problem but straightening them, or reducing the need for roads ? Maybe we all fly ? or we radically increase our use of the internet and mail order and drive less. Maybe Drones, maybe rockets maybe replicators,
                      Who knows. nor does it matter.

                    165. “You keep positing this zigzagging roads problem and demanding I solve it.”

                      John, I don’t demand you solve it. I demand the problem be solved and though I prefer private solutions the government is one of the solutions. State constitutions permit such actions. You cannot blame the 9 SCOTUS judges for that public solution.

                      “You used the space program. Government did not start with the solution for going to the moon. It started by claiming a problem only government could solve existed and then demanding our wealth to solve it.”

                      I don’t ask our government to take us to the moon. I ask that our government protect us based on its Constitutional duties to see to it that the protection the government offers is sufficient.

                      “I do not accept that you have presented a problem”

                      You are putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. Do you not see that you are creating arguments you are comfortable slaying but those are not my arguments.

                    166. ” I demand the problem be solved ”
                      It was, if the problem was not solved privately the free market had determined that people were unwilling to pay the cost to acheive the desired benefit.

                      We do not wish to do this – is a solution.

                      “You cannot blame the 9 SCOTUS judges for that public solution.”
                      Actually I can. SCOTUS shotdown myriads of efforts by states to interfere in the economy on federal constitutional grounds – primarily the contracts clause in the constitution.
                      Prior to Wickard the contracts clause was read as written.
                      Today it is one of those portions of the constitution that has been erased.

                      Among many uses, the contracts clause was used by early civil rights attorneys to preclude states from creating building codes that limited black home ownership.

                      Prior to wickard zoning and building codes were unconstitutional or limited.

                      You should read wickard sometimes. It is one of the most goad awful bad supreme court decisions ever. Without it – much of federal and state regulation is unconstitutional.

                      But I will go a bit farther if the constitution allows it – it is wrong.

                      “I don’t ask our government to take us to the moon. I ask that our government protect us based on its Constitutional duties to see to it that the protection the government offers is sufficient.”

                      But you told me that going to the moon was necescary for those purposes – and it isn’t.

                      “I do not accept that you have presented a problem”

                      >You are putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. Do you not see that you are >creating arguments you are comfortable slaying but those are not my arguments.

                      My statement did not put words into your mouth. It specifically said your argument fails because it does not demonstrate that an actual problem exists that requires solving.

                      You have not solve the problem of putting man safely on the surface of the sun.

                      Can I justify anything I want based on that ?

                      You keep raising this zigzag thing.
                      You claim government solved it. That inherently means that it could have been solved privately.
                      You claim solving it was necescary – why ? Solving putting a man on the surface of the sun is not necescary.

                      the zigzag’s existed before – obviously eliminating them is a preference not a necescity.

                      That is what I mean what i say you have not presented a problem.

                      The Russians are about to invade – that is an existential threat to the country and to the social contract. Americans will have less rights and liberty should they succeed.
                      Allowing the russians to defeat our government is an existential threat to our liberty.
                      Therefore government action is justified – a problem exists.

                      Absent criminal laws, and law enforcement and courts, people use force to infringe on the rights of others. That is a problem. it violates the social contract. It can not be solved without force, government must act.

                    167. John, let me again provide the full quote, “John, I don’t demand you solve it. I demand the problem be solved and though I prefer private solutions the government is one of the solutions. State constitutions permit such actions. You cannot blame the 9 SCOTUS judges for that public solution.”

                      You have taken the liberty of travelling over distant tangents so let me bring you back to earth from the moon and outer space. My requests are that we live based on the Constitution and that includes the idea of Federalism. If you forget the states altogether like you have been doing then you certainly aren’t living up to the original intentions of the founding fathers and all you have written about originalists is meaningless.

                    168. “I demand the problem be solved”

                      You may use whatever resources you have to solve for yourself any problems you wish.

                      You may not use force against others, outside of narrow conditions.
                      Government is FORCE.

                    169. Read the constitution and the laws of the time.
                      Every male over the age of 16 was required to own a gun,
                      they could be called up as need by government to form “the millitia”.

                      The revolutionary, post revolutionary and early post constitutional federal government did not have a standing army. Prior to WWII the army was almost entirely dissolved after the war.

                      The militia was the citizen army.

                    170. >”I demand the problem be solved”
                      >>You may use whatever resources you have to solve for yourself any problems you wish.”

                      Where in the Constitution were the states denied the right to see to it that the state roads did not zigzag? That is the question at hand.

                    171. “Government does not have rights – it has powers.”

                      If you wish to apply that to the states it is fine with me. The state government has the power to involve itself in the building of roads.

                      Do you see how simple that is? You can try and quote authority and perhaps the more appropriate use of words but you cant get by the fact that the state government can involve itself in the building of roads.

                    172. “Nope. That is the OUTSIDE limit to what can be done by government.”

                      John, are you telling us that all 50 states are violating the Constitution by making sure state roads don’t zigzag all over the place? Are you kidding?

                    173. Allan, I am done with this.

                      I have addressed your constitutional claim over and over add nasuem.

                      I do not care whether this hypothetical you want to die on is constitutional or not.
                      I have said that over and over.

                      It is still a bad idea.
                      As scalia noted – which you are more than intelligent enough to grasp.

                      Constitutional != good idea.

                      When you meet either my criteria to justify what you seek to do,
                      OR argue some other credible justification scheme, then there is something to continue.

                      Until then you are seeking to use force against others without justification.
                      Is that unconstitutional ? often. Is that immoral ? Always.

                      This is not complex.

                      Given that I know you are smarter than this,
                      that leaves deliberately obtuse.

                      If you do not want “insulted” – though I am not sure how you think I insulted you.
                      Do not make insultingly bad arguments.
                      repeatedly

                      Regadless, I am deleting all further responses on the constitutionality of zigzag roads, and related arguments of federalism.

                      They have been beaten to death.
                      Both issues are irrelevant. meaningless tangents.

                    174. “Allan, I am done with this.”

                      John, you were done with this from the start. You just didn’t know it. That is OK. Maybe you learned something from the discussion. Maybe not.

                      Lots of things are bad ideas but many are good. Government has the ability to help enact certain ideas stupid or not. That is what this debate has been all about.

                      “Until then you are seeking to use force against others without justification.
                      Is that unconstitutional ? often. Is that immoral ? Always”

                      But what I have talked about is not unconstitutional even though you used constitutional arguments and originalist interpretations against me. You even tried to tell me Hayek didn’t mean what he said and then in the next reply that Hayek was wrong along with a whole bunch of other attempts to ressurect your ideas of what libertarianism might be to Hayek.

                      As far as force and morality are concerned, you brought up 7 million Jews that were killed. It took force to stop the Nazi’s from killing even more people so that word “Always” was obviously misplaced.

                      “Regadless, I am deleting all further responses on the constitutionality of zigzag roads, and related arguments of federalism.”

                      It is best you do that because you have lost the ability to discuss this logically based on the Constitution and Federalism. Perhaps one day your blinders will be removed and you will look around and see a piece of iron being used in heavy construction. You will say use steel instead. Iron breaks, steel bends.

                    175. “My requests are that we live based on the Constitution and that includes the idea of Federalism. ”

                      Nope. That is the OUTSIDE limit to what can be done by government.

                      Anything constitutional is not inherently either good or reasonable.

                      Being unconstitutional requires NOT doing something.
                      Beign constitutional does not require doing it.

                    176. John Say – do you have any advanced degrees? Did any of them required you to learn to spell check? You are getting as bad as JT.

                    177. I have lots of sheepskin.

                      I do this for fun. I do not give a crap about spelling here.

                      When I am paid to write, then I deliver what I am paid for.

                    178. One other note about the possibility that a project is so large that only government can pay for it.

                      If that were true then that project would fail my utility requirement.

                      Anything that is of sufficient value to people to do in the first place, will find private financing BECAUSE it is of sufficient value.

                      If only government can come up with the money for something that means that it is not actually as valueable to people as it is costly.

                    179. “If only government can come up with the money”

                      The logic and/or reasoning is faulty. It is not just money. It involves risk, desire. etc. The zigzagging road situation has not been resolved.

                    180. No problem at all with my logic.

                      If there is a risk issue – then this is not a government problem.
                      I have made that point already

                      If the issue is desire that makes the problem a market problem not a govenrment problem.

                      If we desire something sufficiently markets deliver.
                      If we do not – then government stepping in is perverting our desires,
                      it is giving us something we want less in return for losing something we want more.

                      The answer to the zigzag road problem is trrivial – if the market does not solve it, it is not an important enough problem.

                      You keep circumventing that.

                    181. “No problem at all with my logic.”

                      John, you limited the reason for government action to money. That was wrong. More than money is involved.

                      “The answer to the zigzag road prob”lem is trrivial – if the market does not solve it, it is not an important enough problem.”

                      Zigzagging roads is not trivial. The market didn’t solve the problem but relied on the proper function of state and local governments.

                    182. “you limited the reason for government action to money.”
                      If that is not the case demonstrate.

                      Regardless, you do not understand money. Money is just a proxy for value.
                      if you can not justify something monetarially, you can not justify it at all.

                      If I spend $100 to go to dinner with my wife – I did not buy wine and a steak. I bought the entire experience. the $100 is not the value of the food, it is the value of everything.

                      Further government action is almost entirely about money.
                      Government does almost nothing.
                      It moves money arround to make others do something.

                      There is clearly no problem getting done anything government wants done privately.
                      The only issue is money.

                      “That was wrong. More than money is involved.”
                      False – money is a proxy for all our values

                      “Zigzagging roads is not trivial. The market didn’t solve the problem”
                      Of course it did. It did nothing. Just as we have chosen not to try to put a man safely on the surface of the sun, the market decided not to solve this problem YOU think is compelling. The market – that is all of us – not just you, or those able to weild govenrment power, said we do not value this problem enough to do anything about it.
                      That is a solution.

                      “but relied on the proper function of state and local governments.”
                      The market relies on govenrment for prohibitions to the initiation of violence and enforcement of contracts.
                      When government acts outside of that, it is not markets relying on government it is government overriding markets – us – our wishes.

                      You do not seem to grasp that the market is many things one of those is a ranked preference voting system. We each vote what we produced against what we want.
                      The free markets counts the votes and determines who gets what and what should and should not be produced – and yes it is both circular and infinitely recursive.

                    183. John Say – I just hate when I pay $100 for bad food and bad service. It is almost like you didn’t get your monies worth.

                    184. “I just hate when I pay $100 for bad food and bad service. It is almost like you didn’t get your monies worth.”

                      Then go elsewhere.

                      My first date with my wife, I slipped on the ice and fell flat on my back.
                      The concert was not that good – and yet still I have wonderful thoughts every time I here the artist.

                      It was worth every penny.